Before you try anything else, try adding the IP adresses of your respective machines to the hosts file of the other machine.
Could you somehow show this with an image? Doesn't make immediate sense.
I don't understand why they introduced the sword and hid the hand.
Is this going to be a shitshow?
The problem self-corrects. If you're in a dream now, it doesn't matter what you think. When you wake up, things are back to normal again. Not being able to tell the difference makes no difference. What matters is what you do when you're awake.
I do ancient literature (read: not Adorno / Hegel), and my German is pretty iffy, but I've got the Greek for you. First off, I think you have some little "ο"s that should be "σ," to read φύσει and θέσει. At least, φύσει and θέσει are recognizable Greek words to me, with a pretty recognizable difference!
The verb φυω has to do with nature: plants and birth and growth. Often to translate a sentence that uses fuw, we would say something like "He is by nature strong" or "he grew to be strong," or something thereabouts. φύσει comes from the noun with the same root, and φύσις meaning any and all of the following: natural form, birth, character, species, temperament, outward appearance, and much more. Read the dictionary entry here for the noun, and here for the verb if you'd like.
θεσει comes from the noun θέσις, related to the verb τιθημι, meaning, at its most basic, to put or to place. It's a verb of establishing something, but with different prefixes, can mean: offering a sacrifice, getting on a boat, sowing seed, making / ordering / adopting things, or causing something to happen.
tldr In ancient Greek φύσις has "natural" connotations whereas θέσις denotes something set up / put down by humans.
Again, I'm not an Adorno / Hegel guy, so I look forward to corrections below, but what I'm guessing is that Hegel wrote about some relationships that existed in nature / on their own (φύσει: "in / by nature") and Adorno wants to put this in a more structuralist kind of way, that they only exist in human created systems (θέσις: "in / by placing / situating"). That help?
Often to translate a sentence that uses fuw
What's this?
Ah sorry got lazy with the Greek keyboard: fuw = φύω, the verb related to φύσις (= fusis). It's a phi, upsilon, and omega, pronounced in English like fuo (or phuo, if you want to be more precise). Make sense?
Gotcha!
I'm 41. I've gotten more emotional over the years.
Some of it came about during studying philosophy (university) - and then again later, when my niece and nephew were born.
There could be many kinds of objections. One would be that the sentence needn't be presented as an inference. "I am" would serve the same purpose, being merely a practical expression of existence. But we might even consider that tautological, in which case we could look for further "minimal manifestation" - e.g. bodiliness on its own (which, of course, would take us outside the Descartes platform).
hich leads to Being. Since this is the case, there is a part which is missing in this, the I, the self. While you can
Indeed, why should you consider your atomic arrangement separate from the rest of the universe? This can then shift the translation of I into being synonymous with the entire universe and in doing so makes appropriate the use of "It". "It thinks therefore it is". Then this statement has the problem of sounding removed from "it" because you are part of it. Perhaps it is both it and I at the same time.
We could simply construe "I" as self-reference instead (in terms of linguistic maneuver, speech act or language-game). The reification - regardless of whether or not Descartes intended it - needn't be necessary.
He pays for my seat
What?
Yeah, the fuck kind of economy is that?
I kinda see some Cheshire Cat/Caterpillar in there?
A cube cannot choose to be a sphere. There are limits to "freedom" (and by the way, this point is entirely generalizable to an extent that lots of people won't like).
The terms "inference" and "conclusion" are key there. If you imagine something that could only proceed by words, it obviously will stay that way. But if you allow for results (based on logic) that aren't using words, sure.
Perhaps you need a minimal or primitive example: If I spot a puddle on the floor, notice a drop falling, follow its vector upwards, and see a wet spot on the ceiling that I immediately take to be the culprit, I think it's fair to say I've grasped the situation with logic, but without using words.
Inferences and conclusions can be construed as cognitive mechanisms that become more or less habitual in nature, requiring less and less intellectual effort.
causal isolation is that properties of A is determined by only by its properties' previous values
How would this ever be a thing? Are you suggesting something not in the universe?
Non-existence of a thing that is causally isolated in our universe doesn't invalidate the argument I have presented. Something like that shouldn't have to exist. I'm thinking about the a situation what would happen if such a thing exists.
This seems to get into a semantical area that I don't think you've sufficiently explored. Impossibility is a dead stop. You're running into non-workable definitions in that case.
If you could elaborate on your idea of "causal isolation", maybe that'd be the right place to start - instead of jumping ahead to using it for something further.
The process is finding out what epistemology looks like when it works. It's not to select a version and decide to use it going forward.
Which use case scenario are you imagining, exactly?
Reported: Rule 2 violation.
Check.
It's probably not wise to portray believers as if they were all logical apparatuses who would never go against optimal conduct.
They're not. They're coming from a place of worship. They're likely to want to share (and convert). Such is the tradition, and such are the narratives they've developed by.
You could also call them selfish, if you so desired. But from their perspective, they're probably just being good people.
That's a danger of religion: the disconnect from reality.
Thank you. These are similar examples that I have when we argued. I think what I actually need to learn is that some people are never going to be “wrong”. I just think that this person just doesn’t understand what they are trying to argue.
Just to emphasize (because I foresee a possible stubbornness):
When dealing with two options like this, it's logical to say that either one or the other will come about.
However, when we start talking about percentages, that's when we're in the realm of probability (which has its own set of mathematical rules).
People may not use it in this strict fashion always, but that's the problem: Percentages should not cross over into logical statements of the kind we're dealing with here. It's a different "game".
When saying "50/50", we're (most likely) not actually talking about probability. We're just misapplying the notion of percentages to something that is instead a logical matter of two options.
(We could also mention this in the context of a language-game.)
You must’ve really stopped following comics if you didn’t hear about the fucking fallout over their wedding
I thought I was sort of following this particular topic enough, but apparantly I wasn't. So, like, they're not married after all?
Nope. She left him at the alter after some manipulation from Bane through her best friend
Tom King keeps saying the story’s not over yet but they’ve kind of burnt out the good will fans had for the series
Ah... thanks for the recap! :)
Not quite sure which direction you feel like heading, but you could read a bit about this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
The unsatisfactory answer is that stutter is known to vary a lot. It's not necessarily tied to any particular thing.
I think the best thing you can do is to not obsess over discovering any cause for it. Simply note the state of your stutter and be prepared (expectation management).
Yeah I see what you mean, but the thought of being completely powerless about it makes me really sad.
Hm, I'm not sure we can straightforwardly say we're "powerless". I mean, we know what's going on, and we can adjust to that. We can work on getting better at doing the things we want to do, despite having a challenge component. So even though we're not fully in control, we still have a space that we are able to navigate in.
Doesn't seem possible. Their help system seems to indicate that comments and suggestions are in the same permission.
the best way to reduce my stutter is just to be calm and collected
Alright, so, try not reducing your stutter. Just test it out every once in a while. :)
738,362 subscribers
122,440 subscribers
60,001 subscribers
Six-Year Club
Verified Email
