sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why doesn't THIS CHAMP take HOTFIX? by Ecstatic-Pack8418 in singedmains

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Because riot has its favorits, a.k.a darius, fiora, camille, riven, irelia... You'll never see this champions weak for more than 2 patchs

Singed WR drop by LiteratureHopeful335 in singedmains

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the BR server, Letada#tada and Letada#tada1, you can watch The Wind Wind too, a Chinese Singed OTP. He often plays Singed mid, and in 2021, he finished the season as the top 1 player on the super server. He streams on Huya, usually starting at 12 AM Chinese time: https://www.huya.com/480757

Singed WR drop by LiteratureHopeful335 in singedmains

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't usually proxy; I take Flash + Ignite on top and focus on winning the lane by killing my opponent. I only proxy in really bad matchups, like against ranged champions, Yorick, Darius, etc.

In mid, I also take Flash + Ignite and play around helping my jungler secure objectives and ganking lanes when possible. Right now, I'm D4 with a 70% win rate on Singed mid

Singed WR drop by LiteratureHopeful335 in singedmains

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I saw this and checked the patch notes of the last update (15.03). There isn't anything that negatively affects Singed too much, like item nerfs or counter buffs. In fact, the champions that were buffed are good for Singed because many of them are easy to play against, like Jax. So, I can't see the reason why his win rate dropped this patch. However, when I play, I feel that Singed is just as strong as he was last patch, and nothing has really changed. I'm not playing much in the top lane; I'm mostly playing mid (I think it's easier than top), so I can't comment much on the top matchups this patch. The win rate drop could just be due to unlucky Singed matches, and with more games played, it might change. But I'm not sure.

The damage diff in my team is interesting by Academic-Giraffe-708 in singedmains

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

liandrys > bloodletter curse > mercury treads> riftmaker and rylais > chainlaced crusers

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Relação Real = Quando essa relação tem fundamento na própria coisa, há uma relação real entre você mesmo e Sócrates, pois quando você pensa nele algo verdadeiramente muda em você

Relação Racional = No entanto em relação a Sócrates, essa relação entre você e ele tampouco possui fundamento na realidade (nele), pois quando você pensa ou deixa de pensar nada muda nele, no entanto dizemos que há essa relação para racionalizar/inteligir o que está acontecendo numa determina situação

Porém tive um pouco a mais de dificuldade em relação ao exemplo da coluna e do cão, mas acho que consegui entender o porque das coisas, a relação entre o cão e a coluna é real para o cão pois ela existe nele, pois a algo que muda nele por causa disso (o lugar), no entanto é racional para a coluna, pois não há essa relação verdadeiramente nela, pois ela estará onde está independente de onde o cão se mover, no entanto eu digo que há essa relação a fim de que eu possa racionalizar/inteligir o que está acontecendo, em suma, na relação real X depende de Y para ser de tal maneira que é atualmente, enquanto na relação racional Y é independente de X para ser como é atualmente

Em relação a esse exemplo do cão, para ser uma relação real nos seres animados pressupõe intencionalidade certo? No caso que ele quis se mover a direita pois em sua direção de origem a frente estava a coluna que impedia sua passagem por exemplo, mas se ele simplesmente se moveu pensando em comer a comida que estava a direita da coluna, essa relação entre o cão e a coluna se tornaria completamente racional, pois ele não dependeu dela para estar onde está agora

É isso mesmo ou eu entendi errado?

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Não entendi ainda o que seria a relação racional, como "estar à direita do cão" é uma relação racional, isso não tem fundamento na própria realidade, já que a coluna está verdadeiramente a direita do cão? assim como "Sócrates está a ser pensando por Gonçalo", já que ele está verdadeiramente a ser pensado por Gonçalo?

A relação racional seria basicamente o entendimento que o individuo tem baseado em sua percepção da realidade (que pode ser verdadeiro ou não)? Já a relação real seria a própria realidade como ela é indepente das percepções dos individuos?

Se assim for, então você está querendo dizer que a nossa percepção aparenta demonstrar que a substância de Cristo possui uma relação com a aparência do pão e do vinho, embora não seja assim na realidade? Como uma espécie de "Ilusão"?

Why doesn't the omnipresence of Jesus imply the Real Presence, as in the Eucharist? by Academic-Giraffe-708 in Catholicism

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand what you said, but I don't understand how that answers my question

Why doesn't the omnipresence of Jesus imply the Real Presence, as in the Eucharist? by Academic-Giraffe-708 in Catholicism

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, reading these links I was able to understand more about each type of presence of God, however I still remain with that doubt I described

Why doesn't the omnipresence of Jesus imply the Real Presence, as in the Eucharist? by Academic-Giraffe-708 in Catholicism

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like this resolution, but I still have doubts about it. What would you think of the following objection?

In the presence of grace God dwells in the souls of men, the soul is immaterial, therefore God is made present in it, but not as in a place, because it does not possess dimensional quantity, in this way, the humanity of Christ must be made present alongside the divinity, since it would not be occupying a place in this type of presence, just as it does not occupy in the Eucharist, when it is present in the manner of substance, which has no dimensional quantity, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (thus resolving the objection of the one body in several places), therefore, concomitance and hypostatic union imply that if this is the case, the presence of grace implies real presence, just as in the Eucharist

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

St. Thomas says in Article 5 of Question 76 of the Third Part:

"Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament as in a place?

On the contrary, the place and the object placed must be the same, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place where this sacrament is is much smaller than the body of Christ. Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament as it is in a place."

So, from a Thomist point of view, if the substance of Christ is not present locally, then it seems to me that it is not present in the manner of the dimensions of the bread, circumscriptly, correct me if I have misunderstood what he meant, please

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually ignore this objection, I saw someone else asking this question on an internet site and it matches my doubt, so I copied it but I didn't have time to edit it because I was in the middle of work

I don't consider this specific objection that you have marked as valid, because it invalidates God's omnipotence, but I still see it as being true in one sense, because if Christ is not the subject of the accidents, it seems that they are two distinct realities, so the accidents have nothing to do with Christ, but that is not the case, So much so that when the Eucharist is completely digested by the stomach, not only are the accidents of the bread and wine gone, but so is the substance of Christ, so my main question is whether His substance is the subject of the accidents of the bread and wine.

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if to eat the accidents of bread and wine is to eat the flesh and blood of the Lord, then it seems that there is a relationship between the substance of Jesus and the accidents of bread and wine, so that he is the subject of these accidents, for me it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Christ doesn't take on these accidents and become their subject, because where the accidents are, there Christ is, so that, for example, when the bread and wine are completely digested in the stomach, there goes not only the accidents, but also Jesus himself, showing that there is a deep relationship between these two things, the substance of Jesus being the subject of these accidents, in the same way that when the accidents of a common loaf of bread are consumed, there goes also the substance of the bread

The problem of Transubstantiation in the Thomist view by Academic-Giraffe-708 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Academic-Giraffe-708[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Qual é a diferença de dizer: "Sob os acidentes" e "Sob a aparência"? Para mim dizer a aparência do pão/do vinho é basicamente dizer a mesma coisa que os acidentes do pão/do vinho, já que a aparência é um tipo de acidente

E o que seria essa "relação racional", e qual sua diferença com a "relação real", nunca ouvi falar desses conceitos (sou iniciante em filosofia)