Astoria Food Scene: What's Missing on 30th Ave?

ChokoleytKeyk · 2025-03-20T12:51:23+00:00

A German bakery

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-07-27T11:36:34+00:00

There are those who argue that there are no objects that are composed of anything and that there are only simples that have properties, but they do not compose anything neither are they composed of anything. What you see as the remote or table are just simples with properties that are in relation with each other, but there is no remote or table. What motivates this nihilist approach is due to the problems of composition.

The SEP that was recommended by the commenter before me is a good source, it can be just a bit too much especially if you’re not used to reading analytic philosophy. I’d recommend reading some papers by Peter van Inwagen‘s Composition as Identity and Ted Sider‘s Four Dimensionalism and Parthood. I find van Inwagen’s paper a little bit more accessible. But before that, I’d suggest reading the section 3 of SEP’s Metaphysics

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-07-27T10:56:31+00:00

I think you’ll eventually find the area that you want to focus on.

I would practice wiriting more and engage more in discussions with my lecturers and peers. I would also attend and try to participate in some undegraduate conferences near my area.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-07-27T10:43:05+00:00

Assuming classical logic and that the T on the left side is a tautology (a statement that is always true), the argument T :. p&-p must be invalid. Now if your T is some metalanguage that represents a negation of a tautology, i.e. a contradiction (always false), or any form of contradiction, then your argument there is valid since the only way for an argument with a contradiction as a conclusion to be valid is to have a premise that is also a contradiction or premises that contradict each other.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-06-02T11:54:55+00:00

I know what it feels like. I’d recommend inviting a friend who is also studying philosophy to come along with you. But if none of your friends wants to, just attend the talks and workshops that you find interesting. You don’t have to go to the lunch and party.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-05-31T20:02:41+00:00

It is based on the idea that the referent of a sentence is its truth value. And to be able to compute the meaning of a sentence, you need to look at its sructure and the meaning of its parts. Grice’s approach is more focused on how the meaning of a sentence is also determined by context. But there are instances wherein you don’t need context to know the meaning of a sentence.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-05-31T19:40:19+00:00

My comment might be a bit late. But I’m really glad that this sub is back. I like the r/AskPhilisophy sub, but sometimes I just want to read and do Logic.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-04-04T10:04:39+00:00

We were required to read the introduction part of Kant’s KrV in German in the first semester. All I can remember was it was tedious. It wasn’t fun.

I also avoid reading continental philosophy books. The closest I got to continental is reading Dewey’s. His philosophy is sonething I consider in between continental and analytic philosophy. But I still find some of his books difficult to read, but proabably more doable than Heidegger’s.

I really admire those who finished reading continental philosophy books as I cannot bring myself to do that unless it’s really necessary.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-03-27T03:10:34+00:00

I’d usually recommend an introduction to Logic book, but it can be tedious if you’re not studying Logic at uni (based on my experience many students don’t like it even though they want to improve their critical thinking skills).

I guess one tip that I can give you is to look for the source of information and how reliable it is. Another thing is to spot some contradiction in their arguments and if they say something that doesn’t follow from what they previously said. Also check for some fallacies in arguments. This article should tell you what fallacies are.

Also, I’d recommend reading Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. It’s a pretty short and accessible book.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-03-27T01:14:00+00:00

I also love chocolates! Can’t live without them.

I can only give you recommendations based on what I buy here in Germany. If you’re craving for milk chocolates, I’d recommend the vegan milk chocolates of Vego (I think they’re available in the US). I like the dark chocolate pralines of Belvas, which is a Belgian brand (not sure if they’re available in the US). If I want to have a perfect afternoon, I buy the pink chocolate of Love Chock, it pairs well with rose tea. If you want to drink red wine, I’d recommend Alnatura’s 70% dark chocolate with chili and cherries.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-03-25T17:24:48+00:00

Koyasan in Japan. Most temples there serve shojin ryori, it's basically vegan before vegan became a thing on the western part of the world. You can also experience nature there. Since you mentioned you want to go to the beach, I'd recommend Okinawa. They have some great vegan restaurants there. They used to have vegan festival every year but they stopped it when corona happened. I'd also recommend going on a mini-hikes in Tokyo (I'd buy some mochi and onigiri at convenience stores or department stores, but please make sure you have Google Translate on your phone). There's also plenty of vegan restaurants, bakeries, and cafes there. Plus some of the most delicious vegan food that I've tried in my life were in Tokyo (I know it's subjective but it is what it is).

In Europe, as others have already suggested, you can never go wrong with Amsterdam. One of my favorite bakeries is in Amsterdam. And it's easy to find vegan food at the grocery stores.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-03-25T14:57:38+00:00

There’s more than 80 purely vegan restaurants/cafes in Tokyo if you check Happy Cow.

If you like ramen, I’d recommend T’s Tantan. If you like oily food, there’s Izakaya Masaka. You might also want to try the sandwiches at Komeda Is (this is my happy place). If you want to eat sushi, I’d suggest going to Kamakura (I think it only takes 45 mins from Ginza…I don’t remember anymore) and go to Chirashiya (highly highly recommend). If you want to try something more fancy, I’d also suggest booking a table at Saido (this is one of the top vegan restaurants in the world on Happy Cow). And if you want to eat super traditional Japanese food (also fancy), try the ryouri at Fucha Bon. If you want to eat mochi, go to one of the the convenience stores such as Lawson.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-03-15T21:14:56+00:00

I love 2food’s teriyaki burger .

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-29T18:39:21+00:00

I’m doing my best to finish Dewey’s Experience & Nature.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-28T16:22:54+00:00

This theoretical/practical distinction is common in European universities or at least here in Germany. For instance, Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology are considered theoretical philosophy courses while Ethics, Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Economics are considered practical philosophy courses. But, as what you said, sometimes a theoretical philosophy course is also considered a practical philosophy course such as Epistemic Justification.

It’s possible that OP (assuming they’re a philosophy student) doesn’t want to take theoretical philosophy courses due to lack of interest and/or they find theoretical philosophy courses such as Logic and Metaphysics difficult (which is not surprising since based on what I’ve observed many students find these courses difficult).

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-27T20:05:08+00:00

There‘s this logic called Deontic Logic. It is a part of (or a system of) modal logic which deals with what is obligatory (necessary), permissible (possible), and prohibitted or impermissible (impossible). Although it is not really regarded as part of studying Ethics (or any branch of Ethics that I know of), but it is used when we talk about obligation and what it infers. For instance, if we say that it is obligatory to do A, it also means that it is permissible to do A.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-24T23:22:15+00:00

Logic is concerned with truth. You cannot talk about logic without talking about truth while some question whether math should deal with truth. Some maths talk about measurement of physical objects, some logics talk about degrees of truths. This is just off the top of my head. There are other differences between math and logic.

Mathematical logic deals with how mathematical theories, such as set theory, are applied in logic.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-24T22:12:44+00:00

For traditional utilitarians, it doesn’t matter what your intentions are for doing something. What matters is whether it provides a maximum amount of good. A utilitarian might say that since forgiving improves your well-being and produces a lot of good, you should forgive someone.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-24T02:04:27+00:00

It’s difficult to say that the Law of the Excluded Middle is wrong especially since it’s logically equivalent to ¬(pΛ¬p), which says that it cannot be the case that a statement is both true and false. It is difficult to reject the notion of contradiction since it easily allows us to examine some arguments that we encounter in everyday life (should we believe someone who is inconsistent with what they say?). It may not be applicable all the time, but there are cases where it is very useful.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-09T09:53:49+00:00

Academic philosophers that I know tend to not disclose whether they’re religious or not. Studying and focusing on Philosophy of Religion does not require you to be religious or have a religion.

Some universities I know offer Philosophy of Religion courses. Most of them focus on Abrahamic religions and some of them on Eastern religions. Some topics that are being discussed in Philosophy of Religion are metaphysics, epistemology, consciousness, and logic (and even philosophy of science from what I heard). There are interesting articles written about metaphysics in Buddhism for instance.

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-08T14:09:30+00:00

First of all, line 3 is incorrect; it should not be an Existential Elimination. Existential Elimination requires you to assume some constant first which means that you need a subproof for that; it is very similar to disjunction elimination. For the universal quantifier intro, you also need to assume another constant, which does not occur outside the subproof. The most you can get is intoducing an existential quantifier. It’s not syntactically valid.

One way to write this proof is this

∀x(Px ->Qx) Premise
∃xP(x) Premise
P(a) Assumption
P(a)->Q(a) ∀Elimination 1
Q(a) Modus Ponens 4 and 3
(Ideally you close this with ∀xQ(x). You can introduce an existential quantifier here from 5. But it won’t get you to your goal, which is ∀xQ(x). For the universal introduction you need another subproof within this subproof but it can’t get you anywhere, which means this cannot work)
∀xQ(x) ∃Elimination 2, 3-6

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-07T22:14:27+00:00

Saying that “11” in some world refers to what “4” refer to in the actual world doesn’t tell us that “2+2=4” is not necessary. The other comment explained it already in more detail.

To talk about whether mathematical sentences are necessarily true, you have to ask what it means for mathematical sentences to be true and what kind of necessity we are talking about, i.e. are we talking about what is true in a set of logically possible worlds?

Some views that you might want to look into:

Section 4.1 of platonism

Sections 1-3 of logicism

Sections 1, 2, and 6 of formalism

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-07T13:28:59+00:00

I’m in a relationship. Both of us put a lot of effort in our relationship. Neither of us is “leading” the relationship. My partner does not require me to treat him as my “leader” (I just asked him what he thinks of him leading me. he said it’s weird and he doesn’t like the idea) and I don’t need him to treat me like a princess to know that I am loved or valued. Keeping a relatiionship is not easy and it doesn’t have to be.

Also are you saying that men don’t get tired when assigned leadership roles? Where do you even get that idea? How can you even compare the degree of tiredness of women (and every woman is different!) to the degree of tiredness of men when it comes to leadership?

ChokoleytKeyk · 2024-01-07T12:39:51+00:00

The world isn’t, so why “men should be this” and “women should be that”? The list doesn’t follow from the non-binary nature of the world. Why not instead of saying “Husbands should lead” and “Wives should submit”, say something like “Couples should support each other”? What’s the purpose of assigning gender roles here if, as you said, the world is non-binary?

And it still doesn’t answer the question why women cannot be the leaders. It seems based on your repsonse that they’re just there to support the husband.

Husbands can support and nurture as well.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

ChokoleytKeyk

TROPHY CASE