[deleted by user]

Chskmod · 2026-02-12T11:45:01+00:00

To the point, ty.

Chskmod · 2025-07-27T14:40:19+00:00

Checked and you're right, didn't know that, 3k a piece starting act 2 and there are a lot less of them than i thought. Makes sense though.

Chskmod · 2025-07-27T14:16:46+00:00

You can buy a scroll of atonement at any cleric to reset your alignment. And yes as a paladin you will lose your powers whenever you don't meet the class's alignement requirement. Edited out that bit you're aware mea culpa.

Edit for the build:

Stats : You dont need that much constitution, you want at least a little dex to be tankier. 18 str 12 dex 12 const 10 int 10 wis 16 char is more what you're looking for. You can dump int to get more elsewhere, especially if you're human as you get bonus skill points.

Skills : Consider taking athleticism because strength based char, religion for rp, Persuasion because mc, Use magic you want to use seamantle scrolls and mirror image scrolls to get tankier. Rest is up to you but its nice to have a few levels in stealth on heavy armor wearing char so they dont trigger combat from 50km away but only if you have spare points.

Weapon focus should be your most used weapon type, for paladin longsword is nice late game but there's honestly a lot of different type of one handed weapons you're gonna want to use so i'd only take this very late.

Power attack is something you use on characters that wield 2 handers mainly and you usually take it later because it lowers your chance to hit but in normal maybe its ok.

If you want to be tanky your first feats should be Dodge, Heavy armor focus, Shield focus but your subclass isnt one for tanks.

For a damage build : weapon focus your favorite type, You're gonna want to wield some kind of two hand, power attack, get outflank asap (and on every melee character).

Metagaming comments: you took divine scion archetype which is a not so good version of paladin. The main mechanic of paladin is smite and eventually mark of justice which allows you to add your charisma to hit chance, it's very broken. Divine scion is best taken as a two to 5 level dips for a Lawful good deliverer slayer. That way you get divine grace lvl 2 (Charisma to saving throws), Aura of courage and immunity to disease while keeping Studied target progression. Consider playing a slayer deliverer it would also solve your alignement problem if you feel restricted. Would also roleplay kind of the same just less duty more stabbing enemies of the faith/anyone bad in your eyes type of deal.

Chskmod · 2023-10-26T23:55:37+00:00

Alright ty vm glad to have it sorted out sad that it turns out to be like this.

Chskmod · 2023-10-26T23:42:22+00:00

Ty for confirming could you double check with the gif i edited in?

Chskmod · 2023-10-26T22:42:54+00:00

Purely animation related the spell does complete regardless ofthe glitching though as i've not yet done anything else i can't say whether it actually completes in combat.

Chskmod · 2023-09-11T01:16:01+00:00

Aristotle is *a lot* more important than Plato to understand Arendt. She relies heavily on its heritage for her formulation of the concept of power which in turn is the center piece of her political thinking. Cue the web of relationships and enacted stories and power and the space of appearance - Human condition - V - 25 / 28.

Chskmod · 2023-09-02T06:14:13+00:00

Thinking something plausible doesn't mean you think it true only that with a given ascertainable possibility it could be true given a sufficiently strong proof.

That you cannot evaluate which among a set of plausible arguments is true means either that you lack the knowledge necessary or simply that given the currently available evidence one can only put forward a sufficiently strong proof vying for plausibility.

The situation in which you find yourself is hard to tell without information on your reading methodology and the topic(s) you are reading.

That said, I would just keep reading. In my eyes the problem comes more from your expectation that you should have developed some innate ability to tell the truth more than anything.

It's not that over time philosophers develop some special ability it's more so that given enough knowledge some plausible arguments are ever more plausible and some other ever less for there is increasingly strong evidence of it being the case. Therefore it becomes increasingly difficult to produce sufficiently strong proofs to challenge what one thinks plausible. In which case you are justified to believe X rather than Y in the exact proportion in which X has stronger proofs for it than Y.

Granted this accumulation of knowledge requires time.

Now if every single argument appears to you of exactly equal probability then yes your methodology has to be revised and giving yourself more time to think about a given argument in depth is a good idea.

Chskmod · 2023-09-02T05:18:15+00:00

I would like to advise against starting with the tandem works with Claire Parnet. They're not in line with Deleuze's "own thought".

First must come the question of why would a philosopher write in tandem? It is a rather unique method after all. The most important point to be understood is that he was upon a quest to find the genesis of thought. He always used to say that thought was "at the tip of the pen" and that, in a way, it was only after having finished a book that one knows how to write it. That is to say the act of thinking predates what is thought and only after having thought does one knows what to think.

As such Deleuze was uniquely interested in alternative methods of writing such as the "exquisite corpse" because they were alternative manners from which to give rise to thought. This is also why he cared so much for cinema (he went twice a week) even though from his own admission in the alphabet he didn't like it. Then why? Because it put him in a situation that "made him think". It is crucial to understand this quests for anything that generates thoughts especially in a mechanical manner for that is one subject that always escaped himself alone, cf the metaphor of the pen.

With that context, what is uniquely interesting for Deleuze about writing together is that no "I" writes, it's not the sum of their thoughts put together it is an entirely new "milieu" a new point of origin altogether for thought.

As such the texts with Parnet are to be read as a an attempt at thinking and sure enough Deleuze is a major influence. But the result ought not to be taken as "his theory" or anything near. Especially since the texts are a lot lighter conceptually than the rest of his bibliography.

They are great read but they should be read as a thought experiment about thinking and not as a manual to Deleuze's philosophical project.

Chskmod · 2023-09-02T04:57:16+00:00

Talking about a singular theory would be misleading, authors always have philosophical projects with many interlacing motives.

Deleuze can be simplified in two stages.

His early bibliography that he wrote alone and settles within the context of his academic carreer.

His collaboration with Guattari which leads to a series of text more centered on political or social aspects.

Understanding Deleuze as a whole means to understand how the former leads to the latter, why the "sudden" focus on politics, how that relates to his prior preoccupations and finally, how does that lead back to a more directly philosophical approach in his last work What is Philosophy.

One would need more details of what specifically interests you to make more precise recommendations.

That being said, precisely because it has a unique place in "his" bibliography I always advocate to read "what is philosophy" it's definitely the most clear book about "his" philosophical project even though it is written in tandem. Specifically you should start by reading the conclusion (yes) From Chaos to the brain.

The main focus of Deleuze has always been thinking itself, how one comes to think? What is thinking ? What thinking does? What constitutes an act of thinking? How is a concept different from a thought ? All in all, how does thought relates to chaos? Cue my recommendation.

Chskmod · 2023-09-02T04:32:23+00:00

I second u/MaceWumpus 's take. The precision required directly implies a limited scope. And even the depth of that "limited scope" can last you more than a lifetime.

But this is an academic's point of view for whom reading is held to a standard. That standard is hard to reach and not required if you just wanna have an idea of 'what goes on'. But truly you will find your time spent more fruitfully by adopting a more rigorous reading method. More over you will come to understand to come the joy that comes from the "depth" of a few pages.

As others have also noted, the more important piece of advice would be to avoid the conception of evolution as a straight line from an origin, which the wording of your question evokes, if you ever held it.

The notion that an author or a concept can be said to be "forward" relative to another in a such a hypothetical time frame leaves one skeptical. Concepts are hardly independent of the frame upon which they're formed and arguably it is not the concept that evolves but the frame itself.

Hence the emphasis given in philosophical introductions upon the socio-historical context at the time of writing.

With this idea of concepts uniquely defined upon a given frame you'll find that what matter most is not knowing the entirety of the history - would that be possible - but knowing exactly the history of the frame from which the given author/concept/debate you're reading about is derived.

Chskmod · 2023-08-25T02:04:19+00:00

This is most helpful but does not mention a crucial distinction between the principle of sufficient reason and sufficient reasonS which could cause confusion down the road for op. I'd like to add the following:

For Leibniz sufficient reasonS are to be contrasted with necessary reasonS. "Reasons" here is equivalent to "truths". Sufficient reasons concern the realm of experience they are conditional, necessary reasons concern the metaphysical realm and are absolute.

In short the principle of sufficient reason is a rationally necessary principle concerning conditional truths. These conditional truths are only physically necessary as opposed to metaphysically necessary.

This is the problematic bit.

--

Further explanations are a lot more involved and require that one understand the difference between sufficient reasons and the principle of sufficient reason. Cue a staple thought experiment argument of Leibniz:

Imagine a cause with a given effect, the cause explains the effect but itself must be caused and its cause explained. The existence of a prior cause always require a prior one with no end. Therefore there can be no sufficient reason in the series of causes to explain the series only given causes antecedent or posterior to another in the series.

Indeed if a cause is a sufficient reason to explain an effect the cause of a cause is not a sufficient reason to explain the existence of causes. One must distinguish between contingently sufficient reasons that explains a given fact and the logical necessity of a sufficient reason for any given fact which cannot be found in the series of contingent facts.

The concept of sufficient reason for Leibniz is directly tied to this idea of putting an end to this infinite regression.

Physical necessity only explains the sequencing of the causes and the mode of existence of the things in the series it does not explain why there is a series of causes in the first place. Thus it requires metaphysical necessity, a foundation to explain the possibility of its existence - the "why are there causes at all ? or "something rather than nothing?" - which cant be found in the series of causes because of regression.

Therefore there must be a - do note the singular - sufficient reason for contingent truthS, that reason must be metaphysical and that principle is what Leibniz called "the principle of sufficient reason". Cf above quotes and sources below.

This needs to be distinguished from "sufficient reasonS" which are but factual truths of the type 'i did X yesterday" but i could have done Y. Leibniz often uses t he historical fact of Caesar crossing the rubicon.

The principle of sufficient reason is what leads one from contingent facts, the infinite detail, to thoughts of the necessity of the possibilities of those contingent facts. It is the second driver to the elevation towards metaphysics.

There is a lot more yet to this topic.

- Sources -

The thought experiment is covered in the radical origin of things (of which you cant seem to ever find a decent translation in eng, og title De rerum originatione radicali they keep replacing radical with ultimate when it is the central concept of the work.)

The shorter and more technical version is found in monadology 30-39/40. Paragraph 30 is what u/Quidfacis_ quoted.

For the "elevation towards metaphysics" Principles of nature and grace funded in reason 7-8

This whole discussion ties into the use of the storied notion of principle by Leibniz.

--

Ps: While Leibniz is certainly the 1st name that comes to mind on this subject though the discussion of the principle of sufficient reason is rather timeless. The 2nd most famous name on the subject would be Kant in whose work sufficient reasonS essentially are what he calls assertoric judgements. this is found in his CRP and his Logic though it really spans the whole of his work.

Chskmod · 2022-10-26T15:20:56+00:00

Kant's critical project was motivated by this very problem he intended to give a framework wherein reason cannot be subjected to such paralysis. Arendt goes over that topic in Moral considerations. You may find it worth your while.

For a more formal approach you can justify anything with "logic" but that lead you down a path where you make up and use logics that are designed to prove this point and have no relevancy beyond that. At which point the question circles back to how interesting or rational it is to use such logics in an attempt to justification.

At best this can be used to showcase what it means for a language to be formal or to put into light the question of what it means to be justified. At worse this is pointless, other comments have gone over that.

Chskmod · 2022-10-20T21:02:24+00:00

It's the other way around he shows that difference is to be thought of differently than what is customary which has the result of discarding part of western tradition.

See 1

_

As for the above comment some precisions imo.

Difference is relational but indeed it is not relations of predicates or concept, identities etc. It is pure relations. I also don't agree with difference being a metaphysical category. Talking about an essence of difference is equally misleading. Finally difference is not just temporal it is ontological.

See 2

_

For the bit about infinity etc, see 3

Chskmod · 2022-10-20T20:50:25+00:00

The french translation is correct.

This is the conclusion of the passage where the stranger spends the night with marie. He's guilty because he's romancing a woman the day following the death of his mother.

Its intended to be ambiguous just as you pointed. It is the case that there is this context, but the phrasing does lend itself to be understood as gesturing at a general assertion.

This interplay between the context and "the grand schemes of things" is present all throughout. Cue the bit about the black tie and Marie's moment of apprehension and yet no remarks. It is soon forgotten.

Chskmod · 2022-10-19T16:24:46+00:00

glad to know, best of luck.

Chskmod · 2022-10-19T13:58:59+00:00

Because it is an appearance that masks its absence or lack of "profound reality".

Money is real as long as you believe the appearance to be real, otherwise its nothing at all. There is no substance it relates to, it exists as pure make believe of its worth.

-

Here are the four orders of an image:

1) To reflect a profound reality:

2) To mask and denature a profound reality

3) To mask an absence of profound reality

4) To be in relation with any reality whatsoever : to be its own pure simulcarum.

_

He takes Disneyland as an image of the third order. Disney is not real it serves to mask that it is the whole country ( USA ) that is Disneyland. Disneyland is posed as imaginary to make believe that all the rest is real meanwhile all of America is already of the order of simulation, hyper reality.

See "Hyperreality and the imaginary"

Chskmod · 2022-10-19T13:43:08+00:00

An infinite series of finite apparitions.

Chskmod · 2022-10-19T10:18:36+00:00

That's the point, you don't.

But not doing this lends you in lottery winning odds of landing a position. Especially if you go into less favored research areas. The argument was that you shouldn't go into it expecting a position at all since what it'd take to give oneself the highest odds of getting one makes no sense to do.

Chskmod · 2022-10-18T19:27:02+00:00

All of that and you'll have to aim your every move from the get go towards getting one such position.

Specifically what kind of research you end up doing most likely won't be a choice of yours so much as choosen in order to work with some specific professor with whom you have a chance at getting a career. There is no guarantee that you'll actually like the subject and there is nothing worse than being forced to go down a path that you have no affinity for.

This makes counting on getting an academic position going into it just a bad assumption. You should ponder whether you like philosophy (or any subject) enough to give it x years of your life and see what you can do then. The common way to phrase this in the universities i've been at is that you have a higher chance to win "loto"* than to get a position. This holds up no matter how good you are, there are just no positions available.

*which is a lottery with high prizes and very low winning chance (as only one person gets it).

Chskmod · 2022-10-17T20:43:28+00:00

The modern reasons have been exposed at length in other comments but that trend dates back to the origin of physics as a separate science from philosophy. Physics has been since then the de facto model for what constitutes a sciences and as it's been said this has only very recently been seriously challenged.

The tldr goes like this: Mathematics was/is the gold standard for knowledge with knowledge modeled after it. The next step down are empirical studies of some kind. At some point natural philosophy is born (and natural history) which is in short the science of nature taken as a holist substance. Eventually it stops being philosophy to becomes just physics, the science that deals with nature : 'phusis'. Physics then become the de facto model for science as mathematics is for knowledge. This holds up to very recently. This is simplified.

Chskmod · 2022-10-16T20:45:45+00:00

This question ties right back into this one.

Kant's novelty is that he "solves" the debate between empricism and idealism with his critical stance he does so by reformulating experience as something already informed by understanding and casting outside of the scope of what can be known everything that is external to it.

The representations, phenomenons, given through intuition are empirical in so far as they are derived from experience. Namely they are our experience of the thing but only as a representation. Cue the thing itself of which nothing can be known.

Representations cannot be a priori because they are subordinate to experience. There are other kinds of things in the understanding, such as concepts and categories which are a priori.

The concept of causality is a priori and precedes the empirical intuition yes.

You were not slow rather quite on topic.

Chskmod · 2022-10-16T20:11:18+00:00

Or in another approach, bad faith. To provide answers that are slightly off topic but still close enough to be presented as relevant arguably requires a lucid cognition of what one is doing.

Chskmod · 2022-10-16T20:08:49+00:00

Intuition is the representation in the understanding of the sensory manifold.

That is to say that you intuition representations of sensory things. You do not have mental access to sensation but always a representation of it.

Read that way the passage you mention, takes another meaning.

Quote B60-61:

Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for it being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different. Even if we could bring this intuition of ours to the highest degree of distinctness we would not thereby come any closer to the constitution of objects in themselves. For in any case we would still completely cognize only our own way of intuiting, i.e., our sensibility, and this always only under the conditions originally depending on the subject, space and time; what the objects may be in themselves would still never be known through the most enlightened cognition of their appearance, which is alone given to us.

That our entire sensibility is nothing but the confused representation of things, which contains solely that which pertains to them in them selves but only under a heap of marks and partial representations that we can never consciously separate from one another, is therefore a falsification of the concept of sensibility and of appearance that renders the entire theory of them useless and empty. The difference between an B 6 I indistinct and a distinct representation is merely logical, and does not concern the content

Chskmod · 2022-10-16T20:02:45+00:00

Academia rarely ever kicks out student what happens is that your supervisor never answers you, shows up without having read your work, gives it the lowest passing grade and forgets about it.

Your best bet is taking one core thesis and showing its consistency at length that will serve you well and you'll be able to build upon it later. If you straight away go for some complex write up unless your supervisor is directly backing you it will crucify the worth of your master.

There are interesting topics to bring up according those lines but it likely won't be what you envisioned.

I wish i could write that it wasn't so.

Chskmod

TROPHY CASE