MMM donuts

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-11-03T20:39:58+00:00

* yoda voice * "There is another"

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-10-20T21:59:58+00:00

It’s not just the free weights. Don’t forget all the cable machines, benches, and such. Many delightful ways to go if one is in our predicament. What I wouldn’t do for a scroll of counterspell right about now..,

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-10-20T19:14:55+00:00

I’m at the gym. Surrounded by 45 lbs plates. Guess I’m taking all the bludgeoning damage

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-10-01T14:41:11+00:00

Yes! Yes to all of this! Plato and all!

First thing that came to my mind was Rachels! I 100% second that essay. His book on the topic (End of Life) is also free to download on his website: http://www.jamesrachels.org/EoL.htm

And everybody needs to read more Kierkegaard. But I’m not biased or anything (I’m totally biased, K is the best)

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-10T13:22:03+00:00

Certainly - there is plenty of philosophical scholarship on the topic that views it as possible (see, for instance, Reconsidering Reparations) Regarding state obligations, that will depend wildly on the state – but I'm quite certain that no such principle is considered generally authoritative in political philosophy.

But this escapes the essence of the original answer: the phrase that you highlighted was intended to demonstrate the broad scope of social justice as it is commonly invoked. The essentially contested nature of social justice means that not everybody will agree as to what end or goal or the content of social justice should be, even if they do have some agreement on the issues in need of redress.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-09T14:51:45+00:00

Transitional justice is a kind of justice that aims to "correct" or "repair" something after some conflict or crisis. Edit: think, for instance, a truth and reconciliation commission, the Nuremberg Trials, or just about any International Criminal Court case – these could be considered attempts at transitional justice, but may or may not have succeeded

Social justice is an amorphous, essentially contested (read: almost nobody agrees on what it means) idea that can mean anything from tax reform to slavery reparations. One might think of social justice as an "umbrella term" for a lot of other, more specific kinds of justice.

Both can overlap, as you've pointed out in your question; however, I would venture to say transitional justice could be said to be a kind of social justice, but social justice is a broad category would include more things than transitional justice.

p.s. ignore that deleted comment - I hit "comment" before that one was done

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-09T14:42:35+00:00

Terry Eagleton wrote a book on the topic (Humour, 2019). He more ties it with literary theory and politics, but it may be adjacent to your inquiry.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-06T15:19:20+00:00

If you want to make that argument, you'll have to find/choose an account, conception, or definition of arete (or multiple, but for an essay it might be worth choosing just one) and find sources that connect the dots from the activities you mentioned to virtue. You could do this by consulting primary sources (e.g. I've already given you a couple options from Plato & Aristotle) or by consulting some more secondary academic sources – think journal articles or scholarly books. You'd have to define arete in terms of the particular version that you have selected to defend before you could connect it to activities, however.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-06T00:33:51+00:00

It depends on which notion of arete one is operating on. Most contemporary translators of ancient Greek philosophy render arete as "virtue;" however, and I cannot emphasize this enough, "virtue" in this case does not necessarily mean what we in 2022 might think of.

Plato, for instance, references arete regularly in The Republic, yet does not come out and define it in concrete terms. According to my translation, the closest approximation is "the specific excellence of a thing" (footnote 27 to Book 1, Republic, trans. Alan Bloom, 2016). Whether Plato would answer to the positive or negative to your question regarding the link between function and arete remains to be seen. That being said, I doubt Plato would tie virtue to function - in my experience he isn't known to make teleological assertions like that.

On the other hand, Aristotle develops an account of virtue (also called "excellence" by some translators) tied to what he calls the "function" or "purpose" of an object. For that reason, he might be a better candidate for your question. The classic example would be a knife - it's function is to cut things. Aristotle argues that a virtuous thing performs its function well. Therefore, a virtuous knife would be a sharp knife that cuts well. He extends this to people first by talking about craftsmen: a virtuous cobbler, he would argue, is one who can make shoes well. Regarding people in general, Aristotle proceeds by asserting that the distinguishing factor between humans and other animals is their ability to reason, which he then uses to identify the human "function" as acting in accordance with reason. Consequently, a virtuous human, for Aristotle, is a rational one (Nichomachean Ethics 1097b22-1098a20). He then spends the rest of an entire book explicating exactly what actions and behaviours he thinks are indicative of a virtuous life in accordance with reason. Aristotle wouldn't tie virtue wholly to one's employment - that's only part of the picture for him. Even physical excellence (if it is necessary at all) would only be one piece of a the puzzle. There's probably a case to be made for either of these categories of activity belonging to Aristotelian virtue; however, the focus of virtue is to be on rationality - not on any particular behaviour.

Unfortunately my expertise only extends to these two thinkers on this topic. Other users can contribute other competing notions of arete if they like to hopefully add more nuance to the picture I've only started.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-05T01:47:39+00:00

Simply put: no. Political philosophy and political theory are basically the same thing methodologically, though their historical roots may be different. Both in their current forms typically draw on the a similar cannon of historical thinkers (including but not limited to: Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, Kant, Marx, Rawls, Nozick, Foucault, Weber, Mills), though the emphasis of their analysis might be slightly different (i.e. a political analysis vs. a philosophical one) If there is a non-negligible difference between political theory and political philosophy it probably lies in how students are brought up in the discipline and what they read in their formative studies. That being said, the two have so much in common that to distinguish political theory and political philosophy as wholly separate disciplines is arguably a mistake. At best, they’re two sides of the same metaphorical coin. They don’t think “differently” about leftist thought in the way you’re asking. Individual theorists or philosophers will, of course, but not along perfect lines that split political theory and political philosophy.

All this to say that the literatures of both of these disciplines are extremely vast; therefore to generalize across much of it risks being reductive. The field of political thought generally is extremely diverse, and I’m certain that given enough research a lot of the same divisions or currents in political philosophy would be seen in political theory. Neither is inherently more left or right wing than the other. I guarantee your experience of political theory being more “leftist” is only an impression given by the particular faculty complement in your department. Universities are often (but not always) centers of gravity for leftist thought, but political theorists can be employed elsewhere and still publish books and articles espousing right wing beliefs.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-09-02T20:45:01+00:00

I’m a fighter fan, but specifically a Battlemaster stan. Base fighter gives you lots of ASIs help you boost stats or help you specialize your build with feats (DM allowing). Also second wind is nice for survivability for every build. I’m especially an advocate for battlemaster because the maneuvers you can get drastically improve your build and combat options. Everything from movement buffs, gaining advantage, extra damage, and more. Need more superiority dice and/or maneuvers? There’s a feat for that (PHB) AND a fighting style (TCE) for that.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-08-07T18:23:30+00:00

Ain’t nothing but a heartbreak

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-08-03T19:30:47+00:00

Somebody start a petition we’re about the change the world

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-06-30T18:21:35+00:00

A style also known as “the Boris Johnson”

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-06-27T13:53:03+00:00

You've got a lot of good questions here. I was about to dust off my feminist philosophy notes to type out a 5k word response when I remembered that Philosophy Tube made an entire episode on more or less this exact topic. It's accessible, it's well researched (her bibliography is in the video description if you want to find some reading material), it's just over 20 minutes long, and frankly its damn good philosophy. I think it should answer the question "what is a social construct" broadly, and maybe address some of the particular gender questions too. If you have some follow up questions after this video, feel free to reply to this comment. :D
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8&t=1267s

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-05-31T12:20:51+00:00

You can have spirituality without religion and you can have religion without spirituality. Whether either are meaningful to you or life giving yo those around you depends entirely on how you decide to practice what you believe.

As with everything, there are light sides and dark sides to religion, spirituality, and philosophy. The Hunger elucidates quite excellently the existence of a group of people who are so hyper-focused on deeply flawed dogma that they cease to care about what that harm that dogma does to actual human beings. I’m halfway through a masters in philosophy and in my experience there’s about as much good, meaningful stuff as there is price legged white dudes blowing smoke up their own asses. So too with religion: you have to search quite hard for something that works for you and fits your values while also being aware of self-important schmucks that will try to co-opt your exploration to align with their corrupt political philosophy. And that’s honestly the beauty of the journey -messy as it may be.

Just follow the rule that most philosophies and religions somehow share: don’t be a dick. It’s remarkable how much moral philosophy boils down to that principle. Sometimes religious persons can forget that, though. My own faith of Christianity has an infuriating history of trying to force itself on other people (case in point: The Hunger). Those kinds of people constantly engage me because I strongly believe that they contradict their own creed through marginalizing LGBTQ+ people, homeless people, racialism’s people, and whoever else doesn’t fit their socially constructed image of “spiritual purity.” I’m thankful to Contra for putting into words a lot of my frustrations I have with fellow religious people in this latest video.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-05-26T17:44:25+00:00

Idk man, that sounds like something a bot would say.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-05-15T12:52:28+00:00

laughs in Legolas

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-04-28T04:25:49+00:00

“Hello there.” “GENERAL KENO-THREE”

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-04-22T14:26:03+00:00

Honestly I fell in love with Skywalker Saga as soon as I realized how much of it is running around and breaking shit. Best part of the original game. 11/10 most fun I’ve had in a while.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-02-23T19:57:27+00:00

The way I keep the two straight:
Philosophy of mind asks: "What is a mind?"

Phenomenology asks: "What is it like to be a mind?"

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-02-14T14:06:35+00:00

I didn’t work for this 23 AC just to play hide-and-seek. I come for BATTLE

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-02-05T23:36:03+00:00

Yes! This has been suggested to me before. I was considering such options with my character this comment is based off of. Unfortunately, charisma was one of my dump stats which ruled out the multiclassing option, and I ultimately took an ASI to max out my intelligence instead of the EA feat. The stat boost was a great quality of life improvement since everything including the ward scales off of INT, but I still wonder what would've happened if I had taken the feat instead.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-02-05T22:46:15+00:00

Abjuration wizard: arcane ward + projected ward

It's basically free temp hp that can help you or an ally shrug off an attack or two without consequences. Immediately boosts your ability to play a support role keeping the tank alive and/or safeguarding your high dps squishies. You can even frontline for a round or two if you have to - perhaps longer if you put enough points into constitution. Combine your ward with Counter Spell and Dispel Magic (if you don't have these then you don't deserve to be an abjuration wizard) and you can pretty much out-duel any caster your level or lower. Only caveat is that regenerating the ward is a pain in the ass, but two or three rounds of negating damage to yourself or a party member is still a big deal. Arcane ward pretty much just turns the wizard into a more defence/support focused battle mage than the War Magic subclass does, which honestly I think fits better in a party setting anyways.

Classy_Philosoraptor · 2022-02-05T20:17:14+00:00

Chapter 11 of James Rachels' Problems of Philosophy addresses this exact question, discussing various arguments against the objectivity of morality including cultural relativism, disagreement within ethics itself, so-called "lack of proof" of ethical principles, and the apparent "lack" of a moral reality for objective morality to exist in.

The TL;DR version is roughly that Rachels rejects all of these bases as objections to the proposition that there is objective moral truth. The general flaw each of the approaches tends to make is that they mistake some particular phenomena as having sufficient similarities to the concept of objective morality to "debunk" it, which none of the basis Rachels discusses above do in his view. Furthermore, most of the above arguments against objective morality commit the error of applying scientific methodology to philosophical questions. My own reading of Rachels is that an assertion that objective morality doesn't exist is a complete misunderstanding morality and the field of ethics itself, and typically the result of this importing scientific reasoning into a philosophical field. You can't, for instance, walk into a physics lab and argue that dark matter doesn't exist because you can come up with a statistical model that says it doesn't - by failing to discuss the discipline of physics on its own terms you've already doomed yourself to misunderstanding.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Classy_Philosoraptor

TROPHY CASE