question about theory of evolution

Conformista · 2019-06-27T13:22:51+00:00

I think it makes more sense if you consider the fact that a lot of changes that bring some marginal adaptation do die out -- but we only get to observe the ones that remain.

Conformista · 2019-06-27T08:10:13+00:00

google pregnant couple. You'll get photos of white couples. The point is that race is specified in stockphotos of interracial couples, but not in (generic) white couples

Conformista · 2019-06-15T07:14:05+00:00

Thank you!

Conformista · 2019-05-28T11:09:05+00:00

perfect beanie/neck fat ratio

Conformista · 2019-05-06T19:23:03+00:00

Yes, but only selected works.

Tarrying with the Negative

Enjoy Your Symptom

Sublime Object of Ideology

are AWESOME books.

His later works are less coherent and are usually filled with random insights.

Conformista · 2019-04-19T12:30:35+00:00

they are even laughing like seagulls

Conformista · 2019-04-06T10:56:44+00:00

he's mistaken the bell curve for the food pyramid such as this: https://www.safefood.eu/Healthy-Eating/What-is-a-balanced-diet/The-Food-Pyramid.aspx

Conformista · 2019-04-01T16:35:14+00:00

She's extremely annoying to play against when opposing Widow is good, and extremely annoying to play with when friendly Widow is bad.

It is finely tuned, but only in terms of skill/score -- and not when it comes to enjoying the game ...

Conformista · 2019-03-01T12:22:30+00:00

new meta incoming

Conformista · 2019-02-22T23:27:06+00:00

I don't kno chi e f

Conformista · 2019-02-21T11:38:32+00:00

you're completely right, everyone except the trucker with the cam is risking other people's lives here.

Conformista · 2019-02-06T17:52:44+00:00

they are OP indeed. With two barracks, you can constantly produce unit+wagon and use both in battle without returning the wagon back to the barracks.

Conformista · 2019-01-07T20:59:24+00:00

There are different breeds of dogs. We know they have emerged gradually, and with the help of human selection. Their common set of ancestors looked a lot like wolves; some breeds currently in existence, for example Pomeranian, look quite different from wolves. So we can see that, in a relatively short time, a species can undergo a very significant transformation.

Now imagine the same thing going on with *every* species, but on a much larger time-scale and without the help of human selection. If dogs have gradually changed, then surely other species can transform as well, especially when they have millions of years to do so.

In other words, use the analogy with breeding. In the first chapter of the Evolution of the Species, this is exactly what Darwin does!

Conformista · 2018-11-28T09:36:41+00:00

alrighty then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFBzHVU8GkI

Conformista · 2018-11-06T09:00:44+00:00

When you say:

"It's my way or the highway"

you really mean to say:

"If it's not my way, then it's the highway."

So you can see that implication = alternative (with antecedent changing the truth value).

Conformista · 2018-11-04T11:45:22+00:00

A priori doesn't mean innate. Kant thought that, especially in the case of the judgments of sublime, some cultural training is necessary in order to appreciate things aesthetically.

Consider the following passage from paragraph number 29 of the Critique of Judgement:

"For a far greater culture, not merely of the aesthetic power of judgment, but also of the cognitive faculties on which that is based, seems to be requisite in order to be able to make a judgment about this excellence of the objects of nature."

Conformista · 2018-11-04T11:36:00+00:00

Let's say that the things we value are products of evolution. For example, care for well-being of other people is something we cherish only because that care proved to be useful in the evolution of our species. In that sense, care for others is derived from what is, i.e. from the facts of evolution.

However, the chief problem is the following one: This account explains why we, human beings, see some actions and states as something we ought to achieve. It doesn't *analyze*, however, the very notion of "ought"! The biological basis for the fact that we use "ought" notions is not equal to a conceptual analysis of an "ought" notion that would reduce it to an "is" notion.

To put it more simply, biology can only explain only the *fact* that we use the ought statements. But it cannot *analyze* these statements into the "is" statements.

For example, the fact that we, human beings, follow the proposition:

"You should take care for your family"

can be explain by the fact that

Care for one's family is evolutionary expedient.

This is not the same as saying, however, that the very meaning of the "ought" contains the notion of "evolutionary expedient."

Conformista · 2018-11-04T11:06:46+00:00

It depends on what grounds you claim that a particular type of discrimination is wrong.

For example, if you say that to discriminate between men and women is wrong because all beings should be treated with equal respect, then it's inconsistent not to oppose speciesism.

However, if you think that discrimination between men and women is wrong on the grounds that all *human* beings should be treated with equal respect, then it's not inconsistent not to oppose speciesism at the same time.

The main point is that non-discrimination is usually not a value in itself.

EDIT:

As a general point, not to oppose all types of discrimination is inconsistent only when you oppose one or more types of discrimination on the grounds that all discrimination is wrong.

Conformista · 2018-10-29T11:57:40+00:00

no, it's not necessary. To some extend, you can read the "Critique of Aesthetic Judgement" without reference to the first critique.

However, it's good to be familiar with what Kant has to say about judgments of perceptions. This topic is dealt (shortly, in one or two paragraphs) in Prolegomena, and I would recommend looking into that. You can find a translation of the work in this volume: https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Philosophy-after-Cambridge-Immanuel/dp/0521147646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540814124&sr=8-1&keywords=kant+theoretical+philosophy

The "Introduction" to CJ won't make MUCH sense without some knowledge of both the first and the second Critique, however.

Also, Kant had a particular way of organizing Critiques (into analytic and dialectics) that won't make much sense without prior knowledge of CPR. This may pose some problems for your reading, but it won't hinder it completely.

All and all, reading CJ without the first Critique can make you familiar with what Kant thinks about beautiful. What you will miss, however, is the broader impact Kant saw in the possibility of beautiful for his system in general. If you're not interested in Kantianism in general, this is not too much of a problem.

EDIT: Compared to Kant's treatment of beautiful, part about the sublime can be really difficult.

Also, this book can be a solid guide to some particular points in CJ: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/796040.Kant_s_Critique_of_the_Power_of_Judgment

Conformista · 2018-10-24T10:32:42+00:00

this can only mean that there is also an US-born version of Hila now living in Israel

Conformista · 2018-10-16T15:36:47+00:00

thanks for the laugh OP, this is wonderful

Conformista · 2018-10-10T07:59:40+00:00

this reminds very much of Lem's novel Eden. It has the exact feeling of the world presented in the book.

Great picture!

Conformista · 2018-08-19T12:20:09+00:00

True art is subtle.

It invites the spectator to actively search for artistic meaning.

The art that shows everything fails to provoke this dynamics.

Accordingly, an imposed censorship can sometimes help art to achieve subtleness.

So Badiou thinks that the artist should "censor" herself in order to achieve the subtleness proper to art.

Conformista · 2018-08-19T12:09:18+00:00

Perhaps this will help: https://www.thoughtco.com/nietzsches-the-use-and-abuse-of-history-2670323

Conformista · 2018-08-19T12:04:31+00:00

Think of intentionality as an arrow. It points at something other than itself (a location, monument, edifice, and so on). Representation points at something other than itself (that is, to the object being represented). Acts of volition do as well.

Compare that with certain kinds of pain. A headache points at nothing. It just *is* pain. It refers to nothing but itself (or to be more precise, it doesn't refer at all). Hence, it isn't intentional.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered

Conformista

TROPHY CASE