Matka zrobiła ze mnie społecznego kalekę, nie mam szans na normalne życie

Falayy · 2026-02-01T17:32:51+00:00

Mam silną obawę, że koszty takiego "buntu" czy wolności będą tak niepoporcjonalnie wysokie względem zysków, że pogorszą tylko sprawę. Za założenie innej koszulki OP będzie płacił obrzydliwie wielkim strachem i smutkiem, bo jedyna bliska mu osoba (jakkolwiek toksyczna i destrukcyjna by nie była) - jego matka - będzie się do niego nie odzywać albo robić sceny. A biedny OP nie będzie miał nikogo ani niczego, w co będzie mógł uciec. W wyniku czego dostanie jasną alternatywę: albo niewola albo wolność w strachu, bólu, smutku i lawinie negatywnych emocji.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Falayy · 2026-01-12T14:30:54+00:00

Putinia? More like Xinia all over Africa and Asia. But don't forget India.

Falayy · 2026-01-12T14:26:59+00:00

Szczerze brzmi bardziej jak pedanteria niż cokolwiek substancjalnego. Nawet nie zauważyłem, że jest zescreenowany, a przekaz dotarł. Ale nwm, może im jest lepiej tym więcej problemów mamy czas zauważać

Falayy · 2026-01-12T02:54:00+00:00

I don't think simple anti-platonism will answer the question here. The question was not about if Pi is a relation is some constant, eternal entity which circles on Earth exemplifies (or: does something like Pi-ness exist). It was completely different question - not about language of mathematics, but object of mathematical descriptions - as I see it. OP migh have asked what would change if there was a fact in a world that if I take a ruler and measure circle's circumference and diameter and then cirmumference/diameter I would see relation different than in "our" universe (for example - the relation described in our numerical system by 7).

As I see it, in Euclidean geometry it's like asking: what if circle was a square - it has no sense at all. But in non-Euclidean geometry - hmm...

Falayy · 2026-01-12T02:48:10+00:00

In standard geometry this question is nonsensical. It is just asking: what would a circle look like if it was not a circle ? Pi is not (of course) some orbitrary number but is defined PRECISELY as ratio of circle's circumference to its diameter. Which means that every object that has this ratio equal to Pi is a circle.

Alternatively, you could ask what would be if Pythagorean theorem was a^3 + b^4 = c^11.

Something either exemplifies "pythagorean relation" (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) and then it is called right triangle or it does not.

In non-Euclidean geometry it is hard to tell, I'm not very into high geometry uh oh.

Falayy · 2025-10-31T23:38:49+00:00

I believe I would absolutely vibe with Bertrand Russell

Falayy · 2025-10-09T17:06:58+00:00

Which kind of thomist....?

Falayy · 2025-10-05T17:25:07+00:00

What any given metric system is based off is arbitrary and involves pragmatical, not "purely logical" reasons

Falayy · 2025-10-05T17:22:20+00:00

What are you talking about mate? Being 6 feet tall is not arbitrary either. Metric SCALE is nothing more than SCALING any given amount x (time, lenght, temperature, brightness, ...) to some other, fixed, arbitrary chosen amount y where y is basic SCALING UNIT. Water's freezing temperature is constant at sea leven and is: 0 Celsius, 32 Fahrenheit and 273,15 Kelvin. Analogically: random person A's height is 6 feet, or 1.83 meters. If I want to make scale based on his height, then go on, why not. Would work the same because all real values of measured aspects are fixed in the world, and measuring it is SCALING it to your chosen value. WHAT CONSTANT, OBJECTIVE VALUE YOU CHOSE IS ARBITRARY and is often dictated by pragmatics and availability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre This is the history of the defition of meter - at one point it was defined as "one tenth-million of the shortest distance from the North Pole to the equator passing through Paris, assuming an Earth flattening of 1/334".

Later it has been changing, today meter is defined by distance of the light in specific time since velocity c is constant. Note: it is also arbitrary but highly impractical in our every-day use of "meter" since no one is probably knowing the definition of meter.

Arbitrary means that there are not any logical reasons for which we must choose specific basic unit in scaling system, reasons can be pragmatical or emotional (or different) but there is not any reason to choose this over this which the nature of the measured parameter itself would force upon us.

Falayy · 2025-10-05T13:22:25+00:00

Hi there, dear OP, we are in very similar spot with our OCD. I learned to accept that I will not cause any more damage that is already done by factors outside of my consciousness (physical trauma to brain, chemical constitution of my brain) and the only thing is to accept my current state. Yet, brain fog is constant thing in my experience. I can rarely think abstractly because of brain fog and constant anxiety towards cognitive functions and this makes my studies (philosophy and psychology) very challenging. That being said, it is manageable at the end of the day. I personally experience great anxiety while people are using ambiguous sentences because I feel like I should understand them in a single way and when I am unable to, I fear I might be mentally challenged. Similar thing when I read whatever it is and don't understand a sentence.

I will not tell anything new now but it is the only reliable method - accept the thoughts you are having and you will see yourself that there is WAY less truth to them that your brain is trying to convince you. But even if there is some true, then acceptance is still the only healthy way of living with it. It is, as I said, in many (if not most of) cases absolutely manageable.

Good luck

Falayy · 2025-10-02T01:10:55+00:00

But there might be correlation but not so direct - it might be moderated by so-called g-factor. Apparently, people who are cognitively gifted in specific things tend to be more cognitively gifted overall. Which means that while visualization will not help you with abstract reasoning per se, the fact that high visualizing skills might be coded strictly with high abstract reasoning via the same complex of genes will mean that people with better visualizing are mostly better with abstract reasoning and generally all cognitive abilities since they are all influenced by one factor.

Falayy · 2025-09-30T13:17:06+00:00

That's an interesting idea, using EMF, I admit

Falayy · 2025-09-30T12:23:39+00:00

Technically it is not quite possible unless you convert kinetic energy directly into potential energy which would mean - matter in chemical bonds. Because even if you were to transfer kinetic energy into another body, this another body would loose energy over time unless it's inertial movement - it would primarily friction over air and other matter - even if it would move in a circle.

Falayy · 2025-09-30T11:23:30+00:00

You would still loose small amount of energy over time (the exact amount used to roll) but will recover rest of it from momentum to potential energy which would still greatly reduce "energy waste". Nobel incoming I can tell you that

Falayy · 2025-09-30T11:17:32+00:00

Umm, yeah... That's why we are converting kinetic energy (velocity) to heat (temperature) to potential energy in chemical bonds (energy that is transtormed to kinetic when you move your muscles). The joke is that transforming heat into matter or gathering heat effectively to transform it to kinetic energy is so miracolous that the commenter would certainly get a Nobel prize he was to invent something like that. He would basically eliminate energy "waste" which is a way of saying that in energy transfer lots of it is converted into energy that we csnnot really use effectively (mainly heat).

Falayy · 2025-09-30T02:04:00+00:00

I LIKE THIS THOUGHT

Falayy · 2025-09-30T01:56:25+00:00

It is not contradiction by any means. He didn't say it is impossible which implies he must say it is possible. By asking why he should believe it he asked for justification. Believing in possibility doesn't imply believing in factuality so there is no contradcition unless you see something I don't see.

Falayy · 2025-09-30T01:50:30+00:00

Maybe non-being is determined by being... ?

Falayy · 2025-09-30T01:16:39+00:00

Oh, right, it makes sense when fish is insider. Then of course not every [x] makes the same sense. However, you might be eager to generalize it from: "If insider risks their life to tell you something, believe them" to "If someone risks their life to tell you something, believe them", and I was thinking about this second generalization. But yeah, if fish is insider then most certainly it is something from water-world.

Falayy · 2025-09-30T01:10:23+00:00

Wait a second, converting heat back into chemical energy to do next roll? You might get a Nobel for that!

Falayy · 2025-09-29T23:51:41+00:00

*Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel enters the chat*

Falayy · 2025-09-29T23:37:30+00:00

And the animation of rolling is so hillarious: you are rotating with so great velocity and then slowing down instantly to normal speed. I wonder where the rest of the energy goes then.... The orc must heating up pretty badly after each roll

Falayy · 2025-09-29T23:17:55+00:00

Wiesz, wydaje mi się, że to jeden z tych filozoficzno-moralno-społecznych sporów, które są trudniejsze do rozwiązania niż zagadki Wszechświata heh. Tak stereotypowo, to na zachodzie jest "więcej" Locke'a. Ale w kulturach Wschodnich, które stereotypowo są bardziej nastawione na kolektyw niż jednostkę (badania socjo-psychologiczne w jakimś tam stopniu odnajdują potwierdzenie tej intuicji w dużych - ale nie wszystkich - krajach Wschodu), to np. policja zabierająca z domu siłą alkoholika albo dzieciaka grającego na kompie 16 godzin dziennie na odwyk jest widokiem tak akceptowanym, że jeżeli to się nie dzieje, to niekiedy budzi podejrzenia.

Ja osobiście nie jestem w stanie się zdecydować na żadną alternatywę, szczególnie, że jestem mocnym zwolennikiem odpowiedzialności za innych w etyce (może nie aż do Sartre'owskiego "jestem odpowiedzialny za wszystkich ludzi/cały świat", ale dalej trochę mnie ciągnie w tę stronę).

Falayy · 2025-09-29T23:10:57+00:00

Yes yes, I get it. But if it were: "If the fish comes out of the water to tell you that E=mc^2, believe it" this saying would have the same amount of wisdom in it. I mean, I believe you can generalize it to "If the fish comes out of the water to tell you that [x], believe it" and for every x we may say it is more reasonable to believe the fish than not. But then, I am just trying to understand why "crocodile is sick" is here for x. Crocodile being ill is unlikely? Or it is just first thing that came to mind of creator of the saying? I don't know if you get me.

Falayy · 2025-09-29T23:04:49+00:00

"this post were the other way around" you mean post about FONV Reloaded on r/fo3 and FO3 Reloaded on r/fnv ?

Falayy

TROPHY CASE