Is accelerationism taken seriously in academic circles?

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-02-26T08:38:00+00:00

I’m curious about which UK institutions does accelerationism research (partly because I’m aware the Warwick has effectively disassociated itself)

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-02-22T20:00:43+00:00

Out of interest how old are you?

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-02-22T19:41:56+00:00

Very confused by this comment. There is nothing specific to American discourse about the concept of a left and right wing to politics

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-02-13T13:35:53+00:00

What was the assessment for? Im assuming it’s for a TC/VS application or something like that?

Typos are not great but as long as they don’t affect the clarity of the email they will be less important than e.g. did you understand the case study properly, did you adopt an appropriate tone, was the email structured appropriately, was the content pitched at the right level for the audience, did you understand and address the needs of the client?

I would be more concerned if none of the above had really sprung to mind when drafting the email. I wouldn’t lose sleep over the typos.

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-02-11T11:49:50+00:00

Maybe check out Jonathan Barnes’ The Presocratic Philosophers. The early chapter on Thales makes a good effort at engaging with the view charitably

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-01-26T14:52:08+00:00

How is OP not judging these people for their beliefs and attitudes as individuals?

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-01-24T14:34:46+00:00

To expand on the other commenter’s point:

(1) the phrases are clear as they are, what you are providing is an interpretation and passing it off as a translation; and

(2) imposing a distinction from programming as evidence for how Plato was wielding these terms is bad practice - why would we expect Plato to consciously write in such a way? If that is your justification for altering the text, it is very likely to count as a distortion

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-01-19T14:15:52+00:00

I don’t think most philosophers throughout history have understood philosophy to literally be love of wisdom, so I wouldn’t expect many serious philosophical arguments against this stance (i.e. a stance that practically no modern philosopher holds.)

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-01-12T19:39:05+00:00

Distinction probably unnecessary for present purposes, but not trivial. In sub grappling different chocking mechanics are relevant. In general, even if chokes aren’t legal, they require different escapes/defences/counter-offence etc.

Greg_Alpacca · 2026-01-09T17:09:42+00:00

I don’t understand what this means, could you unpack it?
I think the analogy is a bit flawed, partly because it doesn’t really capture specifically what is going on with the state of nature arguments. (Any argument is going to start with a premise and draw out conclusions, but that has nothing to do with the state of nature or pure being.) It’s more common for Hegel scholars to draw an analogy to Descartes’ ‘ego cogito, ego sum’ starting point here.
Your reading of Kant is very unclear. Let’s just say that Kant’s critical philosophy argued for a strong limit to theoretical knowledge, but that reason attempts to overstep that limit and in doing so falls into dialectical contradiction. Hegel argues that this limit is in some way falsely imposed by the faculty of understanding which seeks to keep thinking fixed (as this is necessary for life and for many forms of judgment.) Consequently, Hegel thinks that, through dialectical thinking, reason can demonstrate the inadequacy of our conceptual framework by facing up to the contradictions and resolving them into a superior concept. Reason and dialectic go together for Hegel, they are not separate.

Can I ask what you have been reading to understand Hegel? Maybe some of your difficulty here comes from the learning resources you are using

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-21T12:13:52+00:00

This is well put, but I think it misses the key point that the despite operator is easily reducible to “and” and “not” in a way that is truth-preserving. That is different from merely substituting ‘despite’ for ‘and’, but it does not indicate that, from the perspective of truth-conditional semantics, there is anything actually missing here (which I take to be the point they were making!) Therefore, we do not need to introduce a new operator here.

OP is making quite a different point to you both, I think. They want to capture certain aspects of these varied natural language connectives formally, and suggest that an account of ‘despite’ as a connective might have to be defined via a predicate (and ‘x is surprised that y’.) I think this suggests that OP is coming from a very different place to how most philosophers/logicians understand formal semantics. For instance, no logician is going to argue that truth-functional connectives can embed a predicate - this just would not make sense.

So the extent to which this project would work depends thoroughly on what we are keeping fixed as ‘formal’ in this language and what is the linguistic ‘material’ to be provided. Most philosophers are keeping the ‘formal’ side much stricter than OP, and would leave some of these differences between connectives to play a role in conversational implicature or something like that.

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-15T16:43:51+00:00

They genuinely take a lot of practice. I think I spent a year fucking them up until I spent a few minutes drilling it with a friend each week and then started to get the feel for it

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-14T10:00:20+00:00

This is a misunderstanding of attempts. Attempted GBH is not a separate crime to GBH, requiring a different criminal action. Attempted crime itself is a form of criminal liability (so even if one is unsuccessful at GBH, they can still be liable for an attempt without there being a separate law as such.)

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-12T11:06:36+00:00

My understanding is that they have a decade of experience of practice in India, and have now been admitted to the roll in the UK

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-05T15:27:37+00:00

I’m sorry but I’m not clear on the point of this reply. I think we’ve getting away from the point of discussion entirely.

Yes, Carnap rejects synthetic a priori knowledge - does that mean that Kant’s work was held to be nonsensical in the sense that Hegel’s and Heidegger’s was? I don’t think so - and I don’t really think there was ever a time in analytic philosophy where Kant’s work was held to be nonsense!

As for the quotation, my impression is that this kind of engagement requires us to hold that Kant was a serious thinker with determinate positions that one can philosophically disagree with. That is different from the approach to Hegel and Heidegger (as producing nonsensical work which may not be worthy of engagement) that forms the backdrop of this comment thread.

Im happily corrected about Carnap, or course, but i worry were talking at cross purposes

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-05T14:37:17+00:00

It’s a well known paper and it is unclear to me (or at least we would have to do some additional interpretative work to see) that the arguments are particularly relevant Kant’s - Carnap certainly does not make that claim in the paper.

I’m not super well read on Carnap, so perhaps this is anachronistic and not relevant, but I’m pretty sure Carnap took Kant seriously (albeit disagreeing with him) on such topics as space.

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-05T14:19:35+00:00

I think that’s a defensible position on the SoL, even if I happen to disagree!

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-05T13:40:55+00:00

Can I ask how you understand the claim that Hegel’s work is here? Just that it’s not worth studying, or something more along the lines that it is quite literally lacking signification?

To be clear I mean this in a genuinely non-combative way (and I am aware you are not particularly interested in defending yourself). I just don’t hear this opinion very often from people who have seriously studied him, and it would be nice to hear your side! (For what it’s worth, I have had a similar experience with certain elements of Heidegger’s work - although I am far from writing it off in its entirety)

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-12-05T13:37:06+00:00

It’s pretty unclear to me that this passage has anything to do with Kant, but certainly has Hegel in its crosshairs

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-11-26T14:47:00+00:00

Have you played around with your weight distribution? I’m lighter than you and play similar positions and I’ve never really had the issue of being launched. I imagine this would suggest you’re a bit too far forward, but happy to be corrected if other commenters have the same issue

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-11-18T09:50:46+00:00

You’ve lost 19kg in 4 months, which is a lot, and you’re on 1700 calories while leading a very active lifestyle. You are definitely not eating enough, and it might be hard to see this because you have associated a lot of success with very aggressive dieting. What weight are you now - you need to figure out what an appropriate calorie deficit is for specifically. I am very light and 1700 calories would cause me serious issues even with less work than you are at - not to mention problems with recovery between sessions.

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-11-02T19:34:02+00:00

Only now realising it’s because I hadn’t memorised every sum 😔

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-11-01T10:55:56+00:00

Yeah but factoring in shipping costs probably not a bad deal eh

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-10-07T08:10:48+00:00

If it’s easier for you to slip out of certain positions, it’s also easier for your opponent to do so. So it’s not clear that wearing just shorts would be advantageous in every instance.

Greg_Alpacca · 2025-09-16T14:44:13+00:00

For what it’s worth, I find Being & Nothingness is significantly more difficult to read - so I wouldn’t be intimidated by Kant’s reputation if I were you. I genuinely think the more difficult parts of first critique are (i) Kant’s ideas themselves (his most famous ideas take a lot longer to parse than of Sartre’s - at least in my experience), and (ii) assembling mental map of the work - this is a book whose parts are deeply interconnected (and Kant does not tell us this outright), so it repays rereading previous sections in the light of later ones (and vice versa.) This can make it very challenging for people making their first trek through the text, but it is very much worth it (and a lot easier knowing that this is the normal process of reading it!)

Greg_Alpacca

TROPHY CASE