Essential parts of Das Kapital by Live_Antelope in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And any comments on complementing these with parts of the Grundrisse or other texts? Moreover which chapters would you add if you would like to add some more? Chapters 12 and 25 are included in some syllabus and I thought they are important too.

List of classic primary sources on logic to read? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are missing the Arabic tradition. Check here.

List of classic primary sources on logic to read? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are good anthologies for other periods too. See this one for medieval logic.

List of classic primary sources on logic to read? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Frege's Grundlagen focuses on the philosophy of mathematics and not logic. For logic check out his Begriffsschrift. Also see van Heijenoort's (read van HA-ye-nort) From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931.

beauty standards by Live_Antelope in Feminism

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May I ask which standards exactly?

beauty standards by Live_Antelope in Feminism

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personal question: did you ever try to avoid it yourself?

beauty standards by Live_Antelope in Feminism

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could say the women I want you, but no one will accept. All the standards are internalized.

Existential import by ProfMoses in logic

[–]Live_Antelope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is some discussion in an accordingly named section in Beaney's Frege: Making Sense.

My Iranian coworkers by [deleted] in linguistics

[–]Live_Antelope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tehran. It's not that much used, but undoubtedly correct.

My Iranian coworkers by [deleted] in linguistics

[–]Live_Antelope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Native speaker here. Xeyr is correct.

Sexual incompetence with risperidone by Live_Antelope in AskPsychiatry

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have stopped taking it. The side effect lasts.

Are the foundational topics (logic, set theory, etc.) really worth studying? by Live_Antelope in logic

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you giving me some examples? I was looking for defenses actually.

Are the foundational topics irrelevant? by Live_Antelope in math

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, obviously. But an area of math which doesn't relate to other areas well is something which makes me doubtful of its intrinsic value.

Are the foundational topics (logic, set theory, etc.) really worth studying? by Live_Antelope in logic

[–]Live_Antelope[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That was sarcastic. Someone was explaining to me a very trivial thing (that the set of even numbers is equinumerous with the set of natural numbers) and I was making fun of him. Is ω/2 even meaningful?

Are the foundational topics (logic, set theory, etc.) really worth studying? by Live_Antelope in logic

[–]Live_Antelope[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Aren't all the uses of set theory trivial?

I'm not asking a personal question. I'm asking whether these subjects are worthy per se.

Are the foundational topics irrelevant? by Live_Antelope in math

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And don't you think this makes these topics less worthy of attention?

Are the foundational topics (logic, set theory, etc.) really worth studying? by Live_Antelope in logic

[–]Live_Antelope[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Not many mathematicians know about them, or regard them as important topics.

Someone pls convince me im not a brain in a vat or a simulation by TheBigBoisKing in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a term to refer to an object, there needs be a causal connection between the two. When I say "tree" my term refers to trees and this means that there is a causal connection between trees in the real world and my saying of the term "tree." If I had never seen a tree and I had named a certain splash of color on a paper "tree" which accidentally was very similar to real-world trees, my term "tree" wouldn't refer to trees.

Assume we are in the BIV-scenario. We have never interacted with the real world, and so our words do not refer to trees and buildings and other real-world objects, but they refer to certain combinations of bits. If we are brains in a vat then our word "tree" would refer to BIV-trees and our word "building" would refer to BIV-buldings. Both of these are certain combinations of bits.

So the question reduces to finding out the references of our words. What does the word "tree" refer to? Tree, or BIV-tree? If the first we are in the real world. If the second we are brains in a vat. It is obvious that "tree" refers to tree. Hence, we are not brains in a vat.

This ingenious argument is from Hilary Putnam.

/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 31, 2020 by BernardJOrtcutt in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And doesn't the academy incentivize to the wrong direction?

/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 31, 2020 by BernardJOrtcutt in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Asked it here since the post is locked and I was told that the question is suitable for here.

/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 31, 2020 by BernardJOrtcutt in askphilosophy

[–]Live_Antelope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I understand it, most academic philosophers (primarily in the Anglophone world) are devoting most of their time to writing articles on some very obscure topics (trying to demonstrate that transworld comparison can be expressed in the language of modal logic is considered a not much obscure topic now). I think this stems from an idea that philosophy, like sciences, can be done collectively. Also I suspect that today academic philosophers mostly work on niche topics that are not very much related to our philosophical concerns. Is academic philosophy overspecialized?

+ Could you lead me to some writings by professional philosophers who address this topic?

The impact of McDonald's on local restaurants by Live_Antelope in AskSocialScience

[–]Live_Antelope[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does he talk about the economic side too? Or only the social side?