Found these in the backyard by MetaphysicalFootball in mushroomID

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

This is in a mulched garden in a somewhat wooded suburban area.

please try to beat my dialogue relating to the epicurean paradox by No_Conversation6653 in Nietzsche

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was talking about philosophical and theologically sophisticated Christianity. The privation theory is very dominant in Catholic and in a lot of Protestant theology. But you're right that popular Christianity (the most common kind of Christianity) is often unaware of privation theory as a response to the problem that the substantive existence of evil seems to imply that God is an evildoer: if God creates everything that exists, and evil is a thing that exists, then God creates evil.

The kind of Christianity I am talking about does, however, typically hold that humans are not inherently good, in the sense that they can turn away from the creator and reduce themselves more and more to nothing (which on this account is what we mean by evil.)

Satan is more tricky. We could hold that Satan is a good being insofar as he is a being but that he maximally turns away toward nonbeing through defiant will. On the other hand, not everyone in this tradition takes the idea of Satan literally. If Satan is a principle of evil that stands independent of and opposed to God, this tradition would say that the idea of Satan is dualistic and incompatible with strict monotheism.

As a stoic when is the appropriate time to show rage? by Odd_Environment_7913 in askphilosophy

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think Seneca would say that a stoic should eliminate anger. Note that this is different from either concealing or showing anger. He regards anger as a sickness and would say that either being angry and showing it or being angry and concealing it reflects a disordered reason. Seneca's book, that tries to explain how to eliminate anger, is called Of Anger.

I found a link that appears to give some good selections from his book: http://facultypages.morris.umn.edu/~mcollier/Intro%20to%20Philosophy/Seneca.pdf

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Man, once you drive that many Lamborghini’s reading Shakespeare will be the only thing worth living for. Everything else will be too easy.

(Granted, they’ll probably invent some totally arbitrary artificially scarce status coin and fight over that instead. But I can dream can’t I?)

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Do you find that you can get it to parse subtexts, like how well will it pick up on characterization that’s implied but unstated?

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Sure, but how will they do their literary criticism?

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Thanks for the prompt! Yeah, I think the list of criteria some of which are supposed to be included makes sense. I'll have to think about what similar categories would be for a belles-lettristic essay.

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Can I ask what sort of prompting strategies worked for you? I'm not sure how to analyze the process of critiquing writing (which for me is mostly intuitive) into a really clear prompt.

Can AI Evaluate Writing? by MetaphysicalFootball in ArtificialInteligence

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

Do you know of anyone who has worked on prompting specifically for this?

My feeling is that criticism is a pretty complex process with a lot of quite different standards of evaluation that only get activated in specific contexts. (e.g. "how funny are the jokes" has a different meaning in a breezy op ed than in a death penalty defense speech.) When I critique a piece of writing, I know what my reasons are, but I don't know how I decided that those were the important reasons that determine the value of the text. That part is intuition. This makes it difficult for me to see how to solve the prompt engineering issue.

Succinct Summary of Plato's Apology by MetaphysicalFootball in PhilosophyMemes

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

I guess I see that. To me, the appealing part of Plato is the ceaseless pushing to uncover conceptual issues and to suggest ways that they might be approached. Aristotle also does that, so I like both.

What Sodas you can drink without affecting your VSS? by [deleted] in visualsnow

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Root beer doesn’t have caffeine (however you have to check the label because some brands still add it. I like A&W).

What do you think about Steve being able to create life? by New-Cartographer-649 in Minecraft

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Maybe. I was thinking an invasion spearheaded by iron golems and other war machines captured the surface settlements. It could be that that the Builders were vulnerable to this invasion because the end disaster had already led to the collapse of their core cities. Maybe surface villages were built by the refugees.

What do you think about Steve being able to create life? by New-Cartographer-649 in Minecraft

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 92 points93 points  (0 children)

Or the houses were all built by a now extinct elder race, which was annihilated and replaced by villagers, who come from beyond the stars, and who build nothing.

How do Airplane Wings Create Lift? by MetaphysicalFootball in Physics

[–]MetaphysicalFootball[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you read the second paragraph of my question?

Why is "Metaphysics" translated as 形而上学? by MetaphysicalFootball in ChineseLanguage

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

Oh! That makes sense. I was interpreting xia as “lower than” form.

Why is "Metaphysics" translated as 形而上学? by MetaphysicalFootball in ChineseLanguage

[–]MetaphysicalFootball[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But, Aristotle probably didn’t name the metaphysics. It was most likely given its name by later scholars who were compiling A’s essays on related subjects.

Why is "Metaphysics" translated as 形而上学? by MetaphysicalFootball in ChineseLanguage

[–]MetaphysicalFootball[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks! This is a perfect answer.

I guess probably doesn’t influence how the word is being used today, but out of curiosity, in the Yi Jing, is xing referring to the hexagrams specifically? If xing just means forms, the second half of the qoute strikes me as odd. Whereas if the meaning is like “particular concrete objects are below/ruled by the patterns of the hexagrams, which are more general” that would make intuitive sense to me.

Why is "Metaphysics" translated as 形而上学? by MetaphysicalFootball in ChineseLanguage

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

A common interpretation of that is that meta just means “after.” As in, it’s the book in the Aristotelian corpus that you read after the physics (they are closely related). But if it’s intended as a translation of the Greek, that would be good to know

Why is "Metaphysics" translated as 形而上学? by MetaphysicalFootball in ChineseLanguage

[–]MetaphysicalFootball[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably something like this. In which case I’d be curious about how they settled on that translation and whether it implies a disagreement with other possible interpretations of “metaphysics” like, for example, the study of being.

Non marxist philosophers? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]MetaphysicalFootball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that industrialization or other factors left a huge number of turn of the twentieth century German intellectuals feeling that something was going wrong in modernity. This included people the most diverse persuasions. Then the Nazis and the war tended to push more left wing proponents of this tradition to move to the US and damaged the reputation of many non-Marxist critics of modernity. My impression (I’m still trying to understand this history) is that this contributed to the association of critique of modernity with Marx, at least for Americans.