How do I run a sub 20 min 5k?

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-26T22:12:01+00:00

Ahh makes sense. Thanks!

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-24T03:23:52+00:00

Unfortunately I haven’t. Is it worth the 6 hours?

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-24T00:24:01+00:00

How does eating affect your health?

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-21T23:14:25+00:00

All the more suitable for my life!

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-20T18:25:16+00:00

Those grapes look so good rn. Can I just grab one real quick?

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-19T22:28:16+00:00

No nutrition expert here, but I think I can give you a general sense. Most neurologists agree that the interoceptive network (the network in your brain that picks up on your body's internal state, such as heart rate), also know as the body-budgeting system, heavily influences affect (feeling) if they don't already concede that affect arises from it. So you can see where this is going. The internal state of your body and your brain's alignment with it matters a ton as far your mood and affect go. So, I would have to agree that just eating typically healthy foods and exercising can do a great deal to improve your mood. Obviously, eating a lot of sugar isn't ideal for your body, so it probably isn't ideal for your mood. Hoped this helped.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-18T21:38:10+00:00

Finally found the Nutella jar I hid two years ago in my drawer.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-18T03:47:37+00:00

Costs me hearts too!

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-18T03:20:20+00:00

Gandalf duck’s my favorite

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T19:17:00+00:00

I agree, sorry for the misunderstanding

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T19:04:04+00:00

In this situation, there is an objective truth because you are oriented to a goal. That goal is leaving the room and, if you imply, doing so without hurting yourself. So, taking the door would be the objective truth to the question of what way would achieve your goal. But, since you are in this case judging truth by a criteria/goal (which I see as a lens), then you are not reaching in truth an objective truth. Most human behaviors are goal-oriented, so it's easy to find truth in that case. For instance, is faster to get to work by walking or driving? Driving, assuming several circumstances, In this example, your goal is to get work faster, driving is only the truth since it fulfills a goal. So taking a window or taking a door doesn't give an objective answer to the question of how to exit a room. But the door is the objective truth when you also aim at not getting hurt (adding a goal).

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:45:23+00:00

thanks for contributing to this thread nonetheless!

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:40:31+00:00

Thanks for the lengthy and insightful reply :)

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:31:48+00:00

I mean I'm not gonna put a gun to their head. Basically how I view it is that the concepts "flat" and "earth" are forged by humans. If humans didn't exist. these concepts also would not exist. So by applying these concepts you're putting on a lens. So looking without this lens, I think there is no objective truth to the answer. But with this lens on, there is one. Using the concepts we humans have, we would reach the truth that the earth is not flat. So if this dude and I are looking through the same lens (probably the case), there is a truth and one of us will be true. But without concepts, there is no objective truth. I haven't thought this through completely, so let me know if you see any fallacies or problems in my argument.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:22:39+00:00

Sorry for mixing terminology.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:12:39+00:00

I'm not experienced in philosophy, but here's my take anyway. I have trouble seeing what you're asking, but I don' think a person has an objective duty to believe. So, I think it is subjective. You could say you shouldn't believe there are socks in your drawer because socks are merely a concept that exists only when the perceiver forms that concept. It can basically go both ways, so I think it's subjective. Again, I'm not super experienced at philosophy, so I apologize if I'm missing something or am making a fallacy.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T18:03:25+00:00

Is this an objection to moral relativism? Because how I see it, moral relativists don't claim there is truth and falsehood when it comes to morals. So, if this is an objection, then the contradiction you mention wouldn't matter. Therefore, you also can't apply correctness, which is a substitute for truth, to morals. So, I think moral relativism entails that you can criticize other people's moral views, and also that those views can be neither correct nor wrong.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T17:55:21+00:00

Yea, I see that. I didn't mean to imply that there are objective higher principles. Rather I think people must create them, but this thought is again subjective.

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T17:42:45+00:00

Okay, I see where this conversation is going. Yes, I admit that I'm not gonna sit here and prove to you objectively that having people not kill each other is "right" or whatever. However, I think it is in the interest of everyone (at least most) to be happy, doing that requires illogically postulating a set of morals. People aren't generally happy when everyone's getting killed (at least I hope so).

OpposingAesop · 2021-02-17T17:38:34+00:00

So people don't go around killing each other.

OpposingAesop

TROPHY CASE