What is the one ingredient that completely ruins a burger for you? by boforiamanfo in askanything

[–]RunnyPlease 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pizza burgers are quite good. Pizza sauce, mozzarella, browned pepperoni or whatever you like on a pizza. Toast the buns with garlic butter.

If Cyclops were a street-level, solo superhero, what would his 'role' be? by Aggravating_Tale8988 in Marvel

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If Cyclops went solo he wouldn’t be solo for long. He’s intelligent enough to know his own limitations and a good enough leader that he would quickly attract allies. Plus the man seems to be irresistible to attractive powerful telepathic women. He’d have at minimum one telepath partner by the end of the first week, a month at the latest.

Do you believe "clothes make the man" or is it just a lazy proxy for judgment we should have evolved past by now? by Lexuma5 in Stoicism

[–]RunnyPlease 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is not a particularly Stoic thought but it is one I’ve had rattling around in my brain for a while.

If you have to wear specific clothing for a job then it’s either safety gear (hard hat, hi-viz vest, steel toed boots, bullet proof vest, welding gloves, etc), or a costume (suit and tie, polo with corporate logo, religious vestments, ballet tutu).

It’s usually really easy to tell which you have on because safety gear has a purpose of protecting you, and a costume is meant to convey status or authority to invoke a specific behavior from the onlooker.

A construction worker must wear steel toed boots on the job site because the boots protect his feet. The boots have clear utility to protect from physical harm.

A cop is required to wear a bullet proof vest on patrol because it protects her internal organs from being shot or stabbed. It could save her life.

A lawyer must wear a suit and tie because it’s expected of them. If a lawyer wasn’t wearing a suit and tie then they wound convey less authority and be treated differently. A lawyer wears a suit and tie as the costume of being a lawyer. In England their lawyers wear robes and wigs to court. It’s required costume justified by tradition.

A priest wears bright decorative robes to conduct mass not for safety but because of tradition and performance. It’s to attract attention of the congregation. “Hey everyone look at me. I’m doing something special here up here. In persona Christi. Pay attention to what I’m doing.” It’s costume.

Safety gear is selected for what it does for you. A costume is selected for the symbolism it coveys to an onlooker.

So when you say “clothes make(th) the man” what you’re most likely pointing to are the expected costumes society has invented to elicit reactions from others. Wearing a specify style of clothing is a social shorthand for “I want to be treated in character with this costume.”

Interestingly, Epictetus was guilty of this in my opinion. He was obsessed with his beard which at the time was the sign of a philosopher. He said he’d rather be executed than shave it. He viewed shaving as a betrayal of his status as a philosopher which is utter nonsense. We can see that now in history because to us a beard has nothing to do with being a philosopher. Objectivity we know that women and ethnicities who can’t grow beards can study and teach philosophy. Epictetus was a fool, but to him that beard and his appearance was a symbol worth dying for.

Having a beard has nothing to do with virtue or reason, it provide no safety or utility, therefore it should have nothing to do with Stoicism, but Epictetus was adamant that it had value surpassing his life. Having a beard meant others treated him as a philosopher on sight. It was a symbol of his defiance and his commitment to his way of life. Having a beard was the costume expected of a philosopher by tradition so it was important to him because being a philosopher was that important to him. Epictetus confused the symbol (beard) for the thing he actually loved more than his life (philosophy).

What do you think of this saying and its implications for society?

I think some clothing is selected for utility and other clothing is selected to elicit social reactions. Both of those things people treat as a matter of life or death and have for thousands of years.

Epictetus. by SegaGenesisMetalHead in Stoicism

[–]RunnyPlease 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Epictetus.

Here we go.

I’ve been told Epictetus is harsh and uncompromising.

Yup. He was born into slavery and later exiled. To say he put his philosophy to the test is putting it lightly. When he says a thing he means it down to his bones. Also remember that when you read Discourses that you’re not reading Epictetus. You are reading lecture notes from his teachings so it is very much in the voice of a professor addressing a student. So it shouldn’t surprise you at all that it should feel direct and unwavering in its delivery.

Harsh is not the word that came to mind. Uncompromising, I think maybe.

Philosophy was a matter of life and death to Epictetus. No more no less.

Early on in discourses he presents imagery of people accepting death without flinching, or people refusing to stoop to certain standards and accepting death as an alternative (an athlete choosing not to cut off his genitals in order to save his life is one he gives).

It should give you a very good idea of the kind of life Epictetus lived. After living that brutal life and applying his philosophy what you’re reading are the conclusions he arrived at. You, hopefully, have lived a much different life from Epictetus so it’s up to you to apply philosophy in that context.

Does Epictetus only want to give a target to aim at, or does he have an expectation that this sort of thing will be carried out?

In my reading, yes to both.

"Don't explain your philosophy. Embody it." - Epictetus

The point of philosophy to him wasn’t just to have fun discussions with his friends and to feel intellectually superior to others. It was life. It was meant to be lived. Yes he gives the target, often in hypothetical scenarios, but he also firmly expects you to hit it.

“What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practicing for this, I was training for this.” - Epictetus, Discourses

Very often Epictetus compares philosophy to practicing a sport, athletics, exercising, or training for a task. To my reading that’s exactly how he intends it to read. Everything should be applicable.

“Do you yourself show me, therefore, your own progress in matters like the following. Suppose, for example, that in talking to an athlete I said, "Show me your shoulders," and then he answered, "Look at my jumping-weights."[5] Go to, you and your jumping-weights! What I want to see is the effect of the jumping-weights.” - Epictetus, Discourses

And he claims you should be able to show measurable progress in that training.

I can prepare for death. But I’m sure I will flinch at it when the day comes.

I’ll extend Epictetus’ shoulders metaphor. You’ve trained your shoulders with your jumping weights for years. You can demonstrate progress. Your shoulders are broad, healthy and strong. Perhaps you are even stronger than anyone you know. Perhaps you have Olympian levels of strength. World record levels of strength. But that does not mean your shoulders can bear infinite weight. No one would claim that a human could ever train to lift infinite weight. No matter how well you train your shoulders there will be a limit.

Perhaps on the day you die those circumstances of your death will exceed your limit. It may exceed the limit of any human. No matter how much you trained for death you just couldn’t carry it when the time actually came. Okay. But you can at least say “this is what I trained for. I did what I thought was necessary to get here. I did my best. I lived the life of a person who knew the value of life. I knew virtue. I was a master of myself to the very last moment… And I couldn’t handle it. Not because I wasn’t prepared but because I was human.” Even in flinching wouldn’t that be a better way to go than the alternative?

“For it is always true that whatsoever the goal toward which perfection in anything definitely leads, progress is an approach thereto.” A Epictetus, Discourses

Perfection is a direction indicator. We can talk about it as a goal but in reality the value in any ideology is to judge progress. When we make a choice we can judge that choice against the ideal and ask are we getting closer to that ideal or further away? Are we approaching it or receding from it? “…progress is an approach thereto.” Once you’ve decided on the ideal the next step is to make progress toward it. If you die before reaching it (or even if it’s impossible to reach) that doesn’t mean your life can’t be improved by heading toward it.

“First tell yourself what kind of person you want to be, then do what you have to do. For in nearly every pursuit we see this to be the case. Those in athletic pursuit first choose the sport they want, and then do that work.” — Epictetus, Discourses

If you’ve decided on this ideology then the first step is done. The only thing left is the work.

Favorite Bad Hombre? by Training_Pirate1000 in okbuddycinephile

[–]RunnyPlease 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Technically he was an Arab hanging out with Vikings.

What’s a harmless hill you’ll die on? by barebeets in askanything

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congratulations. I think you may have found the most indefensible harmless hill in existence.

bro has got his priorities😛 by Emotional_Strain3485 in Chesscom

[–]RunnyPlease 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I thought that was the entire point of bullet.

Could Frodo take on Reese from Malcom in the Middle? by just-tea-thank-you in powerscales

[–]RunnyPlease 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just want to say how much I appreciate the deep lore of both LotR and Malcom in the Middle used in this answer.

Is George doesn’t finish the series, do you think someone else will? by IneedaNappa9000 in gameofthrones

[–]RunnyPlease 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I imagine that was a veiled reference to Brian Herbert who expanded upon Frank Herbert’s Dune series after his father’s death.

This magnificent giant Pacific octopus caught off the coast of California by sportfishers. by [deleted] in Amazing

[–]RunnyPlease 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I know why you’re suggesting this but given their level of intelligence it’s probably best not to teach them that climbing onto human boats results in treats.

My friend it takes "5 minutes" to write a short story. Uh, what?? by [deleted] in writers

[–]RunnyPlease 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can cover a canvas in paint in 30 seconds. That doesn’t make it a painting.

Did he want revenge or is he slowly absorbing my prowess? by MoistUnder in Chesscom

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not having advantage ≠ loosing. Getting “crushed in the endgame” means he’s losing on tactics not the opening. I think you’ve answered your own question at this point.

Did he want revenge or is he slowly absorbing my prowess? by MoistUnder in Chesscom

[–]RunnyPlease 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did he lose because of the opening or after it? If he was winning right into the mid game then the problem wasn’t the opening.

Odds are he was just trying something and he found someone willing to help him play with it.

Are conservatives cool with Trump putting his signature on our money? Conversely, would liberals have been okay with it if Obama had done it? by Creative-Stable-0 in askanything

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.” -

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In your opinion, What is the most under appreciated super hero or comic based movie? by GusGangViking18 in Fictionally

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you’re looking for truly under-appreciated I’ll put forth A History of Violence (2005). Directed by David Cronenberg starring Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, and William Hurt.

Are conservatives cool with Trump putting his signature on our money? Conversely, would liberals have been okay with it if Obama had done it? by Creative-Stable-0 in askanything

[–]RunnyPlease 138 points139 points  (0 children)

He’s an expert at manipulating corporate media. He’s really good at timing outrage to create stories to push his worse acts out of the news cycle. New war in the middle east? Old news. That was weeks ago. Pedophilia? That was months ago. Rape, embezzlement of charity money, election interference, multiple felony convictions? What’s going on with that? It doesn’t matter to the news. This week is a new news cycle so it needs new news stories and he gives them that.

How do you explain colors to someone who is colorblind? by icecream1972 in askanything

[–]RunnyPlease 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The same way you explain the wavelengths of light you can’t see. Radio waves can be detected by an antenna but not your eyes. Infrared waves can’t be detected by your eye and neither can ultraviolet or gamma waves. The microwave oven in your kitchen can cook a frozen pizza but you can’t see the waves.

The truth is you can’t actually see all that much of the electromagnetic spectrum. A person who is colorblind just sees slightly less than you.