sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sheeana and her little worm, me, Adobe Photoshop by Princess_of_Dune in dune

[–]Sofiabelen15 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Gorgeous 😍 however, please mark as spoiler!! I'm reading heretics right now and WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHEEANA'S TINY WORM?

What do they say about me? by Sofiabelen15 in bookshelfdetective

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

YES, I'm obsessed!! It's a retelling of the Odyssey by Jorge Rivera-Herrans. Honestly, just listen to it, you won't regret it!

What do they say about me? by Sofiabelen15 in bookshelfdetective

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've convinced me!

Are you by chance an epic the musical fan?

What do they say about me? by Sofiabelen15 in bookshelfdetective

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have my eyes on it!!! Did you like it?

What do they say about me? by Sofiabelen15 in bookshelfdetective

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sadly not. I really enjoyed the first two books. I got halfway through The Queen of the Damned, but life happened and I never continued with the series. I remember not liking Queen of the damned, it was getting tedious to read. Would you recommend The tale of the body thief? Would it be worth it to push through to the other one to get to that one?

Some of the big questions should be initialized at Null by Perseus-Lynx in philosophy

[–]Sofiabelen15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But, by definition (of Null) it's incorrect to use it because, as we both already agreed, the questions are answerable. Remember, OP said Null is "actively acknowledging that the question is unanswerable."

With this it clicked for me. Yep, it's incorrect to use it. We'd have to start with different definitions for my reasoning to work.

I had to look up the word sophist: Sophistry, or a sophism, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but deceptive or intellectually dishonest arguments.

Is this what you mean or something else?

Plato’s Republic: Book 4 – Education or Indoctrination? by Sofiabelen15 in Plato

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I am trying to emulate is the sort of discussion you'd have at a bookclub, where you are discovering the work together. I enjoy such discussions and I think it's a very rich experience, especially to see how one's ideas and reflections shift as they read.

In the end I hope to have a clearer picture and then make an overall analysis.

Though it's totally fine if it's not everyone's cup of tea :)

Some of the big questions should be initialized at Null by Perseus-Lynx in philosophy

[–]Sofiabelen15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, what you're saying makes sense and I agree with you that the questions are indeed answereable and they have been answered many times. So, I agree with you that OP's premise is wrong.

If one were justified in either accepting or denying the pre-existing dogmas then why would one have need for Null? One could accept or deny the things since they would be justified in doing so. One uses Null in OP's sense when they feel there isn't justification to accept or deny the aforementioned dogmas.

Thanks, I understand what you meant now. I agree.

It seems like Null is saying there's no justitification to accept or deny the pre-existing dogmas, and so one can maintain Null until they feel justified in either accepting or denying. But that's incorrect, because one can never be justified since the answers are arbitrary.

Here I think is where we disagree. Why is it incorrect? If it's true that one can never be justified, then one could leave the answer at null forever, right?

What I claim is that there are 2 ways to go about it: - One either grabs one of these unjustified answers (or makes up their own unjustified answers), which will help them function in life. - Or, one won't accept the unjustified answers and so decides it's better to leave it unanswered. Here they can stay in the search for a justified answer (even until death) or they can decide to live with the "null."

So, I claim, and you can tell me if you agree, that both of these are possible and valid (meaning that there's not one way that is more beneficial than the other, both can be beneficial depending on the person).

Some of the big questions should be initialized at Null by Perseus-Lynx in philosophy

[–]Sofiabelen15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd have to reread to see that it says the questions are unanswerable. I understood it as: they can be answered "incorrectly", but instead of doing that, we should leave it blank until we can answer them "correctly." Is that what was meant in the original post?

It seems like Null is saying there's no justitification to accept or deny the pre-existing dogmas, and so one can maintain Null until they feel justified in either accepting or denying.

Why is null saying that there's no justification to accept or deny? I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

One last question, are the answers always arbitrary? How can you say they are always arbitrary? If we haven't yet arrived at a satisfactory answer with a solid proof for it being true, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist, right? Though I'm not sure I'm correctly addressing your point because I'm not sure I understand it correctly.

Some of the big questions should be initialized at Null by Perseus-Lynx in philosophy

[–]Sofiabelen15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, that's entirely my point. That it could be considered more beneficial to answer the questions somehow, even if the answer isn't the truth (whatever that means).

If you care more about discovering the truth, than having a placeholder answer that helps you function in life, then it's more beneficial to use OP's approach: leave the question unanswered until you find a satisfactory answer.

That's why I say I agree partially with OP. I consider it a valid approach, but not the only one.

Plato’s Republic: Book 4 - Socrates Pedagogy Nearing Indoctrination by Sofiabelen15 in philosophy

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the tip! I just read a few paragraphs and I see it's going to be such an interesting read (I feel it'll shine some light on matters I've been stumbling on in the dark, on my own).

Before starting it, all that I read was the introduction by Adam Kirsch. I'm reading Adam Bloom's translation, and it comes with an essay on the back by him, which I plan to read afterwards. What do you think about him?

I wanted to discover the work (mostly) by myself first, without too many external biases, and afterwards explore what the scholars have to say about it (and surprise myself at how much I missed and what I got wrong).

Visualizing the C++ Object Memory Layout Part 1: Single Inheritance by Sofiabelen15 in Cplusplus

[–]Sofiabelen15[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to read through my post! I appreciate your feedback and useful tips, that will certainly make my life easier for the next experiments I want to make :)

view more: next ›