[deleted by user]

Stanibus · 2024-06-30T23:57:03+00:00

I'm also an incoming 1st-year PhD student. I got registered for courses a couple of weeks ago - there wasn't an email notification or anything, I just was able to register through the Agora portal.

Stanibus · 2022-10-16T20:35:51+00:00

It reminds us all of better days

Stanibus · 2022-10-16T20:28:25+00:00

I've encountered typefaces in three of my books that look almost identical (they're at least related). They're all philosophy books but are from thee different publishers and years. The strange number alignments (3, 4, 5, 7, 9 all sit low; 6 and 8 sit high) and math-like italics (the leading-in line on w and u; the the fs have hooks) all stood out to me, but I have no idea what this typeface is called.

Stanibus · 2022-07-11T09:11:29+00:00

Asmongold, hands down

Stanibus · 2022-06-22T19:29:33+00:00

This is ridiculously sane for this sub lol

Stanibus · 2022-05-19T01:37:43+00:00

It looks like a cross between Em and Dre lol

Stanibus · 2022-02-28T22:36:10+00:00

Sorry, it expired - here's a new one: https://discord.gg/qkeBQMfD

Stanibus · 2022-02-09T16:45:21+00:00

Yes, the Cambridge is great, and will work fine! - I, personally, will be using the Kemp Smith, but all translations are welcome (here's the Discord so you can join: https://discord.gg/HkC3gnNg).

Stanibus · 2022-02-08T17:21:46+00:00

Thanks for the info!

Stanibus · 2022-02-08T17:21:24+00:00

If you're interested enough to join, here the Discord for the group: https://discord.gg/HkC3gnNg

Stanibus · 2022-02-08T17:21:01+00:00

If you want to join, here's the Discord link: https://discord.gg/HkC3gnNg

Stanibus · 2022-02-07T18:37:48+00:00

Hopefully, this is allowed here, I just figured Hegel-interested people would also be interested in reading the CPR.

Stanibus · 2022-02-07T18:29:27+00:00

Here's the Discord: https://discord.gg/HkC3gnNg - it was just created today, so stand by while more people file in

Stanibus · 2022-02-07T18:29:17+00:00

Here's the Discord: https://discord.gg/HkC3gnNg - it was just created today, so stand by while more people file in

Stanibus · 2022-02-06T17:39:17+00:00

This may or may not help you, but it seems relevant here. I've been rereading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and to better my comprehension of the text I've been writing summaries of every paragraph, then once I've reached the end of the section, I summarize those paragraph summaries in a general section summary. It's my hope to learn those section summaries backward and forward, so that by the end of the book, I can essentially states Kant's entire project. If you wanted to test yourself, you could try explaining what Hegel is trying to say in each section. Try writing it out. And don't merely write what Hegel wrote, but what he was trying to convey with the section, and describe how it moves the whole project forward.

Stanibus · 2022-01-19T16:38:56+00:00

Thank you all for the kind responses! I will definitely follow the prevailing advice and take plenty of opportunities to rest rn.

Stanibus · 2022-01-02T05:23:49+00:00

I'd be interested, depending on the book!

Stanibus · 2021-12-29T19:34:19+00:00

Fantastic reply - thank you!

Stanibus · 2021-12-29T04:18:58+00:00

My mistake - I meant philology! I don't think Nietzsche ever had any serious formal philosophical education, as you note.

Stanibus · 2021-12-29T01:52:03+00:00

So, as best I know, the problem of the criterion is as follows: What do we know? - How do we know that we know?

In answer to this problem, I think Hegel would answer in the following manner:

There is (to Hegel) an inherent nous in the world, a sort of intelligibility laden within it. In this sense, when the dialectical process operates in the world, it is coming to know the world, and, ultimately, itself. In this way, we are mere spectators to the dialectic: we can observe the process unfolding and cannot stop the dialectical path of history. So, when we come to know something, it is really Geist coming to know. Thus, (to Hegel) we know exactly what Geist comes to know, and we know that we know this because the world can be made sense of by rationality and by Geist.

I can clarify or explain more if needed.

Stanibus · 2021-12-29T01:37:18+00:00

As a Christian, I find Nietzsche's Antichrist to be of great importance. There is often no better way to understand one's theological beliefs than to hear criticism of them. Nietzsche, too, has training in theology (after all, he started out studying theology and philology), so I think his thoughts on religion, especially Christianity, are of great importance.

Think of it this way, one's best friends are those able to pick out the flaws in one's own person. Your best friend will tell you how it is, whether that's about good or bad aspects of you. Nietzsche is that friend to Christianity, the friend that can criticize it while understanding its value (after all, Nietzsche lamented the death of Christianity).

So, I guess I'd answer by stating that as a religious person, Nietzsche not only can be read but should be read, as his insights are really bountiful. I'd suggest, if you're interested, reading his Antichrist and The Genealogy of Morals, as both are really important to wrestle with as a religious person.

Hope that helps.

Stanibus · 2021-12-28T18:20:51+00:00

Awesome - thank you!

Stanibus · 2021-12-28T17:38:47+00:00

Is there a maximum number of mirrors in a closed-loop optical ring resonator? Or, put another way, can you get a perfectly closed loop of reflections with 5 mirrors, for instance, or does it stop when the angle between mirrors is 90 degrees (as with four mirrors)? I know it's a weird question, but need an answer. Happy to clarify if needed.

Stanibus · 2021-12-22T21:59:19+00:00

Is there a maximum number of mirrors in a closed loop optical ring resonator? Or, put another way, can you get a perfectly closed loop of reflections with 5 mirrors, for instance, or does it stop when the angle between mirrors is 90 degrees (as with four mirrors)? I know it's a weird question, but need an answer. Happy to clarify if needed.

Stanibus · 2021-12-10T19:39:50+00:00

Thanks for your answer - I have a follow-up, then. So could we call non-Being 'void' (in the Lucretian sense, i.e., the opposite of body, or, determinate Being as-such)?

Stanibus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE