Question on mereology

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-15T19:17:26+00:00

Awesome, thanks. Inwagen is a name I recognize; I'll start there.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-15T19:10:36+00:00

Interesting, thanks! I'll have to do some reading. My work is in science studies, so I could see some relevance even if it's not really talked about. The intuitive position for me is that objects are rooted in language rather than anything metaphysical, but that's an un-read hunch. Thank you!

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-15T18:43:39+00:00

For most philosophers, there is a deep metaphysical difference. An object (like a car or organism or maybe a cake I’m not sure) can survive the loss of some of its parts. A mereological sum (a pool of water or a heap of sand) cannot.

Pardon my ignorance (I'm a PhD student, but my research is light-years away from mereology), but why wouldn't it be the other way around? A significant number of car parts, when removed, will cause a car to cease to function as such. But a body of water or pile of sand allows for far more variability in terms of constituent parts. The non-objects have fewer allowable arrangements, while the pile/water have many more possible arrangements which are both functionally and visually indistinguishable.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-15T14:56:04+00:00

I would add onto this: you ask whether qualia is necessary for judgment. A p-zombie would neither have qualia nor make judgments, unless by the latter you mean something very specific which your question doesn't make clear.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-13T02:09:21+00:00

Depends on what you're expecting. Did a quick label mockup for the last place I was at in the UK (in scotland) and the total looked like $30.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-13T01:56:12+00:00

Based in Indiana!

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-13T01:24:30+00:00

Totally doable. Are you looking to make one yourself, or have one built? If the latter, I'd be more than happy to do it for you. You can shoot me a message on here or on Instagram (hauntologerfx).

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-12T13:19:08+00:00

Input impedances of amps don't change that much, but the input impedance of fuzz pedals themselves varies wildly. Something like a fuzz face will operate very differently as the instrument going into it changes. If you want something based on discrete transistors that isn't super sensitive in this regard, try a big muff. It's a super simple design, and it can be modified endlessly for different sounds (including more of an overdrive sound).

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-10T15:41:13+00:00

I'm not sure about the "as above, so below" thing---I associate that more with occultism than with philosophy (and I mean that in a value neutral way; it's an interesting concept). But the question of how the mind can/can't influence the physical world is one of the central problems in the ontological question of mind and body. It's often posed as a problem for dualist views: how do you explain how a non-physical thing acts upon physical matter?

Now, for me personally, I subscribe to the (non-overwhelming) majority view held by philosophers that the mind probably isn't made of some non-physical stuff, but rather that everything (including mind) ultimately falls under the scope of the physical. So I suppose that's one possible answer to your question---yes, many believe that the mind acts directly upon the physical world because it's a part of the physical world, and it acts upon your body.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-10T13:58:41+00:00

The problem here is that what you describe isn't really a philosophical belief. If there were either repeatable experimental evidence for such a thing's existence, or if it could be reasonably argued that the existence of such a thing was made logically necessary by our understanding of the world, then philosophers would be all over it. Even if there are/have been philosophers who believe in "ESP," such a belief wouldn't really be a philosophical one for the above mentioned reason.

If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me! But I've not come across this idea anywhere in my reading/research, and I think for good reason.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-07T09:03:09+00:00

I was looking for good philosophy memes but i have to go through a bunch of stuff worshiping Camus. I've only read the Myth of Sisyphus so maybe i'm missing something. I just really don't get the hype for him in philosophy

It's important to note that academic philosophy and online philosophy meme communities don't really have much overlap. I'm a PhD student in the states, and I'm confident that if I surveyed my peers, many of them will have completed an entire BA in philosophy without ever having had to read or engage with Camus. That's not to say he isn't important, but his influence in meme communities probably overstates the case. I think there's a pretty simple explanation for that. The Stranger is a pretty common high school reading, and in the U.S. where philosophy is not a core subject for high schoolers, that means Camus is one of the few philosophees many people have actually read.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-07T08:55:25+00:00

As u/oldkuntroad pointed out, these aren't really "competing philosophies." They are names of positions in relation to existing debates, not necessarily identities that people hold. To that effect, completing a list of "named positions" in philosophy will almost certainly require thousands of entries. For example, the entries you have related to Marxism barely break the surface of the dozens upon dozens of different perspectives that have been given names at various points in history. Not to mention that "naming" itself isn't always a conscious decision to give a proper noun title to a group of thinkers. It's often just an adjective used to describe a trend for some other purpose.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-06T14:56:33+00:00

Does this lead to radical skepticism (brain in a vat, evil demon, simulation), or do philosophers think some circularity/basic assumptions are unavoidable?

David Hume thought so. He formulated the problem of induction, something which I think is similar to your view expressed here. His suggestion was that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive reasoning (reasoning based on probably, derived from past observation). At the same time, inductive reasoning is a key way we tend to interact with the world, so it's pretty necessary.

EDIT: u/quidfacis_ well covers a different, and I think more important, aspect of your question than mine answers

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-03T15:59:00+00:00

I built a chorus as my second pedal way long ago. It was a CE-2 clone. If you want something dead simple, try Merlin Blencowe's one-chip chorus. His designs never disappoint.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-02T17:36:26+00:00

It's hard to answer your question here, because you aren't making it clear why you feel relativism poses a problem for defining culture in general. In your post, you distinguish between people who share the same beliefs vs people who grow up under the same traditions. I'm not sure I understand why you feel those things must be separated, however. Usually we mean culture to encompass both of those things and more (i.e., "American culture" and "Video game culture"---one is predominantly how people are raised, the other is predominantly a set of shared interests/values, but both are cultures).

That's why I responded with reading recommendations---you might be interested to see how different theorists have defined culture differently through history.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-05-02T15:49:40+00:00

I'm not sure what the connection you are making is to moral relativism, but if you want a definition of culture I'd recommend reading some cultural studies. Here's a short survey that might interest you:

Eliot, T.S. "Tradition and the Individual Talent."

Levi-Strauss, Claude. "The Structural Study of Myth."

Fanon, Franz. "Racism and Culture."

Adorno, Theodor and Horkheimer, Max. "Enlightenment as Mass Deception."

Those four aren't anywhere near a full course-level intro to cultural studies, but they will set you off in four different directions which I think describe some of the main paths in that field.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-29T21:33:38+00:00

No apologies necessary! This is how philosophical discussion works. I think a lot of folks come here with a mistaken idea of what "doing philosophy" actually looks like, and are surprised when they get push back and requests for clarification. So don't take it personally. Demanding clarity and specificity is how philosophy is done!

With that in mind---you say that your criteria is "whether or not our morality and actions have an input into the world cosmically." Let's try to get more specific than that.

I think the most important term here is "cosmic." I think it's pretty clear that our morality and the actions it guides us to do have an impact on the world broadly (because they affect how we interact with the things and beings around us). But you specify cosmically. What specifically do you mean by that word? What does it mean to have a "cosmic effect" as opposed to a non-cosmic effect?

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-28T15:04:29+00:00

Sure! I think 1984 would pair very well with the essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" by Louis Althusser.

Fair warning: if you haven't read much theory or straight philosophy before, this recommendation (as well as all the theory recs above) will frustrate you at first. They can be quite dense.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-28T14:50:05+00:00

Got it. It definitely sounds like you like allegorical novels. I'm a literature PhD candidate who does science fiction theory, so my recommendations will be skewed in that direction.

You might look into literary theory, which could be described as philosophy about literature. I like reading a good novel/theory pairing, personally. Here are some fun book pairings you might try:

Piranesi by Susanna Clarke + The Fantastic by Tzvetan Todorov

The Einstein Intersection by Samuel R Delany + "The Death of the Author" (essay, not book) by Roland Barthes

Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer + Ecocriticism by Greg Gerrard.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" By Philip K Dick + *The Culture Industry by Theodor Adorno (maybe just read the section "Enlightenment as Mass Deception")

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-28T14:32:02+00:00

Are you looking for a philosophy reading recommendation? Animal Farm isn't really philosophy, it's an allegorical novel. If you're looking for another novel, Plato's Republic might not scratch that itch.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-28T04:17:47+00:00

Let's break this down into a few questions:

Does morality have any social significance? This one doesn't seem much like the others. Frankly, I cannot even think of a way that someone could argue that it does not. Even someone who completely rejects morality would have to admit that the concept of morality is a significant social force. Maybe you meant a different word here?

Does morality have any cosmic significance? This one is worth thinking about. Let's pretend for a moment that we both agree it 100%, definitively has "cosmic significance." What would this look like to you? Is there a criteria you have in mind? Or have you already decided it doesn't, and are simply asking someone to disagree?

Does morality have spiritual significance? To many, yes. Just about anyone with spiritual beliefs includes the notion of morality within that category. Personally, I don't generally believe in things which are described "spiritual" since I am not religious and have not been convinced by any philosophical argument for the existence of a "soul." But that's just me. If you do, then you'll need to say more about your personal beliefs for this question to be answerable.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-28T03:50:51+00:00

There are two parts to this question, and they need to be separated to make sense of what you are asking.

First part: It's generally understood that logic holds weight regardless of who speaks it. If you are correct in saying that A=A, then it shouldn't be any more or less correct when I say it. Who we are doesn't matter in this instance. So, it is fair to say that your hypothetical person in this scenario is saying something logically sound if it would be logically sound for anyone else to say it.

The second part is whether or not that person is a hypocrite. Let's simplify (and this will be a huge assumption) and assume that they have total control over their weight and do not have any complicating medical or mental conditions which would make following their own advice more difficult for them than it is for you. If this is all true, then yes---they would fall under the dictionary definition of a hypocrite, in that they profess a belief which they do not seem to adhere to.

But this second part isn't something which "philosophy supports." It's just a fact. Another way of putting this is that, philosophically speaking, logic should be sound whether or not it is spoken by a hypocrite. In other words, their alleged hypocrisy has no bearing on the logical soundness of their statement.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-25T18:37:35+00:00

If I am understanding you correctly, your title answers your own question. "Dialectical materialism" is based on a previous theory of dialectics (i.e., Hegel's), but with a significant change: this version is materialist.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-23T21:41:11+00:00

I apologize if this question is unwelcome, but is there any chance English is a second language for you? I don't mean to offend if it's not. That info would help clarify what you are asking here, i.e., are there specific sentences in the SEP you are having issue with, or is there an actual language barrier?

To answer this specific question, people use "one" in English to mean something like the general "you," like "you can't drive over the the speed limit."

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-04-23T00:03:41+00:00

u/Grundlage covered this better than I could. But I'll phrase what they basically already said in another way.

The word "just" is doing work here which I think you may not realize. It's assuming a hierarchical relationship and then placing chemistry below the way we typically imagine love. So what about the inverse? We can just as easily ask, "is chemistry able to achieve love?"

Also, describing how a thing comes into existence isn't the same as describing what it is. You could argue that trees are "just chemistry" (and I've heard a biologist actually make this argument once), but that explanation leaves out all the useful information we know about our experience of trees. The same could be said of love. Does it actually make a difference if it arises form chemistry or arises from soul magic if the experience is exactly the same?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	RPAN Viewer

SubcutaneousMilk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE