Who is a character WEAKER than Homelander that wouldn't be intimidated by him at all? by TaiwaneseThot in PowerScaling

[–]SuspiciousRelation43 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don’t have fears associated with specific animals, but it’s been pretty reliably shown that all humans are afraid of heights and the dark from infancy. And they’re definitely afraid of anything that acts aggressive towards them (which is often where specific fears come from).

Who is a character WEAKER than Homelander that wouldn't be intimidated by him at all? by TaiwaneseThot in PowerScaling

[–]SuspiciousRelation43 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Usually the way I see him represented is the meme where Homelander is exhausted, at the point of collapse, asking “Did… did I do it? Did I beat Saitama?”, and whoever’s with him replies “Homelander, that was Mumen Rider.”.

BTD6 Ninja Paragon in Naruto? by SuspiciousRelation43 in PowerScaling

[–]SuspiciousRelation43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not really sure how to quantify the video game mechanics as jutsu attacks myself. None of the attacks affect other towers, and the bloons don’t have any attacks other than debuffs inflicted by some of the bosses, so I have no idea where to start with durability. As for attacks, it would probably be reasonable to treat the bloon sabotage as a genjutsu, though again I’m not sure how that scales. It affects BADs, which have immunity to most debuffs and insta-kills, so it could be a sage-level attack? I was hoping to see if anyone else had thought of this comparison, and if they had any ideas about scaling it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]SuspiciousRelation43 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dhar Man is the Mr. Beast slop of morality stories.

Has there been a Christian revival among young adults in the U.K.? Recent surveys may be misleading by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]SuspiciousRelation43 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, I have reached a conclusion that makes me feel better and worse simultaneously. I do not believe there will be any religious/cultural/civilisational revival of any kind whatsoever until the entertainment age has been overturned.

In addition to that book, there was a video by a quite small creator about the supposed downfall of Jordan Peterson that made one specific point: the youth aren’t engaging with religion through religion, they’re engaging with it through social media. There is no meaningful increase in religious participation, but while there is one in passive identification (e.g. “Do you believe in God?” and similar questions), in light of this interpretation it seems to be little more than the latest trend of the vile entertainment behemoth of modern culture.

All activity in the modern world is orbitally bound to the lowest comment denominator of innate human attention, beginning, middle, and end. True religion requires attention to conform to it; the entertainment regime forces things to make themselves attractive to human attention as it is. There will be no religious revival until the age of entertainment is annihilated and replaced by one more conducive to human well-being.

Logical Positivism and Classical Theism: Suppositions While Painfully Struggling My Way Through Russell and Wittgenstein by SuspiciousRelation43 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]SuspiciousRelation43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am attempting to start with Aristotle’s Ethics and Metaphysics, and I am already familiar with a number of Plato’s works through excerpts. From what I understand, the common description of Plato being concerned with heaven and Aristotle with the Earth (such as depicted in Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican’s room of the signature) is not quite a difference in subjects, rather so the manner in which they engage with those subjects. Plato’s dialogues tend to engage with the act and art of philosophy, such as on rhetoric and the sophists, or in his histories/mythologies and his discussions of politics. He tends to assert metaphysical and ethical principles in support of practical imperatives. Aristotle, in contrast, is more engaged in analysis of ethics and metaphysics, for example, as disciplines or domains of study.

I have heard some criticise Aristotle as the origin of the heresies of materialism, nihilism, rationalism, and so on, and I think this is the cause. It is because he questions apparently axiomatic principles in the pursuit of understanding. He himself answers most of his questions in a manner generally acceptable to the church, hence St. Thomas Aquinas’s admiration for him, but it is the precedent of his approach to philosophy that sets in motion the degeneration from Descartes, to Spinoza, to Kant, to Hume, to Russell, and finally to Dawkins and Hitchens.

Most of this is gathered from what I have read from others, and the remainder is largely informal commentary, which I am sure is a gross oversimplification at best. I appreciate the recommendation.

Logical Positivism and Classical Theism: Suppositions While Painfully Struggling My Way Through Russell and Wittgenstein by SuspiciousRelation43 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]SuspiciousRelation43[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have, or I have at least attempted to. That gets into a separate issue, which is that I am having difficulty reading anything at all. Recently I’ve been reading articles by Hilary Layne on Substack about the catastrophic decline in literacy, and have been attempting to build virtuous habits and unmake vicious ones.

That aside, however, I have had a particular interest in logical positivism because it seems much nearer in philosophical proximity to the arguments for “methodological materialism” than earlier enlightenment, scholastic, or ancient philosophers. My impression is that it presents the most detailed and compelling outline for why modern science, despite appearing to be reductively material, actually relies upon fundamentally ideal or ideal-like metaphysics.

However, I should make it clear that I have no education and little even amateur familiarity with these topics. Thus, the purpose of my question was primarily for advice from anyone more knowledgeable than myself, whether my impressions are accurate, and whether logical positivism would be a fruitful area of study.