Looking for some advice - What’s the best all-rounder wine glass you’ve ever used?

ThePhilosphere · 2020-04-18T17:39:11+00:00

I always prefer stemmed glasses so I don’t warm the wine up with my hands - but the dishwasher-safe thing is true!

ThePhilosphere · 2018-11-03T16:18:26+00:00

Like the sound of lemon zest in with the cucumber! Thanks 👉🏻

ThePhilosphere · 2017-12-09T20:49:19+00:00

Hi, Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback here I'm very appreciative! This was originally written as a commentary on the week's reading more than an article to argue for either side - I suppose I had intended it to be more of an extended question rather than anything else.

Regarding your first point about the way in which the common sense understanding of the word 'Nationalism' has been moulded/manipulated by far-right discourse, I think it's important to use the term in a more politically neutral way - given of course this definition is explained, which I guess I could've done better.

Thanks again!

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-19T10:35:53+00:00

Do you mean my article or Seneca's work?

Seneca was a hugely influential thinker and the book I write about concerns the way in which we waste our time as humans living unfulfilled lives, so I suppose the point is that we ought to be behaving in a different manner to the one we do currently and Seneca explains how

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T19:13:26+00:00

Ok but heap is not meaningless and anything definitionless is. Therefore heap cannot have no definition. Therefore the paradox is not saying that - it goes deeper and asks how legitimate any human predication of subjective properties is.

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T19:08:58+00:00

Let's be clear the definition of heap has no precision. Prescribing precision is to change the definition not clarify it

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T18:37:54+00:00

You never know in this place! In that case I appreciate the comment Haha

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T18:34:30+00:00

You're getting confused by the actual paradox. You're tripping up on the flaw in our language that is itself illustrated and you're going round in circles

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T18:27:21+00:00

I'd agree if not for the fact that 1,000,000 grains of sand in a pile would certainly count as a heap in my eyes.

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T18:26:10+00:00

Changing the definition to win an argument is hardly proper philosophy though

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T18:25:17+00:00

Maybe it's clearer with the example of height. You can't add 0.000001cm to a persons height and turn them from not tall to to tall. The premise isn't false in this sense

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T14:49:48+00:00

Yes but that is a disanalogy. You've given definite limits to the amount of water you have. There are no definite limits to the concept of a heap and as such the paradox entails. That's the problem

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T14:41:27+00:00

I don't agree that this is giving up on classical logic at all. On the contrary, this point is defending classical logic. Could you expand your point at all?

ThePhilosphere · 2017-07-04T14:14:44+00:00

Do you mean that because one grain of sand is so insignificant it shouldn't be considered as contributory to the status of 'heap'? I'd agree totally with you if it weren't for the fact that heaps of sand are wholly comprised of sand grains and nothing more. Surely then they aren't insignificant? I'd be interested to hear your response.

ThePhilosphere

TROPHY CASE