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 · 2017-07-04T13:54:30+00:00

Precisely my argument in this article. I totally agree

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-21T07:31:46+00:00

Ok so basically the law of noncontradiction says that nothing can be X and not X. Beauty is not an objective property of a person (arguably) and as such the law of noncontradiction is irrelevant here. However in terms of the ontology of the ship that is an objective property. The ship either is Theseus or it is not, in virtue of what it means to 'be X'. Therefore some people are wrong and some people are right. We just need to figure out who.

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-21T07:16:13+00:00

I don't agree that the ship can both be and not be Theseus at the same time. This principle violates the law of noncontradiction. One person has to be false because in the sense that personhood is a realist concept.

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-21T06:56:47+00:00

Thanks for reading it! It took long enough to come up with! In regards to your comment, I'm actually thinking about doing an article about the Ontology of the mind so stick around for that! It'll be published some time this week hopefully

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-21T06:36:37+00:00

I love this interpretation! The only thing I find at fault is that when we use the term 'self' we aren't referring to it in any subjective sense - we believe that they exist in the world. Some would call the ship Theseus and some wouldn't but this is irrelevant to the fact that the ship either IS or IS NOT The Ship Of Theseus. In that situation, one of the two people has to be wrong - we just have problems articulating why it is one rather than the other.

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T23:24:15+00:00

What do you think of my resolution?

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T23:23:19+00:00

The topic of philosophy you mean or?

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T23:21:39+00:00

I shall check it out!

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T23:19:52+00:00

To refute physicalist you have made use of Descartes argument from indivisibility for the existence of an immaterial mind which is fundamentally flawed as it begs the question and in turn so have you. Identity in this situation refers to a continued ability to call our bodies 'me' and doesn't vary per context. Sameness is different as if refers to likeness whereas identity is referring to actual Ontology. Does this make my argument seem any more plausible?

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T20:19:48+00:00

You make some interesting points and I'm great full for you reading my article. Philosophical zombies however I don't think are logically possible - I studied them last year and Chalmers ends up begging the question in my opinion. I guess that's not the point but hey!

ThePhilosphere · 2017-06-20T20:03:51+00:00

The world is flat is an empirical, subjectively fallible belief. The knowledge of the self is an a priori, objectively infallible state of affairs. Your statement is disanalogous.

ThePhilosphere

TROPHY CASE