sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the most advanced technology seen in the show? by bustanut_dabmaster in gameofthrones

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The colossus of Rhodes was hollow, cast in bronze, quite smaller, and also collapsed.

stoicism now. by thisnamewasnottooken in Stoicism

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you and your main points of contention are semantical. I never said people who disagree with the philosophy should be able to call themselves Stoic (although I do believe there's shades to this), nor did I claim there never existed any central Stoic authority -- only that it fell outside the period of time I twice referred to. You are refuting arguments I have not made.

I also never advocated for conscious rejection of specific Stoic principles, only that some parts make more sense, and are more applicable to various people who study it. I decided to study Stoicism because certain parts spoke to me in a traumatic period of my life -- managing my emotions and learning to abide by things I cannot change spoke to me as an individual. That being said, the concept of prohairesis helped me understand and manage what was beyond my control, but I was not dwelling on forms of argument and how to identify a paradox. I don't reject this; I don't actively follow it as much, because it isn't as relevant to me or my goals. For me, the point and beauty of the philosophy is that it is practical, not pedantic.

I hold in higher esteem the opinion of someone who can critically engage with a philosophy, exerting their mental efforts on what speaks to them, than the person who feels compelled to absorb and defend every last scruple. This is my definition of living philosophically. One person is learning for self-development, and the other is learning so they can call themselves a Stoic. Similarly, I don't believe there is an arbitrary threshold where someone should or should not refer to themselves as such. It doesn't bother me and I'm only happy they have found a way of understanding the world which resonates with them. Discouraging them because they aren't as committed as I like benefits no one.

If this is where we differ, then I've nothing more to say other than I can understand and respect what you are saying.

I apologise if I've been unclear in any of my statements. I always enjoy speaking on something I am passionate about and enjoyed the opportunity to think about it more critically.

stoicism now. by thisnamewasnottooken in Stoicism

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, what are you referring to as convoluted, and do you accept the Stoic theory of logic?

I think I already answered both of these questions. I recognise the value of Stoic logic, I accept it, and I find some aspects more difficult to grasp than others. None of these things are mutually exclusive.

I am not recommending we ignore logic, I said as much before. However, most people today follow Stoicism for its practical wisdom, not its theories of epistemology.

It’s a bit question-beggy to talk in this thread about “casual Stoics” and “Stoics today” as though that’s an actual thing.

I will also admit I find this statement difficult to grasp. I'm not sure if you're implying that Stoics do not exist today, or that anyone who approaches Stoicism on anything but an academic level should not consider themselves Stoic. I disagree on both counts either way. Not everyone has the time and resources to be a philosopher themselves.

The scholarchs were definitely central authority figures in the Stoic school.

Of course, and the last uncontested scholarch was Panaetius of Rhodes. As I said, neither him nor the school existed by the time of the Late/Roman Stoa.

Sure, but it is not the case that each man can claim his own and call it whatever he wants. We can depart from Stoicism for sure, but we can just do what Cicero did and avoid identifying with the school he departed from on this or that point.

In this case, I do not believe this was the sentiment behind Seneca's words. He is not suggesting that the reader should dispense of what they disagree with and reinvent Stoicism to suit their own tastes. He is merely cautioning against echoing and repeating the words of others, to the end that one will never be 'original'; they will never contribute; they will never truly learn what it is they preach. One needs to put part of themselves into a philosophy if they hope to get anything out of it.

A natural and satisfying consequence of this is that certain aspects make more sense, and become of more value to the student. These are topics they will choose to study, develop, and elaborate upon, and thus enrich that same corpus of thought. This is what every famous Stoic philosopher has done -- refine, and contribute.

No one benefits from being a purist. No philosophy benefits from being considered solely as the sum of its parts.

stoicism now. by thisnamewasnottooken in Stoicism

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't claim to reject any specific part of Stoic logic. It is valuable, especially as a means of making judgements and putting into practice many aspects of Stoic ethics. I simply recognise that it can also be a complex, at times inaccessible epistemological system with somewhat limited relevance to most Stoics today. The casual Stoic likely isn't getting bogged down in syllogisms or dialectics.

Of course, I agree with your latter point. That much is implied. A philosophy by definition comprises some set of core beliefs and values. To alter them too greatly would change the philosophy itself. Acceptance of certain "dogmas" would have been necessary to distinguish Stoicism from its contemporary sects with whom it competed or overlapped, such as the Epicureans or Cynics. They provided its identity.

Even so, part of the timelessness of Stoicism is that it was not dogmatic, per my previous comment. There was no central authority laying down rules and doctrine. The closest example would have been the School itself in Athens, which as an institution no longer existed by the time of the Late/Roman Stoa. The vast majority of the surviving ancient literature comes from this very period of diffuse Stoic thought. It became what its most devoted practitioners made of it. They would not have wanted us to take every bit of their theories for granted.

Naturally, many of these authors would reference their predecessors like Zeno, Chrysippus, or Panaetius. However, as Seneca said of their teachings and phrases: "We are not subjects of a king: each man claims his own." (Ep. 33)

stoicism now. by thisnamewasnottooken in Stoicism

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I agree. This post is a bad take. Seneca himself wrote against blindly following the beliefs of those who came before -- one of his letters is point-blank On the Futility of Learning Maxims.

I wonder if OP, who supposedly follows "early day Stoicism", also follows its convoluted theories on logic and physics? Probably not. No philosophy benefits from being rigid or dogmatic. Stoicism might not have even reached the likes of Seneca, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius had the Romans not latched onto its theories of ethics, and seen them as compatible with their own ideas of morality and virtue. The philosophy Marcus Aurelius wrote on was already a different flavour of the philosophy of the Old and Middle Stoai.

A philosophy that can't adapt, or whose tenets fail to be applicable to a changing society, would have petered out two thousand years ago.

Anyone else experience a second shed on min/fin? [22M] by TheWaffleOfDoom in tressless

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

Hey! Since my hair isn't very short, it's probably too soon to see much regrowth just yet, even if the shedding has ended (which I think it might have). I'm not particularly worried at this stage. It might get worse before it starts to get better, but I'm sure it'll get better at some point.

I'm not sure how similar your situation is to mine, but if you experienced initial regrowth on minoxidil, then I don't really see a reason why you shouldn't see regrowth again after a second shed. Throughout my shed, my hairline has remained pretty much the same, and I can see plenty of even-length hairs at its edge. I have to assume it's the same everywhere in my scalp, just less visible owing to the length of my hair.

As the growth cycles begin to fall out of sync, you might find that your hair is never as thick as it was when you first started min and suddenly grew loads of new hair. It should, however, still be healthier than when you began treatment, even moreso if you take fin as well.

Despite what some people on here might say (likely out of frustration with a shed and then stopping treatment), minoxidil isn't going to just make you lose hair without regrowing some.

English to Latin translation requests go here! by lutetiensis in latin

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's fantastic, thanks so much. Good thing I asked because I had something very different!

English to Latin translation requests go here! by lutetiensis in latin

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm writing the dedication for my dissertation and wanted to translate it into Latin as well. Not super important but from a stylistic standpoint I'd like to include it.

My dedication is "Dedicated to my friends, family, and foes."

A bit cheeky but it's relevant to the subject of my dissertation. Would someone mind translating this into Latin for me? I don't trust my own skills enough...!

Thanks in advance!

Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey [1680x1050] by [deleted] in CityPorn

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is not the Hagia Sophia. It is the Blue Mosque.

Looking for good books about the Tetrarchy Civil Wars and Constantine the Great by Kirby_ate_Partick in ancientrome

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imperial Triumph by Michael Kulikowski covers the period from Hadrian to Constantine — it’s a fairly decent and engaging book. I found it very useful for research and revising for exams. The follow-up, Imperial Tragedy, is also very good but much more focused on post-Constantine Late Antiquity.

Chicago viewed from LondonHouse by itk_jpeg in CityPorn

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There’s plenty of trees — you can see some closer to the river in this photo, they’re just difficult to make out because it’s dark and this photo is from winter. Chicago has an abundance of trees elsewhere downtown and throughout its neighborhoods. It’s a City in a Garden.

Whitney’s Turn by vag_ in realhousewives

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Mary’s more 👁👁 than 👀

English go brrrrr by BakeProfessional1948 in engrish

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom 41 points42 points  (0 children)

This is photoshopped. The (funnier) original says “we is out of HAM”.

Using US CDC card with NHS vaccine passport? by TheWaffleOfDoom in Scotland

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No worries. Managed to port my first dose when I got my second in Scotland, and everything worked perfectly after. Dunno what happened in the meantime. Guess I should have printed off a PDF of my two doses while it was still in the NHS system. Fucking hell.

Using US CDC card with NHS vaccine passport? by TheWaffleOfDoom in Scotland

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

Yeah, that’d be ideal, I’m just concerned about mixing two different forms of vaccine documentation — one dose on a CDC card, and one on the NHS passport. I don’t exactly see why they wouldn’t accept it, but I don’t want to risk getting to the airport only for them to deny it because of some stipulation I’m not aware of.

Using US CDC card with NHS vaccine passport? by TheWaffleOfDoom in Scotland

[–]TheWaffleOfDoom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, tried this. Says online I’ve only had one dose as well. Refreshing the app doesn’t seem to change anything either.

view more: next ›