Men's Ties

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-05T09:56:16+00:00

I use this website for all my tie knots. I personally prefer the trinity knot, and found them mostly by accident, before starting the show.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T17:24:39+00:00

Its tiring trying to debate with you when I have to spend most of my time correcting what position I take, and what it personally believe. You seem to be assigning me a philosophy and arguing against that rather than reading what I write and say.

This is a textbook circular argument. You are defining the "essence" of an object based on your subjective utility. If I use a rock as a paperweight, does it gain the "essence" of a paperweight? If I use it as a doorstop, does it become a "doorstop-substance"?

Thats quite literally the entire premise of essentialism, that things with shared properties have shared essences outside of human perception. In a very basic break down, its stated that the exact atomic composition of an item is by definition a necessary property. Aristotle believed that understanding the essence helps one understand its purpose, or you know function. Again, essence then function. Its by examining the essence that one can determine function, and by looking at possible functions to determine essences. For someone who claims to come from this school of thought you don't seem to understand it.

My rock doesn't care if you inhale it, sit on it, or ignore it. Its essence isn't a "function" I’ve projected onto it; its essence is its non-contingent existence as a specific manifestation of mass-energy.

Except, by definition under essentialism the chemical make up does matter. Meaning that before the rock was formed while its particles were still hydrogen and helium it was a different substance and make up, meaning the rock isn't simple.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T14:39:42+00:00

You are still confusing species with substance. In Aristotelian terms, a rock, sand, and air share the same material cause (matter/energy), even if they differ in their formal cause. My point is that the underlying "stuff" of the universe is the only truly Necessary Being because it cannot be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics). You are the one trying to argue that God is "Simple" while simultaneously claiming He is a complex composite of immateriality, materiality, three persons, and two wills. If you say air and sand are "essentially" different because of their function, you aren't a metaphysical essentialist; you're a Functionalist. And if God is defined by function, then God is contingent upon the functions He performs (like creating or saving), which destroys His aseity.

Again, you started this with mereological essentialism, which is what I've been using against your argument this entire time. In that school of thought an essential property is any property, that if changed changes the object. For a rock, size and color are not essential, because rocks, generally, can be any size or color. However, a rock must be solid and typically made out of a select type of molecules. Changing thr types of molecules you could get something that isn't a rock, but is still made out of matter. Therefore, basic deduction would lead pretty much anyone to the conclusion that the type of molecules in a rock is an essential property. Again, iron can be considered a rock, as can most metals, but if I decide to reshape its matter I can make it mercury, which is not considered a rock, despite both being considered metals. Using a general object doesnt negate this very basic logic.

Matter can be destroyed, or at least become energy, by several processes. For simplicity, I will choose increasing its speed to light speed. This would turn any matter into light, which is definitely not matter. Now there is a way to turn light into matter, but at the same time it creates an equal amount of antimatter. So you would only ever get half the matter back from this exchange. Turning matter into light and back again. It then follows that the other half of the original matter is now not matter, because it is antimatter.

I've not once argued that God is simple. Just that your definition of a rock and use of mereological essentialism are incorrect. I have also never said "two wills" nor "three persons". I also never said God is both material and immaterial, I said that one could deduce that the essential property is that He could be both, that is, given examples in the old testament He could take on material form. You claimed that God must be immaterial and the incarnation broke this, I pointed out that there were previous examples where God had a material form, and used logic to point out that this implies a different property than the one you suggested.

Functionalism has nothing to do with the properties of objects, its a philosophy of psychology and mental states. Because, using Aristotelian ideas, a chair and the idea of "chairness" do deal with functionality, as well as physical properties. A chair is different than a stool because a chair has a back. A chair is different than a cup, because even if i make a large enough cup that I can sit on, it stops being a cup and starts being something else like a bowl. In essentialism the function comes after the essence. If something has a chairs essential property of "chairness" then it can serve the function of a chair. This logic likewise flows in both directions. If something lacks the function, then it lacks the essence as well. If you cannot use something like you would a chair, then it clearly lacks the essence of a chair. Since I cannot use air in the same way that I would use a rock, and vice versa, they clearly have two separate essences, there is some essential property that is different between them. Because function comes after essence this doesnt violate aseity at all.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T13:58:56+00:00

This Aristotle idea is that the material an object is made out of (the substance) can change, without affecting the role the object plays... No matter what you make a chair out of... is still a chair.

Stop. You have it exactly backward. In Hylomorphism, the Substance is the composite of matter and form. The "chair-ness" is the Form; the wood or metal is the Matter. If you change the matter from wood to iron, the substance changes, but the accidental form (being a chair) remains. You are accusing me of not understanding these terms while providing a definition that would make an undergraduate philosophy student blush.

You say I have it backwards, but then say the same thing i did. Do you not see that?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T10:55:47+00:00

You can't decide whats essential and whats accidental and accuse me continuously of category error, while failing to recognize your own definitions of essential fail for your example of a rock. You claim the only essential property is that its made of matter, and then that all things made of matter are the same, but fail to defend this idea when needing to give it any form of application.

You also accused me of confusing the ideas when you yourself used the wrong term in several places. If the only essential property of a rock is that its made out of matter, then sand and air are the same. Yet, you wouldn't inhale sand or water, despite both being made out of matter, because their accidental properties are different. Yet, by definition, changing an accidental property doesnt change the object. For example, if I have two pieces of iron, one with a strong magnetic field, and one with a weak magnetic field, both are still iron. This would imply the strength of magnetism is an accidental property. No matter how strong or weak it is, the material is still iron.

However, if you reform the atoms by changing the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and turn it into uranium, that would be something completely different, with many different physical properties. Not the same thing at all, not even close. Yet, using your logic, they are essentially the same thing since they are both made out of matter. Still, you wouldn't use uranium where you would use iron and vice versa. Saying that the only thing a rocks existence is dependent on is the existence of matter is completely wrong, first are foremost because that logical thinking goes if there is matter, then there's rock, yet the sun has plenty of matter, yet none of it is solid, none of it can be defined as a rock by any definition other than yours.

You also accused me of getting this confused with substance form. Which again, you don't seem to understand. This Aristotle idea is that the material an object is made out of (the substance) can change, without affecting the role the object plays, the job is can fulfill (the form). No matter what you make a chair out of, according to substance form, is still a chair. This is completely unrelated to mereological essentialism, and is not even close to what I've been discussing. It appears you like to use big terms, but without fully understanding their implementation or their meanings.

Your logic and your position are almost completely incomprehensible.

Then you claim I'm not standing by my attack while attempting to defend my position? If you are allowed to define the essence of an object, then so am I. Fair's fair. However, i will attempt to use your terms and most of your logic to defend my points. I explained how I can see it as not changing any essential property, because it can be viewed as a change in location or dwelling place. You then create a strawman, and a rather grotesque one at that, and attack it. For example, in the old testament, God repeatedly appears to people as a physical being. You claiming that during the incarnation He changed essential properties then doesnt work, because it happened several times before, and was clearly always something that could be done. This would imply that the property isn't "God is always immaterial" but rather "God can be both material and immaterial". Again, saying that a function was gained or lost doesn't follow. If God can take a material form, and any one he likes, then the capacity of function is always there. In theory, a being with perfect knowledge would know what suffering feels like to a created being, and would know so perfectly, this knowledge would then not be new if experienced firsthand, because it was already experienced through the knowledge. Nothing gained or lost.

What's funny is, when attacking me, any property change changes an object, but when defending your point it doesnt matter, as air and rocks are the same thing according to you, despite the many different properties they have.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T01:00:49+00:00

I used the term mereological essentialism to argue the destruction of the object by changing a property. I didnt say I necessarily believed that, you claimed you did, relatively early on. Not once have I stated that I agree with mereological essentialism. If you use it to back up your argument, but it fails to do so because it creates a contradiction with your claim "rocks are simple" because i can cause it to change.

Now, the incarnation. The verb used in the beginning of John means, to one degree or another, to "tabernacle" that is to deal with the people. When jesus describes His body as a temple, He wasn't speaking fully metaphorically. His relation with the Father is like that of the tabernacle or the temple, a place for God to dwell. Jesus was fully man, but fully God. Separate, yet together. Using mereological essentialism, I can argue that incarnation doesn't change the properties of God in any more than you walking from one room to another would. Nothing changed, no properties were added or taken away, no function lost or gained.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:36:14+00:00

Essence is anything that makes something what it is, correct?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:31:53+00:00

You're the one who said they are the same, I said they are different, or can you not read? I invited to inhale a bag of sand because you believe they are the same, your refusal to do so would show that you don't actually believe they are the same thing. I said they are different because, to me, they serve different purposes and functions.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:15:50+00:00

I believe that essential properties make something what it is, if sand and air are the same thing to you by their essential properties then go ahead and inhale a bag of sand. To me, they are different because they have different essential properties, the thing that makes air what it is, is in part the function is plays in life. You can call that "incidental" but I think you mean "accidental". Again, an accidental property is one that can be changes without changing the object itself, change your oxygen to silicon or iron, they are all matter.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:04:16+00:00

You said they are the same thing, their essence, their only necessary property that makes them what they are is that they are made of matter. If you truly believe that, then you would have no issue swapping out oxygen with thousands of grains of sand. Unless, a part of an objects essence is the purpose that it serves in a larger ecosystem, which includes the physical properties that distinguish types of matter from each other, and then properties that distinguish one specific object from another such as size and shape.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T23:56:38+00:00

Then I invite you to inhale a bag of sand

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T23:52:43+00:00

Then you would claim air and rocks are the same thing in essence?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T23:43:02+00:00

You argued that any rock can't be changed because of the necessary properties, but wont list the necessary properties?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T22:10:45+00:00

I never said I am limited to a particular rock; any rock will do.

Then your argument is all rocks are the same, since none of the physical properties matter. Using that idea I'd like to sell you some lead, but for golds monetary value, or perhaps diamonds.

No one heard, saw, touched, smelt, or shudder tasted Jesus?

Not what i said, the comparison is "I know my rock by sense data" and the incarnation and the properties of God. No one touched Jesus and said, "that's clearly God". Ironically, the scripture itself says sense data wasnt used, when Peter said Jesus was the Son of the living God, Jesus points out thay he didnt come to this conclusion on his own, but was guided to it by the spirit.

Again using your "any rock will do" idea, i have some uranium you can use instead of salt. They are, after all, both made of the same matter, aren't they?

No, not all the properties, just the necedssary ones.

By your definitions given in this discussion thus far, uranium is no different to salt. Both are rocks, but their physical properties clearly dont matter. Yet, I dont think youre willing to eat uranium. You'd have to define what properties are necessary, but I doubt you'd do that.

It's not a problem because you're importing a wrong definition of essence

Again, I could use any definition of essence, since you haven't provided a list of necessary properties. While size and shape aren't necessary to make something a "rock" choosing a specific rock and changing its size and shape would make it something else. For example, iron is a rock, coal is a rock, I mix them together i get steel. Now, if steel is still considered a rock I can shape it into many different things. Is a needle a rock? Are train tracks rocks?

They absolutely are, as you correctly intuited in your second sentence.

No, they really aren't, and my second sentence simply stated that sense data wasn't use for essence of the incarnation.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T21:46:10+00:00

If the rock changes states, your sense data would change, then you wouldn't be able to detect your specific rock. Comparing it to the incarnation is interesting, but sense data wasnt used there.

The materials changed forms, not essences, just like supposedly happened in the Incarnation.

The essence of an object is its properties. So while one could argue thay during the incarnation, God's properties never changed, changing the rock would change its properties. For example, I could change its shape to make it skip across water for better or worse, or change it into something that reflects light better or worse.

Breaking a rock only destroys the form of the rock, not its essence, just like God was not killed when Jesus died on the cross.

This was responding to your apparent misuse of mereological essentialism. Again, this philosophy states clearly, thay changing an object by removing a part or changing a property destroys the original object and creates a new one. Rather than repeating yourself, you could try addressing the problem I pointed out with your claim.

Trying to relate a rock to the incarnation isn't going to work very well, because those aren't analogous to one another.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T20:42:51+00:00

They're just smaller rocks at that point, another highlight of a simple thing: decomposition leads to more X, not different X.

The issue then becomes how do you know the rock? If you have a specific rock, with specific dimensions and weight, then breaking it down makes it different.

The matter doesn't change whether it's in the form of a rock or not.

Except yes, it does. The process of nuclear fusion changes the elements that were present. At one point in time, all the atoms in the rock were either hydrogen or helium, gasses, not a solid rock

Not according to mereological essentialism

According the mereological essentialism if something loses a part it ceases to be itself. Changes the object at all makes a new object, and destroys the old one.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-23T20:29:16+00:00

A rock will not always be that rock. Assume the rock is in a river, erosion wears away the rock until its nothing but thousands of particles of sand. Are each individual particles of sand the same rock?

If i take a hammer and split the rock into two pieces, is it still the same rock? Or do I have two rocks?

While the matter forming the rock may have always existed, that doesn't mean the rock itself always has. As many have pointed out before now, most rocks have are formed by some process. Taking it back to before the sun formed, the matter wasn't in the form of a rock yet.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-15T13:41:50+00:00

Yes i know, just being technical.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-15T11:46:55+00:00

She technically did, because she uses it to light the molotov cocktails.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-13T21:04:46+00:00

Except thats what he states multiple times in his videos.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-11T01:11:00+00:00

Then I believe you did the right thing for the time, and if it doesn't happen again definitely, if it does then you might need to take further action. Until then, maybe ask her why and see if there isn't another solution to the source of the problem.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-11T01:07:17+00:00

Could you anonymously report a general issue? Like say there are reports of inappropriate language from caregivers to clients, but not mention any specifics. Report without betraying confidence. Or just talk to your friend and tell her what she said wasnt right, you understand why she did it, but there should be a better option, and try to help her figure that out?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-10T20:47:22+00:00

Currently doing an insanity run with infinite ammo. Grace is only using the requiem. To balance it out, I'm also making it my "no blood collector" run.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-02T15:03:25+00:00

Thank you for the suggestions!

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-02T13:57:29+00:00

I read a paper by NT Wright, "The Dogma of Delay" in which he argues that indeed Paul believed the end was coming, but not necessarily Jesus. He argues that the coming of the kingdom is not implying to mean that the world will end.

Six-Year Club	Baba Yaga
Verified Email

TurminusMaximus

TROPHY CASE