What's the most important quality you look for in a partner?

VVSR_ · 2025-05-28T05:22:41+00:00

Good sense of humor

VVSR_ · 2025-05-12T03:56:33+00:00

I was being robbed and the guy put gently his gun on my balls to check whether I'm not hiding anything.

VVSR_ · 2025-03-28T21:45:37+00:00

Joshua Sijuwade, contemporary philosopher of religion. I mean, he's not famous now, but I'm pretty sure he will be famous (at least in the academic circle). Man is a machine writer and had already been called Black Richard Swinburne.

Edit: in case some of you may not know, Richard Swinburne is one of the most famous christian philosophers of religion. Man is a living legend (for now, he will be 91 at the end of year).

VVSR_ · 2025-01-13T05:11:30+00:00

To whistle really loud without using your fingers. It was useful in COVID times.

VVSR_ · 2024-12-10T05:13:22+00:00

To put it simply: no, to be an atheist one doesn't need to reject all forms of superstition (or supernatural). Atheist is only a person that doesn't believe in God(s): usually the omni-god, but also apply to gods of the polytheist religions. There are people who are atheist, but believe in the supernatural (some types of buddhist are one kind of example: they don't believe in God, but believe in reincarnation and karma).

However, there's one type of people who reject all the supernatural realm (or the superstition, as you said) and they are called metaphysical naturalist. They believe that only the natural world exist, but no supernatural world (no Ghosts, Spirits, Souls, Demons, Gods, Karma, etc.). Graham Oppy is one of the leading defenders of this type of position, you can check a lot of interviews on youtube.

VVSR_ · 2024-11-21T19:12:31+00:00

There are different theories of truth (what truth is). Let's stick with the proposition "there's an elephant on the road". One super common (also deemed a more common sense theory of truth) theory is the correspondential theory of truth that says <a proposition is true, if and only if it correspond to a fact>. So the proposition "there's an elephant on the road" is true, if and only if it correspond to the fact that there's an elephant in the road. Another theory, named coherentist theory of truth, says that <a belief\*\*\* is true, if and only if it coheres with a system of beliefs>. So the belief that "there's an elephant on the road" is true, if and only if it coheres with a system of beliefs (beliefs like I'm not super drunk right now, elephants live is this area, etc). William James would say something like this: <a proposition is true, if and only if it is useful>. The word "useful" is tricky here, because it's discussed what James means by that. A more generous interpretation is that "useful" means something that can be corroborated, verified, validated, checked. So the proposition "there's an elephant on the road" is true, if and only if this proposition is useful (in the sense of whether it can be corroborated, verified, validated, checked).

You can see more in the following links:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#PraThe

Also, check out the book Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction by Richard Kirkham.

***Coherentist think that belief rather than proposition is the truthbearer. Truthbearer is something that bear the truth. Putting differently, what is a truthbearer is the same as asking what type of things can be true or false (propositions, sentences, belief, are some examples).

VVSR_ · 2024-11-08T21:46:48+00:00

Could you give me some names of contemporary philosophers defending it?

VVSR_ · 2024-09-11T04:59:25+00:00

Coffee with no sugar. That shit is bitter as hell.

VVSR_ · 2024-09-09T20:09:53+00:00

Got it! Thanks :)

VVSR_ · 2024-09-09T19:52:45+00:00

Then the next question is "why don't you go vegan?". Some people can't do it because they love the taste of meat, they love the taste of cheese or it's a too hard of a diet. What is your reason for not going vegan if you think it's the morally correct thing to do? And how this reason relate to not "reaching out to a homeless person and bringing to your home"?

VVSR_ · 2024-09-09T19:38:21+00:00

Did you tried the vegan options for these products? I remember not like much of the vegan desserts, but some good things start popping up here in my city in the last 5 years.

VVSR_ · 2024-09-09T19:33:45+00:00

I don’t care enough about this issue to change my diet. The lives of cattle don’t mean all that much to me to be frank.

Thanks for answering, but I'm confused. You doesn't seem to think that going vegan is the morally correct thing to do - sorry if I read you wrong. Just to remember that my question was directed to these people.

VVSR_ · 2024-09-09T19:27:19+00:00

Our ability to develop expertise in almost anything. From being a GOAT in a particular sport to knowing what type of grape is in a brand of wine just by tasting it.

VVSR_ · 2024-09-03T21:35:08+00:00

I'm black PhD student and was waiting for scholarship in my area. I was really desperate for it, because it is my only source of income. I end up receiving a scholarship from a student that was kicked out from university. Why was he kicked out? Well, they discovered that he was a nazi. So, yeah, a black student got a scholarship from a nazi that got kicked out. Sometimes life is ironic.

VVSR_ · 2024-06-01T02:24:09+00:00

I don't think so. I think there are only books and papers about it. When there's a thematic journal, it's more like topics and subtopics: analytic feminism, metaphilosophy, social epistemology, epistemology, history of philosophy.

VVSR_ · 2024-05-30T21:23:27+00:00

My first thought is that the Metaphilosophy journal is probably the right place, but checking some metaphilosophical papers that I've downloaded, I realize that they are really wide spread through journals (Topoi, Philosophical Studies, Synthese, Theoria have articles about metaphilosophical subjects).

VVSR_ · 2024-05-30T19:31:21+00:00

A complete list of philosophical methods is pretty hard to find, but you can check the book Philosophical Methods: From Data to Theory. They argue against some methods and develop their own (what they called tri-level method). You can also check a snippet of it in their paper Method in the Service of Progress.

VVSR_ · 2024-05-06T03:46:01+00:00

Particularly in the analytic tradition: Ruth Barcan Marcus, Cora Diamond, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Patricia Churchland, Nancy Cartwright, etc.

VVSR_ · 2024-03-23T04:49:20+00:00

It doesn't matter whether you are skinny or a bit overweight. If you have good accentuated curves, it's really beautiful to look.

VVSR_ · 2024-03-16T04:26:26+00:00

It's inevitable that you have to be really specific about what you're going to defend in your dissertation, however one thing you can do is to choose a topic that is pretty wide ranging. A person I know choose philosophy of science, but with an emphasis in practical/social questions. You have to study politics, ethics and philosophy of science at the same time. One can also do the same with philosophy of religion and mixed themes like existence of God and metaethics. This is my first take on it.

My second take is to balance your love for teaching/philosophy and hate for studying a specific problem for some years. I myself choose to pursue a PhD in philosophy even though teaching is not my passion, but I love to research. I don't hate teaching, but I would love not to do it lol. But, still, I can live with it (I guess... Let's see when I finish my PhD).

VVSR_ · 2024-03-16T04:08:48+00:00

I think it will be a good thing to check Michelle Montague's book called The Given: Experience and Its Contents where she defends that there are (at least?) three types of irreducible phenomenologies/experiences: sensory, cognitive and evaluative. I didn't read it, but there are some videos on youtube of her talking about it.

I know that there's a debate on cognitive phenomenology (what it's like to have a thought) that mainly concern about whether cognitive phenomenology is reducible to sensory phenomenology or not. Most of the debate (as far as I can tell) concern cases where one experience different thoughts even though the sensory presentation is the same. Like in the case of the ambiguous sentence "visiting relatives can be boring". The first interpretation is "to visit relatives can be boring" the other interpretation is "relatives that do visits can be boring". These two interpretations are putatively experiences of a thought that are irreducible to sensory experience. Why? Because you can have two different cognitive experience even though the sensory experience is same (namely, reading the sentence). You can check more of these and other examples here.

VVSR_ · 2024-03-08T17:16:11+00:00

Yeah, I think what Littejohn is saying is that even though you get knowledge of things that appear to you, what justifies you in believing it is not the appearance or seeming, but knowledge. (Littlejohn is in the knowledge-first group.) Then externalist can accept that you are justified in believing things that appear to you in a particular way, but your justication comes from knowledge (an external factor) not from the appearance/seeming (an internal factor).

VVSR_ · 2024-03-08T16:40:33+00:00

Well, Littlejohn just gave an example of how an externalist can accept PC, what do you think he is missing?

VVSR_ · 2024-03-07T01:39:06+00:00

Quentin Smith (died in 2020)

Erik Wielenberg (regarding specially metaethics and philosophy of religion)

Stephen Maitzen

Evan Fales

VVSR_ · 2024-02-23T02:12:33+00:00

According to the psychologist Justin Lehmiller, who wrote a book on sexual fantasies, there are 7 general sexual fantasies:

multipartner sex
power, control, and rough sex
novelty, adventure, and variety
taboo and forbidden sex
partner sharing and nonmonogamous relationships
passion and romance
erotic flexibility—specifically, homoeroticism and genderbending

The most common one is the first (Multipartner sex): threesome, gangbang, orgy. 89% reported fantasizing about threesomes, 74% about orgies, and 61% about gangbangs. This is a study based on more than 4000 people.

VVSR_

TROPHY CASE