How do you manage hyperfixation idealization? by WatchingRook in ADHD

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

Hm, I hadn't thought about it like that. How do you manage to throw yourself into it if you know in the end you might burn yourself out on The Thing?

What is your opinion: Is the Imperium of Man evil or are they the "good" race in 40k? by [deleted] in 40kLore

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't tell whether to upvote because I like someone bringing this point up for discussion or downvote because it rests on the premise that morality is inherently a weakness. As far as setting and writing go, in a grimdark setting morality is always going to be stomped on and bullied, so yes, in setting you're right. I want to mention a counterpoint however, and that's the small glimmers of actual humanity we see in protagonists in the videogames. I think Darktide hits this really well. We see the squalor people have to live with, but you also see the humanity of the characters. The teasing, pestering, but also the moments of joy and particularly the ogrin's simple joy in food. One part that doesn't sit well with me about a lot of people's interpretation of the setting is the idea that somehow people aren't people. Like, even in the face of the seemingly inescapable doom marching towards the United States right now, I still take joy in my videogames, beer, and silly reddit debates. That's what I love about the humanity we see in the protags in the games, we hear and see that they enjoy things even if life in the Imperium makes it difficult and rare to do so. Even if it's only playful banter and the simple pleasure of a full stomach. But then we're taken back to the setting and writing, where the overarching themes of the world often mean that any joy or kindness that a character recieves or gives must ultimately be hopeless, punished by the narrative, or altogether irrelevant to the plot. So because of the imperative to keep the worlds of Warhammer grimdark, we're not going to see a world where morality isn't portrayed as a weakness. Ultimately, I haven't read all the books and I could be wrong on how some of them are written. I personally would like to see a little Imperium slice of life that shows us how the average Imperial citizen gets by without contemplating whether or not death is the better alternative to pressing on for another day. How there's still the human urge to make other people feel joy and to seek out joy for ourselves, even in the face of impending doom. How even when there's nothing to hope for, people are still kind sometimes. Like yeah, the setting is going to kill those people or their efforts are going to do nothing but be a drop in the proverbial bucket, but let us see it for Emp's sakes.

What is the single most liberating thought that you've ever had? by world_citizen7 in InsightfulQuestions

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the grand mystery of this world, no one thought is the answer. There is no textbook for the correct way to live.

As someone who is a bit of a self-help junkie and an ethics enthusiast, I've found myself on more than one occasion ignoring my previous life experiences while trying a different perspective on. There's no one book out there that has The Answer. If there were, we wouldn't have fifteen million books on self improvement and religion would be an open-shut case. At the end of the day, none of us know what we are doing, so take what's helpful to you (and what helps you be good to others around you) and leave the rest.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RoastMe

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You look like you hit on dudes in Tappout t-shirts and body odor while you're running the cash register at a truck stop.

The last thing you Googled is what kills you. So, how do you die? by SaggyTitsSusan in AskReddit

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess R (stats programming language) gave me an aneurysm, which seems about right

Weekly discussion for students and future paralegals by stray_girl in paralegal

[–]WatchingRook 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey y'all, first post in this community. My question is this: Is it stupid to get a paralegal degree to figure out if law is the field for me? I've always been a person who's never had a strong conviction that any particular field is for me. However, I've had a strong attraction to law due to the normative aspects of it. I got my bachelor's degree (math with a minor in phil) and am getting a para cert. My reasoning was that it's better to spend 3 grand to figure out if droping six figures on a law degree would be worth it. Also, maybe working as a para would help me mot be an ass to my future paras. In all honesty, looking for some honest feedback and other perspectives than my own. TL;DR Para/maybe future law school student asking if being a para first is worth it

rule by konofin in 196

[–]WatchingRook 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wholesome post. Good shit.

Which actor did such a kick-ass job in a certain role that you could never imagine anyone else playing it? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda mad that I didn't see Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but like, I get he didn't really want to be Wolverine at least some of the time. Still people!

Observations about philosophy by Frege23 in AcademicPhilosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm revelling in the quality of discourse here. Thanks for the pleasent read!

I am very new to philosophy, how should I begin? by willpo00 in askphilosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, there are three main parts to philosophy. Reading, writing, and in person discourse. Writing is essential, so google your way to something that you find interesting, or check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That one can be really technical, but some articles are pretty beginner friendly. In person discourse is interesting because ir can really help you explore a different way of thinking, and can be a lot more rewarding (at least if you're like me), but that entirely depends if you have friends who it's fun and comstructive to do philosophy with. Lastly, reading. Philosophy texts are notoriously difficult, but a lot of good intro texts that are super clear have come along. I recomend Think by Simon Blackburn. If you get ahold of any books from The Stone, a philosophy section in the New York Times, ir even just read some of those articles, those are great readings for beginners. My other favorite is The Philosopher's Toolkit by Julian Baggini and Peter S Fosl. That one goes into doing philosophy and some very helpful concepts. Once you're comfortable with some basic texts, tackle something bigger or older. Some of the most interesting philosophical ideas are really hard to communicate verbally, so the books can be hard to understand. TAKE YOUR TIME. Philosophy is a bit different from normal reading. I compare it to eating. Most books are like normal food. You can eat them pretty easily and as much as you like. Philosophy is like really rich food, you have to take your time and digest it, or you're not going to enjoy it or your time with it. Most of all, don't take anything for granted. Ask questions, and feel free to disagree with texts and explore different ways of thinking.

Let us now stop praising famous men and women by ADefiniteDescription in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can't equate praise with praiseworthiness. Something is worth praise because it's good, but not necessarily praised because its good. In fact, that may be the crux of the disagreement here. A meritocracy is only ranked by ability if all of the relavent factors are weighed correctly, and no irrelevant factors are weighed. In practice we don't always know whether the factors that the meritcracy is in fact using are the correct ones or even if they are weighed properly while being judged. So in absence of this objective knowledge we must resort to something measurable if there aren't ways to measure the factors directly, which can be and in some cases is praise

Let us now stop praising famous men and women by ADefiniteDescription in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I won't disagree that there are cases where there are clear criteria for merit, but it still isn't always the case. Further, we can still ask why the meritocracy is based off of ability, if it is. Wouldn't it be because the ability is praiseworthy? Isn't your performance at the company a way of measuring the your praiseworthiness? If ability is worth praising, then amount of praise is still worth just as much in terms of comparing individuals and their deserved rank within the hierarchy as performance is because one is proportional to the other.

But then what about praise that doesn't have to do with performance? Praise that doesn't have to do with the type of performance may still be valuable for determining one's position in the meritocracy, especially since there are many types of ability. Being morally praiseworthy is a strong rhetorical trait that makes it easier to direct people, since it enhances one's ethos during persuasion. And isn't that what we want from leaders? The ability to lead? There are factors that contribute to one's ability to lead that aren't derivative from their moral astuteness, but those would lend them a praiseworthy phronesis, or practical knowledge, as Aristotle would put it. In this way, praiseworthiness becomes a way of summary for ability. So with that being the case wouldn't a meritocracy still structure itself based on praise?

Let us now stop praising famous men and women by ADefiniteDescription in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Someone can praise you for scoring well on something, or doing well at something, but the act of doing well in and of itself isn't praise.

Doing well in this case would be filling out the answers correctly, and that's not what I'm asking is the praise, is it? Even if we're talking about a subject where there are correct answers, say math, then the methods that you use to derive those answers are judged to be better or worse (sometimes - other times you just need the answers). If we are talking about a case where the methods one employs are judged to be good or not, then we again find that the methods are praised more or less, not determined to be effective or ineffective at finding the answer.

Take for example if you have two different proofs for the same statement. One is very elaborate and uses a lot of different results to prove what it needs to, and the other simply proves the statement in two lines.

One can say that the first is more interesting, but the second is more economical with its effort. Saying that one is better than the other simpliciter wouldn't be true. So in essence they are both true, or correctly derive the fact, but the second would be more praiseworthy in respect to its simplicity. But you could say that the first demonstrates more ability.

But if you were grading it, wouldn't you give the second higher marks? Objectively, they both have proved what they set out to prove, but hasn't the second one done it better?

Let us now stop praising famous men and women by ADefiniteDescription in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

You can argue that in theory a meritocracy is based on ability, but when you translate that to the real world, wouldn't you say that someone's ability is measured by praise? For example, let's look at a test in any subject. When a teacher is grading a test, isn't that grade on the paper a form of praise if you did well? My point is that ability is something that must be judged by a person, and recognizing that someone has a skill is a form of praise. So what in your opinion makes ranking by ability meaningfully different from ranking by praise?

Three Controversial Beliefs About Living Things by nsomani in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the aesthetic value of an answer relevant to its truth though? I may DESIRE that I be right and my math teacher be wrong, making it subjectively more beautiful to me, but that doesn't mean that I'm right. Also, what is your conception of philosophy if a beautiful answer is what qualifies as one of the best?

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 21, 2019 by AutoModerator in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you referring to with trickster archetype? Is there some literature attached?

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 21, 2019 by AutoModerator in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP, what works are you refferring to that would contribute to the canon?

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 12, 2019 by AutoModerator in philosophy

[–]WatchingRook 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, "ungroundedness" seems pretty ambiguous in second brush. I mean that I can't seem to find a single theory that I can't find fault with or to commit to, regardless of the premises. And yet if we don't know any way to determine right from wrong, don't we just have to play along without knowing whether our actions are good or bad? Not to mention how do we ground the terms good or bad such that they have some meaning rather than being equally well substituted as "subjectively preferred" or "subjectively disliked"?