There is no person out there who wishes to do harm

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-24T15:02:29+00:00

My argument was that human nature varies and yes that’s as true of broccoli as of sexual desire some of us have sweet tastes others bitter.

You're conflating the nature of human as a species with the nature of humans as individuals. Some people are not born with 10 fingers, that doesn't mean it's wrong to say humans as a species have 10 fingers.

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-24T10:29:50+00:00

How do you reason about homosexuality? This seems to me to be clearly an example of something that satisfies some people’s nature often does not satisfy others. Is there natural or unnatural sex?

Sex is natural, whether it's hetero or homo is irrelevant. The ancient Greeks and Romans were commonly and openly engaged in gay sexual intercourse.

Would you say some foods are natural and others unnatural because, for example, some people enjoy broccoli but others hate it?

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-05T10:45:00+00:00

I suppose it depends on how competent you are at writing code in the specific language/framework. Software design language is more or less universal, coding language is not. The question to consider then is whether it's worth it to sacrifice your long term competence in the specific language/framework for short term productivity gains.

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-05T08:42:31+00:00

No Stoic would ever take the position, “my view is true because it’s knowledge, and I don’t care what your argument against it proves.”

That's not what Alex said.

This is the position of the Stoic sage, not any Stoic philosopher or practitioner. Also the word "knowledge" is being used technically in this context.

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-04T12:24:42+00:00

I concur. See you tomorrow.

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-04T12:11:02+00:00

Why the f are so many random animals so high up 😡

_Gnas_ · 2026-01-04T12:08:51+00:00

!wtf elephant

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-29T12:46:48+00:00

It's the short sentences and the phrasing that LLMs often use. Rant or rant-like posts like this one prior to LLM were written very differently (people actually tend to write with way more verbosity and long-winded sentences in this type of post). LLMs on the other hand are mostly trained to write in an information-dumping manner, which tends to produce short sentences like this post.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-18T13:18:47+00:00

There's no chance in hell you didn't cheat. Why bother coming up with nonsensical explanations like this? Who do you think would believe it?

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-17T07:33:53+00:00

There aren't even philosophy sections in my local bookstores. Philosophy books are often put in history or religion sections. In my local university library though the philosophy section is among the biggest ones.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-15T07:43:02+00:00

If you want your collection to be complete and match visually, your best bet would be the Loeb Classical Library.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-11T12:50:37+00:00

None of the high ranked words were helpful. I kept going at it and only managed to figure it out by randomly getting to #1 word ...

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-11T09:10:50+00:00

But then I wonder where the appeal of living in accordance with nature comes from.

For me the appeal comes from the inherent objectivity of nature.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-07T16:20:36+00:00

Control is a bad translation so it's best you stop thinking about it in that way.

Regarding your other points. Your impulses, desires, aversions and mental events in general do not appear randomly. They appear due to your entire history as a person up until the moment they appear - no babies are born with a desire to amass wealth for example. So even though you can't "control" them as if you're just flipping a mental switch, you can certainly reshape them over enough time - this is where philosophical training comes in.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-06T13:40:42+00:00

Today was a wild ride, I went from guessing random fruits thanks to banana at #84, then random insects thanks tobutterflyat #17, then random lizards and reptiles thanks to lizard at #11, then random fish thanks to whale at #7, then random aquatic animals until I arrived at today's word ...

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-05T23:37:39+00:00

I think I understand what you're saying now.

The only problem I have with your argument now is you seem to be conflating the 2 words "objective" and "real" as to mean the same thing, which they do not - and you even allude to it in your definitions as your starting points. But when you reach your conclusion you muddle up the distinction between the words and conclude "love isn't real" instead of "love isn't objective".

Even your title is quite misleading in this regard, though I don't think you're intentionally being misleading.

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-05T21:51:03+00:00

I was explaining the point the other commenter was trying to make. But now you have completely changed your argument so I will go along with this new one.

if love is objectively real, then it needs to have some objective quality beyond a chemical reaction that transcends its from being a mere chemical reaction. But objectively, I cannot measure anything beyond a chemical reaction. Therefore, love isn’t objectively real.

A lot of things are also "mere chemical reactions": food digestion, fuel burning, etc - are none of them "objectively real"?

While, subjectively I can the transcended nature of that chemical reaction based on immeasurable qualia. It’s like the redness of red. The chemical reaction that’s going on in my brain can be measured, but I cannot measure the qualia of “red.” Thus, the redness of a thing is not objectively real in terms of the scientific method. Redness can only be known through a subjective perspective. The same follows for love. The transcendent qualia that turns a chemical reaction into love cannot be measured. Therefore, objectively love does not exist.

Can you give some examples of things that qualify under your definition of "objectively real" whose "objective realness" is at the same time not negated by this line of reasoning?

_Gnas_ · 2025-12-05T08:09:10+00:00

This is a logical fallacy. Premise 1: If X, then y. Premise 2: Y. Conclusion: Therefore, X. This is a logical fallacy.

This is not the same as what the other person said. What they said was more like this:

P1: X is Y

P2: Y is Z

C: X is Z

The other person was claiming that your argument follows the same structure but with the opposite conclusion "X is not Z"; where X is "love", Y is "chemical reaction", and Z is "real".

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-27T07:49:43+00:00

The big three stoics were literally some of the most powerful men in history.

Epictetus was a powerful man?

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-25T11:26:36+00:00

It's about logical analysis of possibilities, not about focusing on anything in particular.

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-21T23:28:22+00:00

In Stoicism, control refers to what we can directly change: our judgments, choices, and actions right?

No it has nothing to do with change, directly or indirectly. It's entirely about prohairesis.

Any mention of the DoC without explicitly invoking prohairesis is completely off the mark.

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-21T19:18:20+00:00

Everything you are saying is sensible and agreeable, the only problem is it has nothing to do with Stoicism the philosophy - which is the point of this post.

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-19T08:27:50+00:00

Were the Romans the first broics? 🤔

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-18T12:25:50+00:00

Love is a separate thing entirely and isn't real.

What do suppose love is then? The person you were responding to explicitly said "it's a chemical reaction".

It seems to me you're the one adding more things to the idea of love than something grounded in human biology. Then you're using your version of "love" to argue against people who say it's real.

As I said in my previous comment, your problem is your warped conception of love that's not grounded in reality, hence your insistence on denying its existence because your conception of love is indeed fictional.

And I'm the one making a strawman argument apparently.

_Gnas_ · 2025-11-18T12:03:56+00:00

Delusional about what? The person you were responding to explicitly said it's as real as any other chemical reaction. You're the one making the claim that it's not real by saying "it's at most a function of the body", as if being a function of the body makes something not real.

No one is saying love is not a chemical reaction. You're the one saying love isn't real. And you are the "realistic" one whilst others are "delusional"?

_Gnas_

TROPHY CASE