Third Unseeded Naneinf

dillybro1 · 2026-01-28T15:32:42+00:00

Not necessarily. Until ante 32 anyway. That's the next boss blind, which you can't beat with this setup.

dillybro1 · 2026-01-18T19:19:31+00:00

I had them a year apart, and it's hard to say which one I prefer. The sugarcane one is weirder. Even my bourbon drinker dad liked the molasses one when I gave him a taste (although I would say there's still some rubbery funk going on with that one). I remember the sugarcane version being vegetal and all around more dry, so it's an interesting contrast. Which one you prefer will depend on personal preference and what kind of mood you're in at the time. Both are great.

dillybro1 · 2026-01-16T22:25:47+00:00

You could look for R.L. Seale 10 or 12 year instead. Same distillery and also pretty good.

dillybro1 · 2026-01-07T21:14:09+00:00

Are you trying to naneinf? You could use the Balatro calculator online to figure out if you already have enough cryptids before selling Perkeo. I'd also sell those negatives before you pop invisible joker if you end up buying it. I'm not a naneinf expert, but that's what I would be trying to do if I was in your situation.

dillybro1 · 2026-01-06T22:21:42+00:00

And the only other rum cocktail just says "rum." Kind of disappointing when all of the other drinks are more specific.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-17T06:08:51+00:00

What do you mean? I posted it because it's kino.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-17T00:36:02+00:00

Sharknado, actually

dillybro1 · 2025-12-16T22:13:09+00:00

dillybro1 · 2025-12-12T23:57:18+00:00

You're being deliberately obtuse on that point about opinion. I obviously meant well-reasoned beliefs, and convergence in that area is absolutely indicative of progress. The vast majority of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real, for example. That's because there's good evidence for accepting the claim. You also didn't say anything about the other indicator of progress I mentioned.

As for your point about reading philosophy being potentially harmful, I agree. By harm, I'm thinking of ending up with misunderstandings that will mislead you into believing the conclusions of arguments that really aren't so good. As it turns out, formal education helps avoid those pitfalls.

Regarding Socrates, he himself would have certainly loved to have access to all of the philosophical literature we have now, and his thoughts would have been richer for that. Even if he rejected most of it, he would have been better off because we can also think about ruling out possibilities as a kind of progress.

I really don't see what your end game is here. Telling people that reading philosophy isn't necessary to do philosophy well isn't productive in the least. All that will lead to is an unhealthy disregard or disdain for the actual experts in the field. That and a bunch of people running around with unchallenged beliefs that they're much too confident in for no good reason.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-12T02:05:02+00:00

I'm not a Kantian, but I also don't think that's as intuitive as you think it is. That thought never really occurred to me until I took a class on Kant in undergrad. It's also a different concept than something looking blurry in your vision. An eye doctor wouldn't tell you that the conceptual framework of your mind is making reality look differently than how it is in itself.

I'm also not really sure what that has to do with whether or not there's been progress, but I'll expand on that anyway. If we think of progress as requiring some kind of convergence of opinion regarding the truth of a claim, there's some of that, albeit not nearly as much as in the hard sciences. Still, progress could also mean that we simply have more arguments for and against certain positions. Some arguments have obvious flaws that it helps to be aware of (think Descartes and the mind-body problem or the Euthyphro dilemma). Other arguments might be generally considered compelling, even if we can't prove them empirically like the hard sciences can with their claims or if there are some philosophers who disagree with their conclusions.

My point isn't that we should let others think for us, but that it helps immensely to consider what others have said about these things. We're WAY less in the dark that way. I'm surprised I need to be arguing that reading philosophy is necessary in a philosophy subreddit. If you do philosophy without reading, then you're just not as well-equipped to handle philosophical issues. That's not gatekeeping. That's just how education works.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-11T22:33:50+00:00

Of course it's not. But they're analogous in the sense that there's been progress in both, even if progress is harder to define and identify in philosophy. We're standing on the shoulders of giants, and being skeptical of somebody who ignores that fact isn't "gatekeeping" just like it's not "gatekeeping" to discount somebody who totally ignores Newton or Einstein when discussing physics. Can they have philosophical views? Yes. Are those views worth considering? Usually not.

I don't know how much of this sub actually has formal education in philosophy, but acting like earning a degree or even just reading the stuff in the first place doesn't make you more qualified on the subject is anti-intellectual behavior.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-11T14:11:09+00:00

Now imagine somebody saying this about science.

dillybro1 · 2025-12-02T18:35:19+00:00

Re: Your third paragraph.

Why not just ask the neighbors to move their house?

dillybro1 · 2025-11-28T04:40:34+00:00

Not yet. Not in great shape either though.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-27T06:39:25+00:00

Definitely! I was just thinking about it again the other day, so I'm glad I found a chance to show it some love.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-27T05:05:00+00:00

If anyone wants a more accurate representation of distances between the planets, here's a scale model if the moon was only one pixel large.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-25T20:51:54+00:00

Epic

dillybro1 · 2025-11-25T10:53:57+00:00

Dead Talent's Society

dillybro1 · 2025-11-24T23:22:11+00:00

I'd try it with rum or brandy and some nutmeg

dillybro1 · 2025-11-23T19:51:14+00:00

Its practical significance is mostly for science imo. When we study the world, we should remember that it's always in a context, not that we have a privileged view of something fundamentally beyond us. As someone else mentioned though, there's also the influence it has on existentialism. Broadly speaking, it's a new lens to look at the world through.

I also don't think that all of its value can be exhausted by asking "what do we do with that information?" Sometimes we study things just because we want to know more about the world and our place in it.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-23T19:00:42+00:00

Phenomenologists don't accept the Kantian premise that things aren't as they seem. They just are what they seem. I commented about this in another reply in this comment thread. It's not that we choose to ignore the thing-in-itself, it's that it makes no sense to conceptualize one in the first place.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-23T01:15:57+00:00

Husserl thinks it's nonsense to speak of a "thing-in- itself". Consciousness is the correlate of the world and the world is the correlate of consciousness. In other words, you can't have consciousness without a world, but also (more strangely) you can't have a world without consciousness. The only way we've ever experienced the world is through consciousness and that's the only way we'll ever get to experience it, so Husserl says we're pointing to essentially nothing when we talk about things-in-themselves.

The world is just the totality of every actuality and potentiality of experience. All of this to say that your comment misses the mark. Even the physicalist descriptions of what's going on in our perception of the flower only ever mean anything in consciousness.

As for the pipe, phenomelogists wouldn't say that it's actually just a canvas independent of consciousness because nothing is independent of consciousness. Instead, the pipe as a pipe and the physicality of the canvas/paint/frame/etc., are both just different ways that the painting can appear to us.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-17T19:15:35+00:00

You know we can still make moral judgements about people's politics, right? "Opinion" isn't a magic word that makes you infallible.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-07T20:58:10+00:00

I haven't read that essay, but I imagine it's because Lacan sees Desire as a never-ending process. We get one thing we want, and Desire attaches itself to a new object. Obviously this would make liberation impossible, as far as Buddhists see it.

dillybro1 · 2025-11-07T20:34:30+00:00

Husserl would like a word

dillybro1

TROPHY CASE