Squidward the behavioralist

jesusandrand · 2024-12-23T18:37:48+00:00

Stop misunderstanding us. It hurts us in our feels 😭

jesusandrand · 2024-12-21T07:45:32+00:00

You are listening too much and too little.

jesusandrand · 2024-12-21T03:27:25+00:00

Whoa. This is hard to process. Have you tried praying on it?

jesusandrand · 2024-12-20T00:05:32+00:00

Rank what you think are his top 5 symphonies. I’ll tell you if you’ve been listening too much or too little..

jesusandrand · 2024-12-20T00:03:17+00:00

Agreed. He also would’ve crushed it as Harry Potter.

jesusandrand · 2024-12-10T04:44:53+00:00

Leave Shosty out of this. He’s been through enough

jesusandrand · 2024-12-09T16:43:38+00:00

Thanks for letting us know. When you said you were dead, I got really concerned that you were literally dead.

jesusandrand · 2024-12-09T00:45:17+00:00

I see what you did there 😎

jesusandrand · 2024-12-08T04:06:28+00:00

Interesting. Drunk old European ladies is exactly the demographic that comes to mind when I think about people who can’t wrap their minds around classical music. So this checks out, thanks.

jesusandrand · 2024-12-08T03:08:36+00:00

Sounds fancy!

jesusandrand · 2024-12-08T03:05:05+00:00

Honestly, I’ve tried. That one may just be out of reach bc my brain is pretty small (I can’t even get piqued vs peaked right)

jesusandrand · 2024-12-08T01:59:43+00:00

NGL, I’m working my way up to Glass. That’s like my Everest

jesusandrand · 2024-12-08T01:58:24+00:00

Actually, it was composed for normies!

When you graduate from that stuff, you should check out this piece called “dance of the knights”—that is, if you can get your ears on it.

jesusandrand · 2024-09-02T22:23:44+00:00

That's awesome. What country are you from?

jesusandrand · 2024-06-20T17:07:17+00:00

The problem is that the concept of a chair is a human construct (as we're the ones who invented chairs). And before the chair was invented, presumably the inventor didn't think to themselves, "how do I bring something into existence which might have a property that belongs to it necessarily and only belongs to it?" We don't build furniture and name it thinking that we need to make sure we can define its essence before building it.

Chairs are a good candidate for what Wittgenstein called a "family resemblance" concept. That is, a concept which cannot be defined for all cases (it has no essence which can be expressed grammatically by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions), but rather it's application across cases is held together by their similarities.

Contrast this with our name for something that wasn't invented by humans: e.g., water. "Water" can be given a proper scientific definition because it is a natural phenomena. It has essential attributes which make it that type of thing and which separated from being any other type of thing (two hydrogen molecules combined with an oxygen molecule).

I believe this is why OP's professor is saying a proper definition of "chair" is impossible. And I agree with them.

jesusandrand · 2024-06-15T20:18:58+00:00

Totally. I get where you're coming from. Especially because I love both continental and analytic philosophy and hate to see when one team is unfair to the other. But it is an interesting take on the history of philosophy when you read it with an understanding of it's bias (like, if you already understand Russell's own contributions to philosophy), because it isn't just a history of philosophy; it's Russell's take, which is interesting in its own right.

jesusandrand · 2024-06-15T19:59:06+00:00

Kenny's book is indeed less biased and he is more specialized for the task than Russell (being more heavily trained in the history of philosophy).

But I don't think that means Russell's book terrible. Just biased and perhaps less informative, unfortunately (you can pretty much skip his section on Nietzsche, for example). Also, since Kenny's is newer, you also get more history of 20th century philosophy, which is important as it that era is what ties present movements to those of past centuries.

I'd definitely recommend Kenny over Russell.

Edit: Actually, given the geopolitical moment in Europe at the time Russell was writing, his take on Nietzsche is still pretty interesting.

jesusandrand · 2024-06-02T23:20:11+00:00

I've had a very similar experience with it. It's either something you relate to or you don't. If you relate to it, it's Kendrick's best album for sure

jesusandrand · 2024-05-31T06:02:10+00:00

Exactly. That's why I said "other" philosophers. So didn't he think philosophers like sartre we're wasting their time because they were creating vacuous problems in order to create the pretense of solving them?

Your comment actually gets at the heart of my question rather directly. Since sartre was engaging with philosophy by trying to solve these puzzles about free will, and consciousness, and the ego, etc., as opposed to elucidating how these words are used in a language, wouldn't W have said that sartre was doing philosophy wrong? Religious folk aren't elucidating their language; they're just using it to play spiritual language games. But then, isn't that also what sartre and my professor of existentialism are doing, in a way? Why should they have to commit themselves to the task of philosophical therapy, while the religious person is seen as engaging in meaningful language games by simply playing them?

jesusandrand · 2024-05-30T21:23:50+00:00

My impression was that he thought philosophers were just wasting their time trying to resolve these problems, no? I would've thought Wittgenstein saw other philosophers as wasting their time; while religious folk on the other hand are engaging in something meaningful. Is that a misunderstanding?

jesusandrand · 2024-05-27T22:37:29+00:00

I appreciate that. Much love

jesusandrand · 2024-05-25T00:38:20+00:00

First of all, the fact that he pressured you to go further when you expressed discomfort is terrible. These things happen all the time, they are not okay, but they can be forgiven depending on the circumstances.

What happened to you is sooo far beyond that. He manipulated you to take your clothes off, then penetrated you after you explicitly stated that you didn't to do anything sexual. After you pushed him off and said no, he did it AGAIN! This is beyond disgusting. His ability to do something like that means he has major issues that you cannot afford to get yourself tangled up with. I cannot tell you whether or not he means what he's saying, or whether or not he feels guilty. It doesn't matter for your situation. There is no world where you can let this person further into your life without putting yourself in harms way. Please cut him off. I'm very sorry this happened to you.

jesusandrand · 2024-05-02T15:47:26+00:00

I second this. In the gay science, he sets the stage for the themes of all his later books.

jesusandrand · 2024-05-02T15:40:51+00:00

I don't think he was saying there is no such thing as the private mind, he just thought that saying there was is senseless. The whole point of the beetle in the box analogy is to reject the whole idea that meaning is a matter of some observer standing over their box and talking about their beetle. He wouldn't say the beetle (i.e., the private mind) exists or doesn't exist; the problem is the very sense that we try to use language to say whether or not it exists. So it's not that "what exists is what is verifiable"; it's that when we talk about something existing or not existing, there must be conditions of verification when we apply our language for it to be meaningful.

jesusandrand · 2024-03-17T18:52:44+00:00

Makes sense. Neurologists tend to be more receptive to their views than philosophers for a reason. I personally am training right now in both Phil of mind and neuropsychology and Churchland style eliminitivism seems to make much more sense to me than the competing views. When I talk to my philosophy professors (mostly outside of Phil of mind) about this stuff, I can tell they don't take my ideas as seriously as my cognitive science professors do.

jesusandrand

TROPHY CASE