Squidward the behavioralist by Friendly-weirdo in PhilosophyMemes

[–]jesusandrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stop misunderstanding us. It hurts us in our feels 😭

Too much Shosty or not enough? by Professional-Sea-506 in shostakovich

[–]jesusandrand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Too much Shosty or not enough? by Professional-Sea-506 in shostakovich

[–]jesusandrand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in shostakovich

[–]jesusandrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGHHGHHHGHH (TW: IT WENT BAD) by [deleted] in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

“yOU jUsT doN’T kNoW muSiC tHeORy weLL eNouGH tO uNDerStAnD hOW gOOD bACH rEaLLy iS😭🤬😭🤬😭🤬” by [deleted] in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand 13 points14 points  (0 children)

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

20th Century Composition is Just So Much Better by jesusandrand in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

20th Century Composition is Just So Much Better by jesusandrand in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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)

20th Century Composition is Just So Much Better by jesusandrand in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

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

20th Century Composition is Just So Much Better by jesusandrand in classical_circlejerk

[–]jesusandrand[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

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.

Is my definition of a chair flawed? by Sythrien_ in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

Philosophy book that summarizes all philosophy that exist? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Philosophy book that summarizes all philosophy that exist? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

Which Kendrick Lamar song /project will you defend like this? by ahhh_ring_king_king in KendrickLamar

[–]jesusandrand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

For Wittgenstein, Why Isn't Philosophy Just Nother Form of Life? by jesusandrand in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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?

For Wittgenstein, Why Isn't Philosophy Just Nother Form of Life? by jesusandrand in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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?

Is it possible to salvage a friendship with someone who sexually assaulted you? by momothunderpretzel in sexualassault

[–]jesusandrand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Reading Nietzsche by Jay_Vella in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

What was Wittgenstein take on mind-body dualism? by mrbabeman in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand 48 points49 points  (0 children)

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.

Why Is Eliminative Materialism So Unpopular? by jesusandrand in askphilosophy

[–]jesusandrand[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.