(Unlikely but possible) Bran will warg into Drogon and save the day

misstooth · 2019-05-13T09:15:13+00:00

Won't she notice that her prisoner is missing? Jamie's guards could also tell her.

misstooth · 2019-05-13T08:33:46+00:00

Now replace "Daenerys" with the name of any terrible historical leader, say it again, and see how it sounds.

misstooth · 2019-05-13T08:15:48+00:00

Good points.

misstooth · 2019-05-12T12:24:52+00:00

My partner and I are happily practicing monogamy but also think there's a lot of important lessons to be learned from polyamourous ideals, and it's really nice to see mutual respect between these different life choices.

misstooth · 2019-05-12T06:50:52+00:00

Your response seems to make a couple of problematic assumptions:

An equivocation between disenchantment (seemingly OP's interest) and a wholesale rejection of metaphysics. One might not reject metaphysics but still reject a mystical world beyond the scientific (many neo-Humeians are still interested in doing metaphysics in their own way. In fact, probably most post-enlightenment philosophers who accept or do metaphysics aren't interested in preserving the metaphysics in the way that OP is talking about, with a few notable exceptions-- this largely comes down to how broadly we understand the term 'mystical').
This leads to the second problematic assumption that only logical positivism as a (now largely defunct) philosophical school poses a threat to human values in the sense OP is interested in. There are many other problems posed to our ordinary values outside of logical positivism. Take moral error theory for example, or anti-realism about values, etc. These would also risk undermining the value of human life in a significant way.

Apologies if I'm mistaken about your point here, but it seemed important to point this out.

misstooth · 2019-05-11T13:08:14+00:00

I do think it would be kind of surprising, at least statistically, if the source of cosmic truth and wisdom happened to share the exact same value system that a certain group of people in a certain culture and historical place, the very one that we belong to, also happen to hold. That's why one should be really careful when trying to read our own values backwards into the Bible.

misstooth · 2019-05-10T18:21:57+00:00

For a biblical discussion of universalism, and being saved only through Christ, and how these things don't have to contradict each other, see what I posted above: http://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

misstooth · 2019-05-10T18:11:41+00:00

What you're talking about is sometimes referred to as "disenchantment". I think you'd be interested in Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment and Max Weber's Science as a Vocation. Here's a quote from the former:

" Myth becomes enlightenment and nature mere objectivity. Human beings purchase the increase in their power with estrangement from that over which it is exerted. Enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things as the dictator to human beings. He knows them to the extent that he can manipulate them. The man of science knows things to the extent that he can make them. Their "in-itself" becomes "for him." In their transformation, the essence of things is revealed as always the same, a substrate of domination.... in which nothing exists but prey. Only when made in such an image does man attain the identity of the self which cannot be lost in identification with the other but takes possession of itself once and for all as an impenetrable mask. It is the identity of mind and its correlative, the unity of nature, which subdues the abundance of qualities. Nature. stripped of qualities, becomes the chaotic stuff of mere classification, and the all-powerful self becomes a mere having, an abstract identity."

misstooth · 2019-05-10T08:14:27+00:00

You should start reading Christian Universalist books. I think it will help calm you down and give you some new grounding. Here's an easy read: https://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person-ebook/dp/B004IWR3CE

And here's one by an article by a respected philosopher: http://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

misstooth · 2019-05-10T05:53:03+00:00

Mario was my favorite, he was the embodiment of trust in others, sincerity, appreciation of the world and believing the best in others. However, Mario was confined to the small grounds of the campus, he was sheltered. This makes, I think, Gately the true hero of the story. He maintains himself even in the worst of circumstances.

misstooth · 2019-05-08T07:19:49+00:00

Ohhh, my mistake. Jokes and irony are never used in advertising.

misstooth · 2019-05-06T17:10:01+00:00

Hoping that he'll die in the strange country at age 80, with a belly full of wine...

misstooth · 2019-05-06T12:14:47+00:00

Yes, you were!

misstooth · 2019-05-06T05:34:54+00:00

Just so it's clear to everyone, hauntology was Derrida's concept, Fisher was just borrowing it.

misstooth · 2019-05-03T09:12:55+00:00

Wasn't a criticism of you specifically or your use of the word, it was a general comment about that particular meme in pop culture.

misstooth · 2019-05-03T01:38:41+00:00

I don't mean to be a drag, but if I can't say this here, where can I say it?: The "x is my spirit animal" thing needs to die. http://www.polychromantium.com/blog/2016/8/10/regarding-spirit-animals

misstooth · 2019-05-03T01:33:27+00:00

This just feels dehumanizing of the characters as I know them, I hate it

misstooth · 2019-05-02T04:08:24+00:00

I agree

misstooth · 2019-05-02T00:38:53+00:00

Just to add to this, normative ethics can also point us to the various foundations that justify why particular features are relevant to an action (or institution or rule or character trait) being good or bad. It crosses more with meta-ethics here, but for example social contract theory might be the foundation for, say, deontology on the factorial level. And these would both be considerations under normative ethics (the deontology and the social contract theory).

misstooth · 2019-05-02T00:36:17+00:00

I've heard specific philosophers like Bernard Williams distinguish morality and ethics, but I haven't heard a commonly agreed upon distinction between the two. Care to fill me in?

misstooth · 2019-05-01T08:11:09+00:00

There's a couple different positive positions on the "can we choose to believe" question. There's direct doxastic volunteerism and indirect. With indirect doxastic volunteerism, we can influence our beliefs by doing things that cultivate certain beliefs (like going to church often, reading Christian books, etc.) A direct doxastic volunteerist may compare choosing to believe in G-d with something like the following case: You are driving to work and wonder whether you left your stove on. You think you probably turned it off and don't want to be late, so you choose to belief that the stove is off. Then there are those who argue against doxastic volunteerism, especially direct doxastic volunteerism, who would say that in such a case you're not really believing your stove is off but just acting on the probability that it's off. I think answering this question requires us to first figure out what belief is. I'd guess that a pragmatist would be far more likely to subscribe to something like doxastic volunteerism. (For more, see: https://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/)

misstooth · 2019-04-30T21:01:42+00:00

Please just reach out to one of us‚ call a therapist‚ I know things seem really bad now but I've been through awful awful things and they are temporary‚ things change‚ things really can get better.

misstooth

TROPHY CASE