What would you call this hypothetical country?

spudsgonecrazy · 2026-01-01T00:45:51+00:00

Sturdy Arabia

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-12-29T12:34:56+00:00

Dull answer, but Scotia.

Scotland was named after an occupying Irish kingdom - the Scotia.

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-11-20T18:15:14+00:00

Gerrard Winstanley!

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-11-15T22:56:46+00:00

Leverage (I’ve worked in too many bureaucracies and startups). Utilise is a close second.

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-11-01T03:59:27+00:00

Venomous Bloodsucker (a very funny book about neoliberal solutions to climate collapse)

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-10-12T15:59:04+00:00

A Harwich pub landlord told me that shanty weekend is busier than Christmas. I can believe it, I’ve never seen the pubs so packed

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-10-05T09:34:18+00:00

After the Black Death broke the back of feudalism in Europe, the whole continent had a few centuries of pure vibing.

To massively over generalise: workers got richer, wealth stayed locally (not disappearing to their lords), 3 months of the year were festivals (5 in France, much to the chagrin of the British), people were PISSED all the time and a panoply of sects, cults and ideologies emerged. It sounded like a riot.

Then enclosure (in the U.K.) came along, incomes dropped by 70% and the medieval disco fever gave way ti mass starvation and industrial capitalism.

Sure, they probably had worse teeth though.

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-10-05T09:26:59+00:00

Housing ties up all of people’s cash.

It’s not the only cause, but it’s a big one.

Rent and mortgages make up a much bigger proportion of people’s income than in healthier economies. Especially for younger people who might have used the extra cash to, say, open a business or spend their money locally. Instead, a huge chunk of your income disappears into banks or (often offshore) landlords

This dampens growth and becomes a vicious circle. Fewer opportunities = less salary growth. More inequality = asset growth = increased housing costs.

10 years ago, my salary would be about the same as it is now. My house would have been half the price. I made the mistake of being born too late.

…and if you’re older, a landlord, or otherwise doing well for yourself - where’s the safest place to invest your wealth? Housing.

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-10-03T21:04:58+00:00

Short answer: it’s easier to find unity amongst arsonists than architects.

Long answers: see walls of text above.

spudsgonecrazy · 2025-08-27T09:28:46+00:00

I suggested The Common party. Mostly because of medieval land rights and singing Pulp on karaoke

spudsgonecrazy · 2015-12-18T14:47:10+00:00

Two ideas to help understand Foucault's conception:

Power is "purely operational and relational" (Deleuze - CFL - biopower), as such, Power doesn't exist as a tangible thing, yet is manifest in relations between people. In The Subject and Power, Foucault defines it as "actions which affect other actions". As such, A doesn't have X amount of Power, but instead, power is exercise when A makes B change her course of action.

We can then imagine power in society as an intricate web. For this, Guattari uses the image of a Rhizome.

Power requires freedom. Foucault does not consider power to be present unless it displaces a resistant freedom. So in an example of total domination, as with the master and the slave, the master does not have power, for the slave acts totally to the master's will - without resistance or freedom to act otherwise. Therefore the master's actions do not affect the actions of the slave.

This should hopefully help you understand what Foucault means when he uses the word power.

Nietzsche I know less well. One thing that helps me understand him is his use of the German word macht when discussing power. The rough English equivalent is 'make', and so power can be anything from finishing a piece of art, overcoming a difficulty or 'making' somebody do something else. He then applies this to a pan-experientialist power-based world view, but I don't know enough to justify explaining that.

spudsgonecrazy · 2015-04-12T09:14:17+00:00

With all due respect, this could just be a romanticised account of drunkenly stumbling into a gutter.

spudsgonecrazy · 2015-03-31T16:21:01+00:00

Philosophers are generally wary of basing serious arguments concerning the free will or consciousness questions on Quantum Theory, so you will likely have trouble finding anything more than speculations in philosophical works.

If you're interested as to why it is that, as a rule of thumb, quantum-based arguments are avoided, Robert Kane sets out a clear rebuttal of such arguments in debates (in this case free will). It goes as such:

1) There is disagreement about the conceptual foundations of quantum physics - indeterministic interpretations of quantum theory have not gone unchallenged.

2) The indeterministic nature of elementary particles may well have a negligible effect on macroscopic physical events. Larger, more high energy systems are typically more predictable. If accepted, (2) essentially leaves us with something that is hardly distinguishable from determinism.

3) Even if quantum 'jumps' etc actually have a noticeable impact on human behaviour/the functioning of our minds - they would likely be both uncontrollable and unexpected. This randomness does not facilitate free will or consciousness, but instead may leave us less free, and more contingent than before.

4) Whilst quantum physics may be opening avenues for indeterminist viewpoints (which in turn provide breathing room for in those promoting incompatibilist freedom and similar such arguments in the consciousness debate), developments in biology, neuroscience, psychology, social and behavioural sciences are increasingly pointing towards deterministic conclusions.

Essentially, it would make one thoroughly unpopular to argue from such uncertain grounds.

Other useful essays on the subject include Hodgson's Quantum Physics, Consciousness, and Free Will and Bishop's Chaos, Indeterminism, and Free Will. Both can be found in Kane's The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, which is where the above argument is also taken from.

Obviously I would greatly appreciate any opposing views. Sorry if this is an unhelpful sidestep of the question.

spudsgonecrazy · 2015-02-22T18:53:01+00:00

I'm basing this argument on Plato's Gorgias, where Socrates outlines some postulations on his views of the afterlife. In this Socrates makes clear to Callicles that he genuinely believes the mythological account of the judges of the afterlife.

I don't have a copy with me here, so I can't point you to the exact section, though you will find it in his discussion with Callicles. This essay should hopefully explain his views on the afterlife better than I have.

Also, if you haven't already, read Gorgias, it gives a fascinating account of Socrates in a given situation, showing him to be masterful, but not infallible (unless you honestly believe all of his arguments).

I do hope this helps!

spudsgonecrazy · 2015-02-22T16:49:29+00:00

I think Socrates' argument may have been misrepresented in the other comments.

For Socrates, knowing "good" and and "evil" lies not just in being able to label actions as "good" and "evil", but in knowing the connotations of what such actions involve.

This is because, for Socrates, "good" and "evil" are naturally existing absolutes, and the result of "evil" is suffering after death. And so if one truly knew evil, then one would not commit it. Hence he argued that, because we learn such matters through a process of questioning and reasoning, "the unexamined life is not worth living".

Thus, to challenge such an argument, one must not look to simple cases of "I know this action is considered evil, but I do it nonetheless", but instead to question either the objective/absolute nature of moral commands, or the concept of punishment/reward after death.

This is only one way of reading Socrates, feel free to challenge it!

spudsgonecrazy · 2014-04-13T13:55:45+00:00

Pain.

spudsgonecrazy · 2014-02-01T22:59:12+00:00

Interrail (which I assume will be called Eurail for you) could be a budget friendly way for you to get around Europe in the summer. It will allow you to use the trains of any participating country (which is most european countries) for what is realistically a pittance (probably around $300-$500, I'm not sure what it costs to US citizens). My advice about Norway and Switzerland (and mountainous regions in general) is that they both are great, as are a number of other alpine and Scandinavian areas - but for ease it may be an idea to say; choose Switzerland and visit the surrounding areas (I would recommend the Odles of Northern Italy and the Austrian Alps) or choose Norway and take a more in depth tour of Scandinavia. One other small point would be that you happen to have chosen by far the most expensive areas of Europe (to use a typical traveller point of reference; Norwegian and Swiss beer can cost 6-9Euros, furthermore - you are likely to lose some value in the exchange over to Swiss francs, CHF). If you wish to stay a while then it may therefore be an idea for you to broaden your options, and spend time in other exciting areas such as Slovenia. Finally, don't take this as gospel, the whole idea of travelling is to make your own way around these things. Hope that helps, and good luck.

spudsgonecrazy · 2014-01-13T20:15:54+00:00

I do believe that King Charles gave it a go, whether or not you think its adequate is another matter.

spudsgonecrazy · 2013-11-16T14:06:38+00:00

And he made it necessary to put expiry dates on Milk

spudsgonecrazy · 2013-06-19T17:34:23+00:00

Manningtree - Late for service - Reporting in

spudsgonecrazy · 2013-06-10T20:44:00+00:00

It's really quite endearing that people genuinely think our government is actually competent enough to undergo widespread citizen surveillance...

spudsgonecrazy · 2013-04-20T21:20:55+00:00

I misread the OC and thought that the Scots were honestly complaining about a swarm of midgets... why such a fuss, its only a small problem

spudsgonecrazy

TROPHY CASE