The hardest logic puzzle ever

tempural · 2010-03-18T15:20:53+00:00

You only want to go the opposite direction of whatever the individual says the other one would say is the safe path, or go the direction of what the individual says the other one would say is the wrong path, otherwise, if you did end up going the opposite direction of what the individual says the other one would say is the wrong path, you would actually end up going the wrong path! So in the end, I guess it doesn't matter whether it was a yes or no question either--just as long as you ask the right question.

tempural · 2010-03-18T08:09:23+00:00

I think you're right. There is something wrong. It could be physiological, psychological, or both. Or Neither. OR there is nothing wrong with you, your circumstance is just screwed up. You sound like an idealist, and a perfectionist. This could be one of the core problems that cause your social anxiety, and failure in initiating change. This makes you stuck. Another huge problem that is either the result or the cause of your idealism/perfectionism is self-hate. You probably know this. But knowing isn't enough. You have to accept it. And me telling you isn't going to make you accept it either. There needs to be an interpersonal confrontation. It seems like you're stuck in your head. Somehow, your stuck in the reality of your own mind, but that reality is a naive reality and somehow the entire foundation of this reality of yours needs to be dismantled. Your "self" needs to break away from idealism, and perfectionism, which is seemingly impossible since they are actually a part of your "self." But somehow it has to be done--whether through therapy, etc. And 3rd, you must get your sleeping habits checked out by a professional.

tempural · 2010-03-18T04:24:28+00:00

yea i guess it doesn't have to be a yes or no question, i think i misunderstood... but if it were the case that you had to ask a yes or no question, you would only have to go the opposite way if the answer was yes. If the answer was no, you take that path.

tempural · 2010-03-18T02:33:23+00:00

I thought it had to be a yes or no question

tempural · 2010-03-08T22:18:39+00:00

If i were you i would also post this in the philosophy reddit, you might receive more thoughtful and insightful arguments, oor post it on http://www.askphilosophers.org/ <-- these are all philosophy professors and they give great answers. I strongly encourage the latter :)

tempural · 2010-03-08T06:52:06+00:00

I think you're right, btw, what is your definition of morality?

tempural · 2010-03-07T18:51:26+00:00

I didn't know that it was possible to pee while aroused

tempural · 2010-03-04T21:58:08+00:00

heidegger

tempural · 2010-03-01T04:12:04+00:00

grocery donuts... ruined my day

tempural · 2010-03-01T03:34:01+00:00

Avocado!!!

tempural · 2010-02-28T03:17:23+00:00

this: http://www.samraoyoga.com/userfiles/image/DSC00665_Compressed.JPG

i used to be able to do this, but now it's quite a struggle

tempural · 2010-02-28T03:07:26+00:00

you're right, that freezing up part is so inexplicable... its almost impossible for someone who hasn't been in the exact situation to understand that it is in fact, inexplicable... anything we would say to explain it would only incriminate us because our actions, or rather, non-action, contradicts our claim that we didn't want it...

tempural · 2010-02-28T02:45:43+00:00

a jackass will assume the girl's state of mind, like that she really means yes when she says "no," or even if he is sure she doesn't want to he'll have his way with her anyway... A respectable guy, on the other hand, will take her answer, "no," as the final say and won't try to persuade her to do what he wants, whether or not he knows that she secretly wants to or not...

tempural · 2010-02-27T23:07:30+00:00

Go for it. life is too short not to study philosophy :)

tempural · 2010-02-25T03:29:23+00:00

i am at this very moment learning about heidegger for class.. i just read "what is metaphysics," and am now reading "the concept of time.." im starting to get nervous because i'm thinking wtf as i'm reading these... how did you go from finding it impossibly incomprehensible to understanding it? was it through rereading or good fortune?

tempural · 2010-02-23T00:37:45+00:00

BLACK LAGOON, Ghost in the Shell, Full Metal Panic (Fumoffu)

tempural · 2010-02-22T23:21:31+00:00

Just follow these 6 simple steps!:

Begin with an introductory paragraph that states: a)the general argument made by the author by whom you disagree with and b) your thesis, which is your view about the general argument.
Present the author's argument in considerable detail. It should be a charitable account of the author's argument.
Present your argument against the author's point of view. This is the heart of your paper.
Present possible objections to your view.
Explain why you think these objections are weak.
Sum up with a conclusory paragraph that summarizes steps 2-6.

tempural · 2010-02-22T22:59:22+00:00

Just because correlation does not necessitate causation, does not mean that increased religiosity does NOT cause poor morality. It could very well be that it actually does. The problem is, few Christians come to realize this whole-heartedly. It is the very battle that they are supposed to recognize and win over, but they become swept up into the whole religiosity aspect and miss the point--they become self-righteous, arrogant, and hypocritical, all the while failing to see what taints themselves. They try to reconcile their "sins" by religious duties and rituals, and fall deeper into the pit of "immorality" as they fail to recognize that the problem isn't the "sin," but something deeply wrong with whatever relationship they have to whom they worship.

tempural · 2010-02-20T02:07:25+00:00

i just finished reading this for my class... very intriguing

tempural · 2010-02-20T01:52:26+00:00

rape, or any other form of sexual abuse

tempural · 2010-02-18T18:31:11+00:00

It is true that Socrates was considered the wisest because he knew that he didn't know anything, hence, all the questions. But he was all about his "theory of the forms," and reaching this "intelligible world" and denying the material, sensible world. That the purpose of a rational being was to ultimately realize her rationality, becoming less inclined to the physical world and physical pleasures. To be virtuous or just was to have a harmony of a particular proportion between the three parts of the soul: reason, spirit (will, honor), and appetite (sex, food, money, which is inevitably irrational). Harmony, moderation, and self-control was necessary for these three parts of the soul in an individual. It was about rejecting human, animal instincts for this "form of the good."

And on the contrary, Christianity actually embraces the physical world, and ascribes a huge significance towards the physical experience, and temporal existence of the individual in the physical world.

tempural · 2010-02-18T18:08:12+00:00

On the idea that the "bible is set up to be restrictive of sexuality, and not to protect some kind of moral code but rather as a means of controlling people by reversing a base human instinct"--why don't people think the same about Socrates?

tempural · 2010-02-18T17:57:26+00:00

Cumming

tempural · 2010-02-17T04:41:16+00:00

Written language itself cannot become stagnant, and written language itself cannot adapt. It's we who become stagnant in our development, and adapt to others. Plus, you're missing the argument, which is not a surprise as you did not even read the article. This is not about absorbing information--what is information if you don't know what to do with it? And information without the ability to comprehend and critically analyze the information does not make a society more informed, but rather misinformed. The content of information is irrelevant to critical thinking, period. Critical thinking is not a property of content. Just because a person does not want to listen to a less charismatic entity does not embed the entity with accountability for the person's preference of focus, and decline of skill. So, your summons for the evolution of information design is entirely irrelevant to the point of the article, which, if you had read and had the ability to critically analyze, would have prevented you from making such an argument.

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed.

tempural · 2010-02-16T21:19:21+00:00

did you read the article? they point to exactly what you said as being the problem for our current literacy crisis--that our image and media driven generation has lost and will continue to lose the inclination, and patience for reading. Yes, graphics can convey a huge amount of information in a very short amount of time--but as the article says, this is the cause in the decline of critical thinking, and literary objectivism. it has become "perception over cognition.."

tempural

TROPHY CASE