Report Citizeninsane's Profile

I invited to a club (here) https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=73656 if you would like to check it out.

How's your PhD program treating you? :p

Lol That is really interesting. We were very close to being classmates! I wonder if we would have 'recognized' each other or have any idea of our relation. It is such a small world, and I'm guessing academia is an even smaller world. Soon, we will have to reveal our identities to each other...but not just yet haha Either way, yes, it is always wise to go where the funding is, so I don't blame you for that. Philosophy of science is awesome, and that's a very interesting topic. Since you will be a TA, you will also be teaching? Will this be your first experience with teaching? Are you nervous? But that's very cool. The reason that I picked bioethics is mainly because, I wanted to pursue philosophy, but also do it in a way that is directly affecting and helping people. Bioethics deals with pertinent issues, and I want to be able to make a contribution to it.

Hey man! Nice to hear from you. Like you, I haven't been much active in the site either. I do still try to find time to watch anime, so I update my list here and there. Yes, I will be graduating this upcoming May..Finally! I am so happy. I think that I mentioned to you that I also wanted to go into philosophy at the graduate level, and I have been accepted to a PhD program at Pittsburgh. This is awesome because it is so close to home. Congratulations on your acceptance to UF, does this mean that we are officially colleagues? Lol
My specialization will be ethics, and more specifically bioethics. What is yours?
Anyway, I'm happy to hear the good news, let's keep in touch.

Have you had any luck finding graduate schools for philosophy?

Hey man, sorry for not responding to your previous message. I've had one hell of a semester, (last and current). I have a small window of breathing room right now I will detail everything in the next message. It does seem like you are also having an interesting semester.

Anyway, do expect a response from me by tomorrow.

Cya

Hello there!

No need for apologies, as a junior in university, this semester has proved to be quite challenging. I have never been pushed to this extent. I'm currently taking 21 credits, and I feel every load of it. However, it is all welcomed and I rejoice in my daily torment. Aside from the dramatic, I am really happy about my classes, and my professors. The only downside is that I don't have the free time to watch anime as I am accustomed to, but I am making arrangements so that I have more breathing room next semester. My classes this semester are purely mathematics and engineer courses, so I do miss my philosophy courses.

How have you been? As a senior, you must be suffering a bit from senioritis, maybe?
What will your senior project be on, if I may ask?

Yeah, it was a once-in-a-lifetime beauty. You can blame MAL for snatching that miracle from you. Tsk.

I apologize for the delay in responding, didn't see you responded until now.

I was absolutely enthralled by Zankyou for the first few set of episodes. I found the concept and execution to be rather refreshing and perpetually interesting. It was an interesting deviation from the normative Watanabe trademark of episodic/lack-of-plot. This one is story-driven albeit the plot being rather unstructured, but it work-ed. However, it took a sudden change in both direction and tone which to me was a bit surprising (in a bad way). I felt that change (introduction of "5" and subsequent events) to be rather convoluted and contrived.

However, in the last two episodes, it seems to be taking a more fitting direction so I can't say it's entirely disappointing. I'm looking forward to seeing how it finishes. Either way, I have enjoyed it relatively more than some of the other ones. It was an interesting watch throughout, just suffered from the aforementioned.

How about you?

This argument, in which the existential red herring is non-sequitur to, is irrelevant as I have explained in the forum thread. However, I was willing to engage it before you made the move to describing your interaction with an object to dismiss the abstractness of actions. Now consider that Bernhard Riemann's integral takes slices of an area under a curve, whereby the area of the slices approaches the area under the curve as the slices approach infinite. Obviously, infinite isn't a real number, however that has not invalidated calculus, nor does it make it nonsense to consider the behavior of systems under an arbitrary number of slices.

I have not made any claims of value and I will not be baited towards this existentialist theme. There are simply things which can be empirically verified to exist, and perceptions that can be reasonably explained through psychology. It seems that you are intending to unnecessarily conflate how a person approaches the world in common parlance with what we can reasonable ascertain about the world through logic and science. The irony of your approach is that you eliminate far more than you intend.

When you refer to a philosopher's work, it is by convenience that you say that the philosopher believes such and such... You have done so every time you refer to a name, and you have done it a lot more than I have, so it's curious why you would think that I take a philosopher's thought to be monolithic? This is specious, and irrelevant. The manner in which Heidegger made the leap in Being and Time from that there is a metaphysical "true" being that is correlated with the being that someone feels with he is subjectively "attuned" with what he is doing is a naturalistic fallacy that equates desirable with true. To say that Heidegger made no claims of desirability of certain human attitudes is like saying the Tao makes no prescriptive claims when describing Nothingness in the universe.

Greetings.

You noticed 100% correctly. What I want to know is why my beautiful and definitely worthy comment got deleted. I edited it to compliment the musical choices you have on your page and yeah...it got deleted. That's not even cool. Totally offended right now.

Anyway, I wrote something along the lines of stalking your comments because I found them very interesting, especially the ones relating to philosophy. I'm not entirely sure which club I was lurking but I happened to read something you wrote there and felt the need to tell you about my new-found appreciation.

I hope you appreciate my appreciation for your appreciation of appreciating the love of wisdom.

Also, nice favorites.

It's ironic that you keep referring to Heidegger, when he wrote an unreadable tome of 6 meanings of "Being" leading to some metaphysical conclusion about how one should live life. The analytic movement, and the positivist movement, both allowed for psychology to explain certain experiences, as does modern science. If this is not a red herring or irrelevant, then I don't know what is. Enumerating the indefiniteness of time is one matter, but how about enumerating how a person interacts with various objects, and then his imagined future, and then suggesting that they all have non-abstract brute presences? It seems you've taken some philosophical courses and want to show off philosophical history. Due to that, your argument is all over the place.

"That is, is the principle that verifies that which is meaningful, empirically verifiable? "

Define "meaningful". Meaningful, as in comprehensible, or meaningful, such that it holds subjective value and should be pursued? Heidegger's book is abound with these ambiguities.

Nuomena, which cannot be properly asserted. Part of the logical positivist approach to metaphysics is to define a boundary of what can be known, and what cannot. Assertions that lie on the other side of this boundary must then arise out of psychology, rather than being truly ontological assertions. This requires the logical positivist to deal in abstraction for many claims which rely on grammatical or symbolic conceptions. Such as the case in the existence of numbers, the details of sense-experience, claims of theology, and in this case (although arguable), the existence of action. While Wittgenstein suggests that one ought to toss the ladder after he climbs it, one cannot do so until he fully comprehends that boundary. If we follow Wittgenstein's advice, then you ought to quit your philosophy major and become a physicist. Otherwise, while there is still matters unclear, either to us, or matter which could be clarified to others by challenging them to think (such as discussion threads), then we engage in philosophy. Wittgenstein aside, the acknowledgement of brute presence might be primary in that it is what we contend with first and foremost, but it is not primary in the sense that it supersedes any other mode or that it is more important. Nor does brute presence apply to action, which has no direct presence--and that was the topic of the thread. If you were not reducing metaphysics to "brute presence", then I can only suggest that you were being irrelevant. Frankly, I tend to value argument of questionable soundness over non-sequitur statements. Even the cocky A.J Ayer would have had to admit that the world is more complicated than what one sees right in front of him.

I assume that when people respond to me that they are doing so within the established context, and that their assertions have at least some relevance to the topic at hand. And so when you enumerated various instances of how a person would interact with an object (note: not a property or action) and stated that people cannot escape the past, I drew those two points together as a single point in a larger context. For otherwise they would be unrelated statements within the same post, and I'm not sure why you would do that?

If we are limited by the past (i.e. history, genetics, culture, environment), then the particular set of modalities comprise all conceivable thought. If you are not suggesting that the past (i.e. history, genetics, culture, environment) creates a subset in the set that is all conceivable thought, then I fail to see why the past was brought up at all, since it would be awfully redundant.

Now back to primary modes. It is commonly accepted that an imperfectly round, spotted, object with a stem at the top could be a physical description of an apple, and we approach it as if it were. However, it should be noted that our sense of the apple is actually a mental conception and not necessarily what actually is, and that there is an actual object behind this visage which we can never otherwise conceive.

Now a social scientist, or a common man, might say, as I think you've attempted, that we treat the apple as is, not as an abstract conception, but as a particular kind of sense. A hard scientist would be quick to tell you that the apple is not quite as we sense, but actually made up of molecules of particular configurations that, when interacted with our taste buds, induce some fragrance. A philosopher might then draw the connection that the taste of the apple is not necessarily inherent in the apple.

Long story short, I find your reductionist approach to the "primary mode" boring. I am just not interested in how a man might approach an apple when he is not even thinking about it. Even when we accept that the apple or keyboard has a brute presence, that brute presence does not carry over to something abstract like time, or empty space.

Thank-you for the links! In my free-time when I'm unoccupied I'l get a chance to read them.