carl jung is a fucking LOSER

covered in freaking cat hair

im shy and tired and brain scattered today, no more talking

idle neet is so cool like just the raw affirmative energy of making a sewerperson cod montage in a vlog is insane

i almost feel bad for even thinking shame in his vicinity its genuinely beautiful

also like he's actually very social and relatively responsible and stuff relative to neets, what a fascinating guy

i love watching neettubers

live the life i dont have the courage to

its not even this tbh, i just really relate to you culturally and personally and i like your values and the things you create

im watching a neet watch a neet this is so peak dude

throwback to comfyneet

okay swapping my laptop back to workmode

ugh ick i don’t think i like this paper lev sent me what is feminist logic what do we want it to be

it’s like hella wishy washy and like sure but i also just don’t think it’s very compelling

hey what if feminist logic was anti-exceptional so they’re a science and continuous with math and empirical studies

like we’re really vague and just like here’s a splattering of guys that talk about this

and then there’s this specific logical pluralist angle which is fine enough but i dislike the framing as “deeper indeterminacy of science” when compared to other relativistic schemes. like sure “stem from” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but it almost seems to imply those couldn’t be fallouts

which ig is a silly concern to have, i’m just not a fan of the science angle and how strict they try to make the pluralism appear, but maybe that’s just my bad read.

maybe i’m just lacking imagination but i have very concrete ideas in mind about how contexts could influence scientific projects but im struggling to see that in the case of logical contexts. like sure we talk about gender and the law of excluded middle and ig that’s fine but

idk it’s just shrugcore and also absurd. i’m also tempted to think it’s a little bit skissue on the part of feminist philosophers for having like bad ideas and being frustrated when they don’t pan out

and like yea, logicbros bad and you have to let the material shape the direction you go, duh. idk i was never really into philosophy of logic so ig i just don’t really care and ill keep on using logic how i need

which is the other small worrying thing with how easy to slip into motivated reasoning this seems

😭😭😭😭😭 please no the pedagogy

dude it’s literally just cursory gesture after cursory gesture

yeah idk i’m gonna be real i think i would die of cringe if my logic 101 course took a class to read plumwood

land acknowledgement ass pedagogy

fucked up french philadelphia pissroom

peak

i probably should have sent an explanation with that cancellation but i didn’t wanna

“yeah im an aristotelian”

i like the implication that there’s a golden mean of sexual orientation, like yea some of you are just too lesbian

garfield i wonder who that’s for dot png

conjuring an analytic aristotelian that gets really excited about spectra and tries to quantize the virtues

alternate timeline where rawls was a virtue ethicist and the economic profession produced a bunch of models on greek concepts they didn’t understand instead

don’t wanna waste our time being the only thing on each others minds

virtues and golden means are a little flat and constraining, gotta proceed dialectically

i’m thinking about this terms of an excess (surfeit?) of instrumentality, and pairing this with “pragmatism is true but it doesn’t work”. like let’s play along for a moment and say that the future presents itself as a telos and we’re acting with nested activities towards that.

sometimes surely that means that acknowledging your telos (in a particular domain?) can be counterproductive. which there isnt really anything mysterious about, it just runs against the grain of most knowledge fetishized approaches.

also i think virtue ethics can avoid the charge of instrumentality (as implied by my use of excess), although i do think we’re somewhat treading into verbal immunization strategies, although not nearly as egregious as the attempt to compatibalize it with consequentialism

it’s just a problem that doesn’t really arise in other worldviews (which counts in favor of VE fwiw). you’re not gonna act immorally by respecting the categorical imperative or maximizing utility too much. like you can spin it but they’re relatively marginal concerns

whereas here i think in maybe even most instances verbalizing an account of what you’re doing and why would be destructive to the practice itself

and weirdly also has a distorting effect, by focusing too much on the nested nature of one’s projects you’re missing out on the other side of virtue ethics that places specific emphasis on practices being goods in themselves

the dangerous habit for me is/was to abstract just a little bit more from the direct experience i had in mind. i over-indulged and frequently made things so vague and indeterminate as to have no useful content whatsoever.

it was useful for making my experience more general and more palatable to an audience while getting the psychological satisfaction of supposedly achieving some higher truth than the menial and boorish truths of the everyday. it was also self-protective by means of obscurity.

your posts were inspirational because they were particular (as opposed to “universal”). they were focused on the mundane everyday (hence nichijou-kei [the specific invocation of which is a reference to my first post]).

"i have always thought that showing that «it is possible (realistically) to think this way» is a better way of describing the goal of philosophy than the usual - and usually also misguided - attempt to show that «it is necessary to think that way»." your posting said “try thinking/doing it this way”

i’m the trans woman equivalent of non-binary lemonade lover