this was the first night we ever met lol

not me desperately composing an email tone discord message to keep contact with the most captivating person i’ve ever been around

i wanted to leak our first dms but penguin unadded me

and i yapped about how much i hated locke 💖

my understanding is that rorty is using the strong sense of “intrinsic/essential”, as in some a priori gödel-proof theory of numerical forms not relative to axioms going back to the first screenshot: “mathematicians can in fact produce a mechanism for generating all the true descriptions of 17…”

though i don’t know enough math to say if im still missing your point or not :)

i was thinking about this more too and i read a paper defending platonic essentialism about numbers re:rorty but that didn’t help because they were stupid i just need to take a math class or something

i don’t know shit about shit

its funny that he kinda says as much but phrases it in characteristic pluralistic fashion alongside other definitions

(non-rigourous, commonsensical) "definitions" as obviously his entire point is to escape the essential definition and to emphasize the human embeddedness of the concepts

rorty says this is his favorite passage from dewey and it makes complete sense i can appreciate it, but mostly in the sense that it makes clear where the battle lines are between the reformist and revolutionary pragmatists

also can you explain the rationale behind why arguments are comma delimited? like why not just write out the whole thing as a string

(obviously this isn't a very interesting candidate for discussion because it's deflationary and pragmatist, but there's lots of wacky stuff out there)

@kasey.cafe talking about philosophy of math would be fun

also imagine writing "we feel gypped" in an academic paper i'm dead

"lewis once said that philosophy is a matter of gathering together our intuitions and then finding the way to keep as many as possible. i think its a matter of treating both intuitions and accusations of paradox as the voice of the past and as possible impediments to the creation of a better future"

people clown on sam harris but the moral landscape is essentially on par with the rest of the supposed groundings for ethics, albeit more clumsily presented

this is more humiliating i wanna die LOL

yea its like the most pythonic lua you'll ever write and it messes w my head

its pretty cool and i enjoy it, but interacting with the actual os has always been a little wonky in my experience (because i'm inexperienced and bad)

again in my defense, this is what it looks like to run a simple cat command lmao

lua through mpv (the documentation is mostly fine its just much more frustrating to troubleshoot when i do retarded things, and there's a lot fewer people actually using it [aka fewer previous retards making the same mistakes i am and posting on stackoverflow])

oh no if it was python i would have figured this out ages ago, the problem is its scripting with terrible api documentation lmao (and i have no reading comprehension, my complaints are invalid and i didn't rtfm hard enough)

it was haunting me while i tried to sleep so i rose from the grave

omg it was fucking c) im gonna rope

in my defense it's unbelievable that you have to explicitly specify capture_stdout = true on a subprocess

its interesting how much William James consistently uses money as metaphor in his writing - i'm not sure if this is a reflection of the American idioms of the day but it doesn't feel irrelevant to his thought as a whole

its clear that he's very connected to his time and place, which is fitting for one of the founders of pragmatism i suppose, for some reason its still a little [strange? no. disappointing? no. idk] how politically moderate they all are.

(yes its clear hes disagreeing with the the highlight but its still very reflective of his context)

what i'm trying to say is: neitzsche's anti-democratic pragmatism is far more compelling than the consensus-seeking liberalism of the early american pragmatists

rorty is philosophically correct but politically wrong

one of the following is true: a) this is designed poorly b) there is a good reason for why it was designed this way and i'm too stupid to realize it c) it can actually do exactly what i want, i'm just too stupid to figure out how it works

sorry heidegger i'm busy bash scripting rn, i'll get back to you in a moment

guy who thinks trannies make up a large enough portion of the population that they will singlehandedly tank global fertility rates

the comments on my audiobook upload are hilarious

coming off the back of Rorty this comment is fascinating tbh

hey remember that time i saw a friend of a friend at the highly specialized eating disorder therapy place

she was pretty chill about it and i was a little dumbstruck and anxious (as per usual for the time)

those edifying philosophers with the bravery to be hermeneutic in the face of systematic epidemiologists, those will be our heroic companions while untangling ourselves from the stultifying familiarity in which we find ourselves

how did autocorrect change epistemologists to epidemiologists

reading Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature reminded me how awful philosophy of mind is i never want to hear about c-fibers or neurological subroutine correlates ever again

imo the book gets much more compelling as it goes on (it gets less tied down to the analytic over time, but still, the time spent in its presence is dull)

if i had a vore fetish i'd be so happy rn

i can only hope that after the great cannibalization of humanity, my fangirls are a representative sample of the population at large so that we can maintain agriculture after the non-fan stock has dried up as a food source

unfortunately my marketing manager tells me i'm not terribly popular with their kind, something about inducing an allergic reaction in those with testosterone?

oh my god i fucking love you

one million is too many fangirls what will i do with all this attention

the familiar is strange, some need more help seeing that than others