@DanielSank I think it's more due to the fact that they didn't write proper thread-safe memory management when they first built it, and now it's difficult to get rid of it.
@Semiclassical my impression is that it's not but it's so impenetrable that it basically is to anyone who hasnt read like all the critical theorists from before him
context matters. the reason why people put effort to understanding inter galactic teichmuller theory is because mochizuki has background in writing good math
@EricSilva I think you don't have to go very far into science to know that. Physicists basically play on that axiom
Consistency with observations over internal consistency of the theory
And even though mathematics has tight rules that bars us to play that game, I think in our head we also think of an idea in terms of "useful" and "not useful" before we think of it as "logically coherent" and "logically incoherent"
it assumes we can get to the heart of things by approximate truths but maybe some things have to be grasped in irreducible complexity in which case you have to throw that model out the window
@EricSilva Alternatively it could be proof that Lacan is inherently not meant to be meaningful. Not saying that is the case but you can't rule that out.
I just don't see a model of understanding that isn't approximation of truth
You teach it initially in reductive terms, but gradually allow for more complexity until you finally conclude that none of the various models are ever ‘true’ in an absolute sense
I could see that being the case in biology for instance
i dont necessarily agree w the idea that you cant always approximate im just saying it's important to be self critical about these things because you cant rule out that youre not missing something huge
So I’d debate interpreting “teaching is the art of telling smaller and smaller lies” as amounting to an accumulation of approximations. In some cases, sure
@Semiclassical Hmm yeah but I am not knowledgeable enough about biology to know that. I'd be interested to know if people don't inherently think taxonomically in modern biology though
@BalarkaSen There's been lots of shifts in taxonomy in modern times where genetic analysis revealed that things put into the same taxon were not actually closely related at all
@BalarkaSen I don't think so - the modern starting point is genetics and evolutionary history, and taxonomy is derived from that - i.e. you're finding genetic relations and give certain kinds of relations a name. Think of it like sorting groups into different categories according to their properties - would you say that the "taxonomy of groups" is fundamental to group theory?
i mean the reason modern psychologists are often bad at critiquing freud is cause they either dont understand what psychoanalysis actually is (and psychoanalysis and psychology arent necessarily the same thing and they dont necessarily have the same goal) and also they dont read enough freud to know what his actual positions were
those are definitely bad reasons to reject his work (the optics are worse given that late freud also rejected a lot of early freud and made it a point that everything he said was not for the purpose of understanding how the mind actually works but an intellectual framework for understanding human intersubjectivity in a specific time and place for clinical reasons)
‘Had Hegel prefaced his philosophical works by saying that it was all a grand thought experiment then he would have been profound. As it is he is comic.’
The ultimate truth is that we can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.
I pilfered it off from an essay on postmodernism by internet's king Richard Dawkins, who pilfered it off from a book by Sokal-Bricmont, who were quoting Félix Guattari
I can’t really be upset about French people writing like that in their native language. There’s enough context there that I don’t consider myself in a place to judge it
no but "A look at how the intense relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud gives birth to psychoanalysis." sounds like weird history vulgarization
on the other hand, sometimes you get lucky: for instance, the fact that Ayn Rand apparently hated Immanual Kant is something I'm very happy about since I dig Kant and despise Rand
(fun fact, she once referred to Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history”)
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." @Balarka
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
part 1: USA box office of $4.5 million on a budget of under $20 million part 2: USA box office of $3.3 million on a budget of under $10 million part 3: USA box office of less than $1 million on a budget of under $5 million
I cannot post a question anymore! What can I do to solve this problem? I think somebody did not like my questions and finally, a m... f... kills me. I do not have a lot of time. What can I do?
I cannot post a question anymore! What can I do to solve this problem? I think somebody did not like my questions and finally, a m... f... kills me. I do not have a lot of time. What can I do?
