u/Trollnutzer

So, I've mostly read European philosophy and am in a Masters program for European philosophy. I'm also interested in non-European philosophy (e.g. traditions within Chinese or African philosophy — I know these are huge generalizations that cover very diverse traditions, but bear with me), but I'm mostly influenced by Western European thought, lived only in Europe and can only speak European languages. Is it even possible for me to truly understand Chinese or African thought without understanding aspects of the culture, without a lived experience? I worry that if I try to engage with these traditions, I'll end up filtering them through Western categories without realizing it, especially when I read translations. Even if I realize this, I probably wouldn't know how to deal with this, because it seems impossible to step out of one's own framework.

I’m currently watching the episode where Foreman and Thirteen split up because Foreman can’t be her boss and have a relationship with her at the same time. Across the episodes up to Season 6, there have been repeated remarks that Foreman is similar to House, and Foreman himself was so afraid of becoming like him that he even tried, unsuccessfully, to leave the team. One reason why Thirteen had to be sacked, however, was that she wasn’t loyal to Foreman, or in other words, she expressed a different opinion on a diagnosis that contradicted Foreman’s. Foreman was angry that Thirteen simply wouldn’t back him up, and I think that contributed to their breakup Foreman doesn’t want any other opinions that don’t back up his own, or rather, opinions that compete with his own. Foreman needs yes-men around him, which is the exact opposite of House, who expects his team to contradict him, which is one of the reasons why he didn’t select Cole in Season 4.

EDIT: I mean Dobson not Cole

So I've been rewatching Sleepy Princess in the Demon Castle while taking a philosophy class and GUYS. Syalis is the Übermensch. Nietzsche's Übermensch rejects society's values, creates their own meaning, and imposes their will on the world without bitterness. Now look at Syalis. She is a kidnapped princess. Every narrative convention says she should be crying in her cell waiting for rescue. Instead this woman looked at her situation and went "these sheets are garbage" and proceeded to terrorize an entire demon castle for better bedding. She has CREATED HER OWN VALUES. They just happen to be about naps Nietzsche hated ressentiment, e.g. when powerless people sit around being bitter. Syalis has NONE. She's not mad about being captured. She's not plotting revenge. She just gets up and skins a demon teddy bear for stuffing material like it's a normal Tuesday. The will to power? Everyone thinks it means domination but Nietzsche meant the drive to impose your creative vision on reality. Syalis will dismantle castle infrastructure for a quieter room. SHE LITERALLY DIES MULTIPLE TIMES AND COMES BACK BECAUSE THE AFTERLIFE DIDN'T HAVE GOOD ENOUGH SLEEPING CONDITIONS. Death tried to stop her will to power and LOST. Amor fati? When the hero shows up to rescue her she's ANNOYED. She doesn't want to leave. She has fully affirmed her existence and optimized it for maximum sleep quality. She is living her best life in a demon prison. Meanwhile every demon in the castle is the herd. They follow rules, have a hierarchy, have expectations. Syalis walks through all of it like it doesn't apply to her because in her mind IT DOESN'T. She's not rebelling against their system because that would still be operating within it. She simply does not perceive their rules as relevant. She is beyond good and evil because she is too sleepy to engage with the concept. Nietzsche would weep. She is what he dreamed of.

So I've been rewatching Sleepy Princess in the Demon Castle while taking a philosophy class and GUYS. Syalis is the Übermensch. Nietzsche's Übermensch rejects society's values, creates their own meaning, and imposes their will on the world without bitterness. Now look at Syalis. She is a kidnapped princess. Every narrative convention says she should be crying in her cell waiting for rescue. Instead this woman looked at her situation and went "these sheets are garbage" and proceeded to terrorize an entire demon castle for better bedding. She has CREATED HER OWN VALUES. They just happen to be about naps Nietzsche hated ressentiment, e.g. when powerless people sit around being bitter. Syalis has NONE. She's not mad about being captured. She's not plotting revenge. She just gets up and skins a demon teddy bear for stuffing material like it's a normal Tuesday. The will to power? Everyone thinks it means domination but Nietzsche meant the drive to impose your creative vision on reality. Syalis will dismantle castle infrastructure for a quieter room. SHE LITERALLY DIES MULTIPLE TIMES AND COMES BACK BECAUSE THE AFTERLIFE DIDN'T HAVE GOOD ENOUGH SLEEPING CONDITIONS. Death tried to stop her will to power and LOST. Amor fati? When the hero shows up to rescue her she's ANNOYED. She doesn't want to leave. She has fully affirmed her existence and optimized it for maximum sleep quality. She is living her best life in a demon prison. Meanwhile every demon in the castle is the herd. They follow rules, have a hierarchy, have expectations. Syalis walks through all of it like it doesn't apply to her because in her mind IT DOESN'T. She's not rebelling against their system because that would still be operating within it. She simply does not perceive their rules as relevant. She is beyond good and evil because she is too sleepy to engage with the concept. Nietzsche would weep. She is what he dreamed of.

So, why is almost every patient or their condition introduced by either pissing, shitting or puking blood?

I take it that children choosing puberty is morally superior to them enduring it without choice.

Puberty is, at minimum, a non-consensual, power-disparate, and potentially unwanted sexualization of a minor. Even when it is wanted, it may be a malformed desire.

Cognizant imposition is, at minimum, a willful and knowing motion-of-event setting that affects a non-soliciting party.

Domination is, at minimum, when a social order systematically structures people’s options, needs, self-conceptions, and standing in ways they cannot adequately contest.

...

(1) If cognizant imposition of puberty does not belong to a social order that dominates, then cognizant imposition of puberty does not belong to a social order that systematically structures people’s options, needs, self-conceptions, and standing in ways they cannot adequately contest.

(2) Cognizant imposition of puberty belongs to a social order that systematically structures people’s options, needs, self-conceptions, and standing in ways they cannot adequately contest.

(3) Therefore, cognizant imposition of puberty belongs to a social order that dominates.

...

The price of rejecting premise one, the linking premise, is that we lose my account of a sufficient condition for domination. Namely,

> Domination is, at minimum, when a social order systematically structures people’s options, needs, self-conceptions, and standing in ways they cannot adequately contest.

That might not matter, but I don’t take my account of domination to be idiosyncratic. This condition is something I take most people would accept. This isn’t an argument for the condition, but a claim about its dialectical relevance.

The price of rejecting premise two, the datum, is that the rejection pressures the objector to give up a broader critical-theoretical thought they likely need elsewhere, namely that socially managed embodiment can dominate even when it operates through defaults, development, and normalization rather than through explicit force.

...

(4) If socially managed embodiment can dominate even when it operates through defaults, development, and normalization rather than explicit force, then the objector must either accept that cognizant imposition of puberty has the relevant domination-structure or identify a principled asymmetry that exempts puberty from that broader claim.

(5) The objector rejects that cognizant imposition of puberty has the relevant domination-structure and supplies no principled asymmetry that exempts puberty.

(6) Therefore, the objector cannot retain the broader critical-theoretical thought that socially managed embodiment can dominate through defaults, development, and normalization rather than explicit force.

...

Of course,

> The objector rejects that cognizant imposition of puberty has the relevant domination-structure and supplies no principled asymmetry that exempts puberty.

is the challenge I’m issuing for anyone who’s willing to take it.

It’s an important one, because knowing why this asymmetry applies to puberty but not to other cases may prove a lot.

...

What’s the motivation?

Enjoy calling a spade a spade when the spade is domination.

I also don’t like the way puberty has made me feel, the way people look at me, and the fact that I had no choice in the matter.

I’m also aware that this line of reasoning may prove a lot, but I don’t care. Give me a reason to care about our cherished structures.

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/CriticalTheory/comments/1u60b9z/the_imposition_of_puberty_on_children_is_an_act/

I've vistited Venezia the first time a few years ago. It was on a road trip through northern Italy and me and my group decided to have a day in Venezia. As we did not have a lot time, we just did the usual tourist stuff: Have a look at San Marco plaza, go to the Rialto bridge, push yourself through the overcrowded alleys, get ripped off in a mediocre restaurant. To put it briefly, I wasn't impressed by the Venezia experience. Now I've visited Venezia a second time and had 5 days to explore Venezia. This time, I explored districts further away from San Marco and Castello. I found parks and quiet spots that invited you to linger. When I got lost, I've found some hidden exhibitions and architectural interesting spots. I also found a small street festival that was organized by the locals but which has remained largely inaccessible to me due to the language barrier.

As I strolled through the streets of Venice, I gradually got a better sense of which cafès and restaurants might be worth visiting and how to avoid tourist traps. First things first: forget about Google reviews and TripAdvisor, they can't be trusted. You will identify a good café or restaurant by a view characteristics. Are they visited by Italians, and more importantly, are they visited by workers? Are they packed during lunch or dinner time? Are they embedded in the local culture (I found cafès and restaurants that advertised the street festival)? Another sign that a place was good, in my view, was that the menu was only in Italian. No tourist menu, no translation. Or if they had a tourist menu, it was crap, but the rest of the menu was pretty good. For example, I visited a restaurant that had a bad score on Google reviews. Mostly, people bemoaned that the service was unfriendly, there was not enough sauce on the pasta and they served too much bread (what?). But when I visited it during lunchtime, it was packed and I had to wait 15 minutes to get a table. The restaurant was mainly frequented by workers, and the food wasn’t particularly photogenic, but it was honest food and very tasty. The staff didn't care to accomodate the tourists (they didn't speak English either, or did not want to), or the social media folks, but treated them just like any other guest.

I’ve had quite a bit of success with this approach in Venezia so far. I wouldn’t have eaten a Primo at every place I’ve visited, but they were always a good choice for a decent, affordable espresso and a tasty panino.

I now have a whole map of cool places, good restaurants and cafés that will help me find my way around the next time I visit Venezia. With this as a starting point, I’ll be able to explore Venezia even better next time, and hopefully I’ll be speaking Italian by the time I visit again.

Wir haben in Dresden ja schon eine im Vergleich zu anderen Städten recht große Anzahl an lateinamerikanischen Restaurants und Imbissen. Mir ist nun auch schon häufiger genuin aufgefallen, dass um die Prager Straße herum auch sehr viele jugendenliche Latinos abhängen und Musik hören. Zumindest gehe ich davon aus, weil sie Spanisch sprechen und spanische Musik hören. Was sind die Gründe dafür, dass sich gerade hier so viele Menschen aus dem (ich vermute mal) lateinamerikanischen Raum sammeln, und warum gerade Dresden?

So, functionalism is the idea that mental states are defined by their function rather than what they are made of. For functionalism, intelligence and consciousness are not dependent on an organic substrate such as the brain, i.e. in functionalism there is some kind of substrate independence. The mental states are not bound to an organic brain but could be represented by any other hardware that may be complex enough. If I believe that machines or artificial neural networks that run on some silicone chip can become conscious, does this not presuppose panpsychism, the belief that everything has a potential for consciousness, some more and some less?

Ich musste mit Schrecken feststellen, dass das Tir Na Nog wohl für immer dicht gemacht hat? Kennt jemand die Gründe dafür? Das ist richtig schade, weil es mMn der gemütlichste Irish Pub in Dresden war und die Preise auch mehr als fair waren.