[removed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_number

https://preview.redd.it/8mmxluks5ekh1.png?width=819&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1b64215925435359dc32df10a28935b13e3bcec

Logic: https://www.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/1vsxwor/comment/p4ow8x3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

true

Does anyone have a method for deeply reading and interacting with a text? Or any tips to share?

I'm considering trying the following.

1. A lay-flat unlined A5 sketch book with elastic band to attach it to the book while on the shelf.
2. A reading board to hold both the book and the sketchbook while reading.
3. Annotating the text with a bi-directional footnote numbering scheme. Adding my own notes in the sketchbook.
4. Notes, including diagrams of the arguments (perhaps using the Toulmin method). Also include my own response to the arguments.

Hoping someone else does something like this and has some tips to share from experience.

Loops are Spirals.

Spirals are Loops.

The only difference is your perspective.

See exhibit A: https://www.reddit.com/user/alexandra-thaler/

Thank you, have a nice day.

Theorem of Life: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21020664

Yours truly, Epsilon Zero.

:3

specifically niche and interesting perspectives on life, that challenge your worldviews or not thats fine too.

Hi, I’m starting to get into reading and I just started to read the myth of Sisyphus. I read the first 10 pages and practically understood nothing. I read the stranger before this book and understood most of it (at least I hope I did). My issue is I’m not sure if it’s my comprehension level or if it’s the book itself, but I’m having a really hard time reading this. I’m also not sure if I should be reading other writings before this book. Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

تمهيدا : المقالة تتخذ موقفا جامدا عن المثلية، غير داعية لها لا للتأييد ولا الرفض، بل تتناول موقف البشر المستقمين من المثلية المقابلة والمثلية المشابهة في الجنس... بشكل أكاديمي فقط أنقل ما اشارت له الدراسات عن تساؤل ربما بدر في ذهن الكل لظاهرة اجتماعية منتشرة.

1

لمَ تقرأ النساء كثيرا لحب الرجال/ الفتيان، أي المثلية الذكورية؟

1.1

في ظل المعايير الاجتماعية الصارمة تجاه النساء ولاسيّما خلال القرون الأخيرة لإنتشار الثورة الصناعية مع المحافظة على النظام الذكوري ، تولّدت مطالب اجتماعية غير معلنة تجاه النساء، فالمرأة مطالبة ضمنيا بأن تصبح طالبة ناجحة، إمرأة خلوقة وحكيمة، عاملة ناجحة، اما، شيفا و زوجة صالحة...

إلا أن هذه الادوار تنبع قيمتها من الذكر نفسه، أي أن المرأة لا تنال قيمتها بنجاحها كشخص فقط،

بل بكونها زوجة الرجل التي تؤدي هذه الادوار...

فارتفاع قدرها لأجل ارتفاع قدر الذكر فقط، إذ يتناول المصدر الأول في الأسفل فكرة النظام الاجتماعي الذكوري ، أن وجود المرأة ودورها يستمد من أمرين،

كونها كيانا يثبت ذكورية الرجل، وكونها أما.

فما أن ينتهي الدوران، يسقط دورها في المجتمع وتبقى فقط ذكراها في الدورين السابقين.

كل ما سبق أنشا ضغطا مرهقا على الإناث فهي مطالبة بكل الادوار السابقة لأجل تصفيق مؤقت، ولا تمثل جهودها ولا اعمالها قيمة حقيقية في المجتمع بالنهاية...

فتوفر بيئة هذه الأعمال ( حب الذكور) ، علاقة بين طرفين متكافئين بالقوة بعيدا عن المعايير الاجتماعية، تلجئ له الاناث خوفا لاستئصال التمييز الجندري في العلاقة الواقعية،

فالاناث في الأعمال الترفيهية تبقى أقل مكانة من البطل الرئيسي ووجودها مجرد اجراء تكميلي لدوره،

في حين الأعمال المثلية تمثل رحلة مشتركة بين بطلين مترابطين، وإن كان احدهما اضعف قوة.

إذ أن مشاعر الطرفين مهمة وتؤخذ على محمل الجد بلا احكام على تصرفاتهما ( ولاسيما الشخصية الخاضعة التي تقابل الشخصية الجندرية للانثى )

ويذكر في الدراسة أن النساء التي تشاهد هذه الاعمال، تعتبر المثلية الجنسية ميزة شخصية ترفع من قدر المرء، متغاضيات عن الصفات والسمات المجهولة له وافصحن اغلبهن عن رغبة في مصادقة مثلي الجنس بل وحتى الزواج منه للسبب السابق.

وذكر في المقال حادثة الاغتصاب مثالا، واقع المجتمعات حين حدوث الاغتصاب لوم الضحية غالبا ، وقت خروجها، ملابسها، تصرفاتها، الخ...

وتصبح وصمة عار باعتبارها بضاعة تالفة غير صالحة للزواج أو العلاقات.

أما بالخيال فالمغتصب عليه اللوم تماما و يصبح عليه عارا وغالبا ما يرافقها دعم عاطفي من طرف ثالث ( وهو الشخصية الرئيسية أو المسيطرة)

1.2

الشهوة البصرية المزدوجة بوجود ذكرين ( وهو ما تميل له النساء غالبا بشكل طبيعي)

لذا تعتبر مساحة عاطفية آمنة بعيدا عن السلطة الذكورية والتمييز الجندري.

2

لمَ يشاهد الذكور ممارسة حب النساء؟

على نظير القصور العاطفي لدى الإناث، الذكور مطالبين بمعايير جسدية وجنسية صارمة، تتحول إلى قلق مزمن من العار الاجتماعي الناتج عن التقصير في احداها.

فالذكر يتمركز دوره بكونه حاميا ودرعا ضد الخارج مقولبا بصورة نمطية عن القوة والشدة و الاداء،

فالذكور مطالبين بدثر خوفهم أو قلقهم أو ضعفهم الطبيعيين، وعدم ابداء أي منها.

توفر الاعمال الإباحية المثلية الانثوية، بيئة خالية من المقارنات والمنافسة،

يستمتع بها الذكر دون خوف من التقصير أو اللوم.

بالإضافة لوجود محفز بصري مزدوج في هذا الجانب تحديدا ( فالذكور تستجيب للتحفيز البصري بيولوجيا أكثر من الاناث)

وقد ساعد الإعلام بهذا الدور جدا، إذ خلال العقود السابقة أُنتجت الكثير من الأعمال التي تروج للمثلية الانثوية كعرض ترفيهي للذكور مقرون برجولتهم، مما خلق صورة نمطية لا واعية بكون هذا الامر يزيد من رجولتهم لا ينقصها.

ورغم اختلاف الاسباب الا انه ملخصا كلا الجانبين يلجئ للمثلية المقابلة لهذه الاسباب :

1- لا يوجد منافسة من الجنس نفسه.

2- لا توجد مقارنة ذاتية أو شعور بالنقص.

3- المراقبة من خارج العلاقة دون محاسبة أو احكام اجتماعية

إلا أنه يجب التوعية لمضار الانخراط في هذا الخيال الجماعي... فهو يخلق معايير جديدة خيالية لان المعايير المثلية تختلف عن المعايير المغايرة في المجتمع الواقعي،

بالإضافة إلى احتمالية تغيير السلوك الجنسي كآلية تكيف ضد قيود المجتمع .

3

المصادر اللي قريتها اذا أحد حب يطلع عليها :

دراسة من جامعة اوتفوش ( جامعة بحثية عالمية موثوقة)

أغلب الكلام إلي اعتمدته منها خاصة الجزئية المتعلقة بالإناث

https://intensitiescultmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3-zsila-demetrovics-boys-love2.pdf?hl=ar-EG

كتاب

Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema

هو الكتاب لباحثة بريطانية بس نشرته جامعة انديانا

( يعني ايضا موثوق)

Welcome everyone to this online reading & discussion group about Kant! (hosted by Philip, James, Adam and others). The meetings will take place on Zoom.

Everyone who wants to get an understanding of Kant (and approaches him in a serious and dedicated way) wants a text-based approach to the study of Kant. But being "text based" can mean different things to different people. Let me tell you what it will mean in this meetup so that no one is disappointed if the emphasis we take here is different from what some people are used to.

Kant often takes standard philosophical words that lots of Philosophers use (like "Metaphysics", "Idealism" and many others). He then defines them in highly idiosyncratic ways. I wish he had not done this! I wish he had invented neologisms for his highly specialized and idiosyncratic philosophical notions. But, sadly, he did not. Instead he used standard words in highly nonstandard ways and serious Kant scholars must adapt to Kant's way of doing things. Some Kant scholars have a tendency to ignore Kant's idiosyncratic definitions and usages of words like "Metaphysics" and "Idealism" and revert to the meanings these words had in the early modern period or the meanings they typically have in a standard dictionary definition. But in this meetup we will be text based and take Kant at his word. We will use his philosophical lexicon in the way he tells us to use it (unless and until we encounter good text-based reasons for doing otherwise).

For example, very early on in the First Critique (roughly 5 pages in) Kant defines Metaphysics in the following way:

• "For it [Metaphysics] is nothing but the inventory of all we possess through pure reason". (see Axx, page 104 in the Guyer/Wood translation)

Really? Can Kant actually mean that? Can he really be defining Metaphysics as a kind of inventory and not as some grand Scholastic edifice far away beyond any straightforward method we may have of grasping it? Well, Kant said it and so we will take him at his word until and unless Kant himself tells us he has changed his mind.

This meetup will be dedicated to the following guiding principle: We will accept that Kant means what he says. We will accept his actual definitions of words as he states them in the text, and we will stick to these definitions until Kant himself gives us good textually based reasons for deciding that the meanings of his key terms may have shifted.

If we do this, I think you will be amazed at the wonderful Kant who emerges! Scholars who ignore Kant's (admittedly highly idiosyncratic and frustrating) definitions often present to us a Kant who sounds like a medieval or early modern philosopher evoking vast cathedrals of abstract metaphysics (in the sense of that word which we find in Scholasticism). This reading of Kant was highly influential and inspired Romantic thinkers like Schelling who himself gives us a philosophy somewhat reminiscent of grand medieval scholastic metaphysical edifices.

But if we accept that Kant means what he says and stay close to the actual definitions of terms Kant gives us in his works, a different sort of Kant emerges. There emerges a Kant who was a paradigmatic Enlightenment thinker focused on human freedom, the human ability to acquire real knowledge of the empirically real world, and all of the other characteristic Enlightenment concerns.

In case you think that the Kant who emerges from this text based approach is skewed too much in the direction of being "Analytic" or "Continental", or in case you think that the Kant who emerges from this approach is far from the mainstream, consider this. In the famous philosophical battle at Davos involving Carnap, Cassirer and Heidegger (the event that inaugurated the rift between Analytic and Continental philosophy) all three of these great thinkers accepted Kant's own definitions of his key terms. All three advocated readings of Kant that are more or less in harmony with the reading of Kant that will emerge and be emphasized in this meetup.

So which books will we be reading in this meetup you ask?

There will be two main books. We will read the entirety of one of Kant's works:

• "The Metaphysics of Morals". We will use the Cambridge edition edited by Lara Denis and Translated by Mary Gregor. Be sure to get the revised edition from 2017

(Scroll down for the reading schedule and pdf copies of the readings 👇)

We will also read the entirety of this book about Kant:

• Kant's Conception of Freedom: A Developmental and Critical Analysis (2021, Cambridge University Press) by Henry Allison

Allison's book spearheaded a new and promising direction in the ongoing efforts to deal with the truly bewildering variety of ways there are of interpreting Kant. Allison's book will look at the all-important Kantian notion of Freedom and ask how Kant's views about this notion changed subtly over the course of Kant's career. Maybe if we get a better sense of these subtle shifts in Kant's thoughts throughout his career we will be able to build bridges between all of the wildly different ways there are of interpreting Kant. Or at least this is the hope of Allison and some of his students like Huaping Lu-Adler who have pioneered this approach to Kant scholarship.

Since Kant defined so many of his key terms in the First Critique, participants will be expected to have the Guyer/Wood translation of the First Critique (Cambridge University Press) on hand at all times so we can dip into it.

Also, participants should have this book on hand since I may refer to passages in this book from time to time:

• The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason (2006) by Graham Bird

This will be a 2 hour meetup. Some sessions will be dedicated entirely to the reading of "The Metaphysics of Morals". Other sessions will be dedicated entirely to the reading of the Henry Allison book. At any point I may refer to the Guyer/Wood translation of the First Critique or to the Graham Bird book, so please always keep those two books on hand.

https://preview.redd.it/fxspdzostcjh1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3df80da1058e6a7c315483a995e781907093163

To join the 1st meeting, taking place on Monday August 24 (EDT), please sign up in advance on the main event page here (link); the Zoom link will be provided to registrants.

Meetings will be held every other week on Monday. Sign up for subsequent meetings through our calendar (link).

Here is the (tentative) reading schedule:

• For the 1st session (Aug 24), please read the Preface and pages 1-12 in Allison
• For the 2nd session (Sept 7), please read pages 3-17 in "The Metaphysics of Morals"
• For the 3rd session, please read pages 12-33 in Allison
• ..... (updates on the main group page)

Check the group calendar (link) for future updates. A pdf of reading materials will be provided to registrants.

DISCUSSION FORMAT:

The format will be our usual "accelerated live read" format. What this means is that each participant will be expected to read roughly 15-20 pages from the book assigned for that day's session. Each participant will have the option of picking a few paragraphs they especially want to focus on. We will then do a live read on the paragraphs that the participants found most interesting when they did the assigned reading.

People who have not done the reading are welcome to attend this meetup. However if you want to TALK during the meetup it is essential that you do the reading. We mean it! It is essential that the direction of the conversation be influenced only by people who have actually done the reading. In other words, if you want to talk in this meetup, you have to read the assigned readings. You may think you are so brilliant and wonderful that you can come up with great points even if you do not read the books this meetup is based on. You probably are brilliant and wonderful – no argument there! But you still have to do the reading if you want to talk in this meetup. REALLY.

Please note that this is a "raise hands" meetup and has a highly structured format, not an anarchy-based one. This is mostly for philosophical reasons: We want to discourage a simple-minded rapid fire "gotcha!" approach to philosophy.

I was just thinking that if there is any community where the members can share their idea on diffrent philosophical topics and learning from books. Like a chat group for book worms with same mentality. IF NONE WOULD YOU MIND COMMENTING IF YOU We THINK WE SHOULD CREATE ONE.

Hello everyone and welcome to this online reading & discussion group on Heidegger, Aristotle and the Medievals (hosted by Philip, James, Adam and others). The meetings will take place on Zoom.

For the first few sessions we will be reading from this book:

• "The Early Heidegger and Medieval Philosophy: Phenomenology for the Godforsaken" by S.J. McGrath (A copy of assigned reading materials will be provided to registrants.)

Ideally we would have started with the following short booklet, but sadly it is not out yet. As soon as it is out in paper format we will temporarily switch from reading McGrath to reading:

• Heidegger and Aristotle (Cambridge Element) by Francisco J. Gonzalez

Along the way we will frequently read Heidegger himself. Usually we will read short essays by Heidegger mostly focused on his early views on Medieval philosophy. The one big exception is that we will read some of the early chapters of Heidegger's "Being and Time" in the new Yale translation by Cyril Welch.

This will be a 2 hour meetup. Some sessions will be dedicated entirely to the reading of the McGrath book. Other sessions will be dedicated entirely to the reading of works by Heidegger or Gonzalez. This is a little bit different from my usual format where we read from two books in each session.

The format will be our usual "accelerated live read" format. What this means is that each participant will be expected to read roughly 15-20 pages from the book assigned for that day's session. Each participant will have the option of picking a few paragraphs they especially want us to focus on. We will then do a live read on the paragraphs that the participants found most interesting when they did the assigned reading.

People who have not done the reading are welcome to attend this meetup. However if you want to TALK during the meetup it is essential that you do the reading. We mean it! It is essential that the direction of the conversation be influenced only by people who have actually done the reading. In other words, if you want to talk in this meetup, you have to read the assigned readings. You may think you are so brilliant and wonderful that you can come up with great points even if you do not read the books this meetup is based on. You probably are brilliant and wonderful – no argument there! But you still have to do the reading if you want to talk in this meetup. REALLY.

Please note that this is a "raise hands" meetup and has a highly structured format, not an anarchy-based one. This is mostly for philosophical reasons: We want to discourage a simple-minded rapid fire "gotcha!" approach to philosophy.

https://preview.redd.it/d0992zmkscjh1.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e02918480771fdf0ed75c343754dcb9d222baa74

To join the 1st meeting, taking place on Monday August 17 (EDT), please sign up in advance on the main event page here (link); the Zoom link will be provided to registrants.

Meetings will be held every other week on Monday. Sign up for subsequent meetings through our calendar (link).

Here is the (tentative) reading schedule:

• For the 1st session (August 17), please read the Preface and also pages 1-6 in McGrath
• For the 2nd session (August 31), please read pages 6-24 in McGrath
• For the 3rd session (September 14), please read the Preface and also pages 25-40 in McGrath
• ..... (updates on the main group page)

Check the group calendar (link) for future updates. A pdf of reading materials will be provided to registrants.

This initial reading schedule makes it look like we will mostly be reading McGrath in this meetup. But this is misleading and not true. I want us to get a foothold in McGrath before we tackle Heidegger, but once we have that foothold we will be more or less alternating one session of McGrath with one session of Heidegger himself.

I have found that sometimes people assume that I pick books for these meetups because I agree with them. This is not true! I pick books because they are thought provoking and because I think they will work in a meetup context. But for the record, it just so happens that I do tend to agree strongly with Gonzalez. And it just so happens that I have some serious disagreements with McGrath even though I also have deep respect for his book and expect to learn a lot by engaging with it with all of you in the meetup. Some people like to know where I stand with regard to the books I have picked, so now you know.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

About the McGrath (from the publisher):

The Early Heidegger and Medieval Philosophy is a major interpretive study of Heidegger's complex relationship to medieval philosophy. S. J. McGrath's contribution is historical and biographical as well as philosophical, examining how the enthusiastic defender of the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition became the great destroyer of metaphysical theology.

This book provides an informative and comprehensive examination of Heidegger's changing approach to medieval sources―from the seminary studies of Bonaventure to the famous phenomenological destructions of medieval ontology. McGrath argues that the mid-point of this development, and the high point of Heidegger's reading of medieval philosophy, is the widely neglected habilitation thesis on Scotus and speculative grammar. He shows that this neo-Kantian retrieval of phenomenological moments in the metaphysics of Scotus and Thomas of Erfurt marks the beginning of a turn from metaphysics to existential phenomenology. McGrath's careful hermeneutical reconstruction of this complex trajectory uncovers the roots of Heidegger's critique of ontotheology in a Luther-inspired defection from his largely Scholastic formation.

In the end McGrath argues that Heidegger fails to do justice to the spirit of medieval philosophy. The book sheds new light on a long-debated question of the early Heidegger's theological significance. Far from a neutral phenomenology, Heidegger's masterwork, Being and Time, is shown to be a philosophically questionable overturning of the medieval theological paradigm.

I would appreciate some guidance on where to begin reading philosophical texts, because I always hear that some books are very difficult and not so easy for beginners like me.So I'd like some recommendations for someone who is starting out in philosophy. I don't have a strong preference for historical periods. But if I had to choose, I'd like contemporary philosophers.

My main areas of study are history and archaeology. I've read and studied some Anthropology, and have studied (and will soon get some books on) sociology. So I thought it was time to dip into philosophy. I've found the concept of Sonder and Unselfing (both introduced, or at least talked about in length by Murdoch, I believe?) and they seem particularly relevant to my interests. So, what are the main ideas around Sonder and Unselfing, and what books, articles, etc, can I find more information from. Please do cite some sources completely, as I do want to look further into this. I have read very little on the topic so far, and own no books on it.

(As I'm not as familiar with these concepts as you are, I do hope this doesn't break rule 4).

«Современная машина с каждым днём становится всё сложнее, а современный человек — всё примитивнее».

Николас Гомес Давила

Иногда кажется, что так и есть. Техника умеет всё больше, а нам всё меньше хочется думать самим. Мы поручаем машинам считать, запоминать, выбирать, писать и даже формулировать наши мысли.

Может быть, опасность не в том, что искусственный интеллект однажды поработит человека. Просто человек сам постепенно откажется от того, что делает его человеком. Не из-за злого умысла — скорее, от усталости и желания упростить себе жизнь.

И вот здесь становится немного не по себе: машины усложняются, а мы как будто понемногу сдаём позиции.

Хотя, возможно, я просто устал и смотрю на всё слишком мрачно. Как вам кажется?

Suggest me any philosopher's book similar to Shankaracharya's philosophy or there can be fully opposite philosopher also

I'm looking for one or a few people in the area who enjoy having deeper conversations about philosophy, history, theology, science, books, or really any interesting ideas.

I'm not looking for formal debates or an academic only group. You don't need a degree or any particular background. I'm mostly interested in finding people who genuinely enjoy learning, thinking through ideas, and having long conversations about them.

I'd be happy to meet somewhere public like a coffee shop or library and see where it goes. If enough people are interested, maybe we could eventually turn it into a small regular discussion group.

Anyone around here interested?

I recently bought complete essays of Michael de montaigne ( penguin classics) and I read the first 3 essays of it. And It was very difficult.. i had to take the photo of paragraphs and ask chatgpt to explain it .. this is taking a lot of time for me to finish a page. I think its too difficult for me.