#retromantique

[hexunart]

[epicwinsauce]

I get the nerve, go to my car, Let it take me somewhere far from here Where the future's clear, Put the windows down, let the stardust trace the sound Of the music that surrounds us with the Cutie and the Death Cab.

“Funeral for the Falling Leaves” by Chad Sugg

[minatokun]

retromantique replied to your post “yuri lowenthal has been defeated”

So long as Yuri Lowell is ok

he looks alright on the outside but he’s still raging over not getting his ps3 port localized

[sixtiesfangirl]

Do you like Anna Sui?

sorry, i’ve never heard of her/the brand before, but i made a quick google research and so far i’m finding the fashion looks adorable! 

[pieseas]

If you like astrology for that reason, you'll trip on MBTI. Look it up, it's at least a little bit more reliable than astrology. Cheers!

My answer is really long and is mostly me thinking out loud but. Your remark about reliability surprisingly struck a nerve.

Honestly, given how many cultures have relied on astrology for hundreds of years predating MBTI I’m going to say that’s kinda bullshit. MBTI determines your personality based on how strongly for or against you feel about the question that is presented to you. I find it hard to measure that level based on answering with SA, A, N, D, SD. 

I’m not astrologist nor am I an expert on MBTI either. However, there’s something more appealing about your birth and the way the stars & planets were lined up that day. Because astrology is more than just the constellation that you were born under. It also takes into account the position of many other planets. I was born a Pisces but like a Sag friend of mine we both have Gemini moons. So astrology is more complex than just the 12 sun signs. 

Not to mention to say MBTI is more reliable is kinda weird to me when 2 pisces I know both share the same MBTI reading as me? So that’s something to think about too.

[academicatheism]

Thoughts on logical positivism?

Logical positivism is an interesting philosophical position, especially from a historical perspective. It is arguably the first naturalistic attempt to answer the issues raised by first philosophy. For Descartes, first philosophy was his epistemological skepticism; for Hume it was arguably the Problem of Induction. Thus, first philosophy can be understood as the foundation philosophers have to establish before moving forward.

Kant’s transcendental idealism came before Rudolf Carnap’s logical positivism, but logical positivism, especially Carnap’s, is anti-metaphysical.1 Carnap, for instance, denied that there could be any synthetic a priori statements. He only allowed for analytic a priori statements. Carnap was arguably the first to attempt a clear distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. He, in fact, rejected all of metaphysics and saw it as a misuse of language.2 This is an approach that’s used today, especially in the philosophy of mind. Daniel Dennett and Massimo Pigliucci both deny the hard problem of consciousness offered by David Chalmers. Pigliucci sees the hard problem as a category mistake.3 Dennett, on the other hand, is an eliminativist.[4][5]  Briefly, eliminativism is a type of materialism with regards to the mind. Dennett, for instance, rejects the notion of the Cartesian theater—which roughy speaking, is our common sense, stream-of-consciousness view about consciousness.6

Carnap integrated the philosophy of language and the philosophy of science into his positivism and thus, made meaningful contributions to both sub-disciplines.7 When you consider that Quine’s naturalized epistemology developed as a sort of response to Carnap’s logical positivism, the importance of Carnap’s work is augmented.8 The beauty of philosophy is that one doesn’t have to be right; one merely has to be understood. And in being understood, responses could lead closer to the truth.

As far as agreeing with logical positivism is concerned, I’ll simply have to say that I don’t know. Given that logical positivism is so difficult to distinguish from empiricism9 and given that it entails so much—a lot of which I haven’t looked into as much as I would want to (i.e. the parts relevant to the philosophy of language)—there’s no way I can say I agree or disagree with it. It’s an intriguing position from a historical perspective notwithstanding. Whether or not it’s intriguing with regards to the reality of reasoning, science, and so on, at least for me, remains to be seen.

Ultimately, I’m sure I’ll encounter logical positivism more often as I continue to study philosophy. I’m looking forward to it. Epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of science intrigue me to no end. The nature of reality has captured my attention. Any philosophical position capable of describing some part of reality won’t be intuitively obvious or easily attained. Given we understand the quibbling of the thinkers before us, we are better equipped to understand the thoughts and quibbling of modern thinkers.

Works Cited

1 Ritchie, Jack. Understanding Naturalism. Stocksfield, England: Acumen, 2008. 21-25. Print.

2 Murzi, Mauro. “Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970)”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ND. Web. 17 Dec 2014.

3 Pigliucci, Massimo. "What Hard Problem?". Philosophy Now. 2013. Web. 17 Dec 2014.

4 Newman, Benjamin. "Dennet’s Consciousness Explained: Its Critics and the Controversy Over the "True Nature" of Consciousness". Stanford University. ND. Web. 17 Dec 2014.

5 Heil, John. Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge, 1988. 147. Print.

6 Blackmore, Susan J. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 2005. 15-16, 81. Print.

7 Ibid. [2]

8 Ibid. [1]

9 Creath, Richard. "Logical Empiricism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Web. 17 Dec 2014.

[lisawilbourn]

retromantique replied to your post:"I still want to know what black people did to Europeans?" The answer: being different. :(

What else could it possibly be? Don’t you think that if Europeans had been injured by black Africans, they would be too happy to justify their oppression by flaunting the story around? What else can you think of?

Oh, realistically, I know that that's the truth of the matter...

However, I'm an optimist at heart. I always look for the good things in people. Until I discover that there isn't any, I always give the benefit of the doubt. And, while I'm of the opinion that people, groups of people as a whole and not any racial subset in particular, tend to be rather stupid and hived minded, I don't want to come to the conclusion that they are malicious as well. Europeans have done some pretty fucked up shit, in the name of religion, in the name of racial purity, and just because. But, that can be chalked up to ignorance, to lack of understanding. But, my heart doesn't want to accept that Europeans sought to oppress my people, ignore all our achievements, and destroy our culture just because it was different.