i think so like in social terms the conservatives would say well i like that it benefits from the wisdom of math already invented you're not 00:36:39 throwing anything away you're not you're not throwing it all away and starting over you're taking what we already have and you're you're using it that's great and a libertarian might say i really like that you're free to create as you see fit you can make anything you 00:36:52 want and you're working within this background framework that's minimally invasive it doesn't make a lot of rules for you but it is highly functional i like that it kind of keeps everyone in line while 00:37:03 like satisfying some formal contracts or something while still being uh i'm still free to create and a progressive might say i like about category that theory that everyone can contribute to 00:37:15 making their own world making it more rich adding new ideas uh making it more meaningful understanding connections between things a modern viewpoint would say i like that 00:37:26 it's completely rigorous that it's been used in proving well-known conjectures that people thought were important to prove but also that it's interesting it's useful in science and technology and a postmodern person might say i like 00:37:40 that um that no perspective is right that that there's just all sorts of different categories but that navigating between these perspectives lets you look at problems from all sides or a hippie might say i like that it's 00:37:53 all about relationship and connection or irrelevant i don't know what that means maybe a practical person might say that i like that it's that we can actually use it to organize and learn from big data in 00:38:06 today's world or to manage complexity of software projects that are that are very large and changing all the time i like that you can think about ai and other complex systems with this stuff i think it's relevant and 00:38:19 practical for right now so that's that's my uh tutorial or that's the the part i'm going to record and now i'm going to open it up for questions

Socrates is turned into a systematic set of psycho-technologies that you internalise into your metacognition. So, what became crucial for Plato, as we saw, was argumentation. But for Antisthenes the actual confrontation with Socrates was more important. Both Plato and Antisthenes are interested in the transformation that Socrates is affording.Plato sees this happening through argumentation. Antesthenes sees it as happening through confrontation because... And you can see how they're both right, because in Socratic elenchus, Socrates comes up and he argues with you. But of course he's also confronting you. We talked about how he was sort of slamming the Axial revolution into your face! So, Antesthenes has a follower, Diogenes, and Diogenes epitomizes this: This confrontation. And by looking at the kinds of confrontation we can start to see what the followers of Antesthenes are doing. So Diogenes basically does something analogous to provocative performance art. He gets in your face in a way that tries to provoke you to realizations. Those kinds of insights that will challenge you. He tries to basically create aporia in you, that shocked experience that you had when confronting Socrates that challenges you to radically transform your life. But instead of using argumentation and discussion, as Socrates did and Plato picked up on, they were really trying to hone in on how to try to be as provocative as possible.

Although Rousseau had an influence on a handful of European educators, itwould be misleading to imply that the impact on education of these new ideasabout learning through discovery was, at the time, profound.

Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it.[a] Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than right now.[b] If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea – let's do more of those!

This motto has been very much discussed in the Perl community, and eventually extended to There’s more than one way to do it, but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either (TIMTOWTDIBSCINABTE, pronounced Tim Toady Bicarbonate).[1] In contrast, part of the Zen of Python is, "There should be one— and preferably only one —obvious way to do it."

Our job is to make sure we promote this sense of learning — and learning starts with a question, as we like to say. We are the workflow folks, in that we are enabling just-in-time learning when people truly have an issue and want to get unstuck through Stack Overflow.

Rousseau’sheretical view was that anything which was outside children’s experience wouldbe meaningless to them, much as Plato, Comenius, and others had warned. Hisinsights had condensed principally out of the prevailing intellectual atmosphereat the time—empiricism, explicated by philosophers such as John Locke. We’lllook at Locke and Rousseau in more detail in Chapter 2.

He argued that God gazes over history in its totality and finds all periods equal.

It is argued that Droysen, not Dilthey, is the true father of the method of historical understanding or Verstehen.

Instead of forcing humans to understand the complex inner workings of machines, we should construct machines in a way, so they better understand us humans!

Furthermore, in extreme cases, any opposition to CRT could be painted as ‘upholding white supremacy’, a view essentially justified on the grounds of Foucaldian postmodern philosophy rather than objective reality.

“It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given to us for the highest achievements if it were all well invested… So it is: we are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not ill-supplied but wasteful of it… Life is long if you know how to use it.”

Cf. Mario Bunge (2012), Evaluating Philosophies, Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag, p. 182: The preceding pages suggest an objective yardstick to measure the worth of philosophies: By their fruits ye shalt know them: Tell me what your philosophy is doing for the search for truth or the good, and I will tell me what it is worth.

while we can still influence later times

When people make use of a concept and simultaneously deny its existence, what they typically mean is that the concept in question is nowhere to be found in some "fundamental" description of reality.

John Searle has joked that people who deny free will, when ordering at a restaurant, should say "just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get."

Likewise, people who question the existence of free will don't have any trouble making choices.

It's possible to deny the existence of something while using it all the time. Julian Barbour doesn't believe time is real, but he is perfectly capable of showing up to a meeting on time.

We should all transition from thinking about logic as a field of great dead white men and as a field of “geniuses”, to recognizing those men for the flawed creatures they were, whose “genius” relied on the subjugation of many women and BIPOC around them, and ensuring that the Wikipedia, SEP, etc., pages for these logicians acknowledge that.

add more diversity to, e.g., the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, by including more entries on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) folks, and also by acknowledging the work of BIPOC folks in entries which are already present, to compile a list of resources about less studied logics, and to track the number of female and BIPOC participants in logic events. One notable resource that started to develop over the course of the day was a collection of some lived experiences of BIPOC logicians.

The greatestdefect of classical philosophy of mind, both rationalist and empiricist, seems tome to be its unquestioned assumption that the properties and content of the mindare accessible to introspection;

t is clear that theCartesians understood, as well as Gilbert Ryle and other contemporary criticsunderstand, the difference between providing criteria for intelligent behavior, onthe one hand, and providing an explanation for the possibility of such behavior,on the other;

Yet not all of the sciences use (or require) mathematics to the same extent, for example, the lifesciences. There, the descriptive, analytical methods of Aristotle remain important, as does the(somewhat casual) recourse to final causes.

Mechanical and vitalist systems existed concurrently, and although it might seem easy to distinguish them,when we come to look at most specific characters and their thought, the distinctions appear blurred

With practice, your SourceNotes will become more like data and your Points moreanalytical.

As Eric Voegelin puts it, “The life of Socrates was the great model of the liberation of the soul through the invasion of death into earthly existence” (Plato, 43). And we come across one of the most memorable formulations of this liberating catharsis in the dialogue Phaedo, where Socrates describes it as “practicing death.” Socrates says that this is what the true philosopher does: practices death. Of course all kinds of people call themselves philosophers. But a real philosopher is easily defined: it is someone who truly loves wisdom. And since wisdom is the ever-deepening understanding of how to live a truly good life, no one can be a lover of wisdom except by continually dying to the perishable and focusing on what is truly lasting, letting the fact and possibilities of death penetrate the soul. True philosophers, Socrates says, “make dying their profession,” and so to them of all people death is least upsetting. And if someone is distressed at the prospect of dying, Socrates concludes, it is “proof enough that he is a lover not of wisdom but of the body (Phaedo, 67d-68c).”

pay attention to the parity principle

On top of that, there’s one thing you can do to extend your life. By studying the philosophies of those who came before you, you absorb their experiences. Every philosophy book you read, you’re adding the author’s lifespan to yours. There’s no better way to spend your time than studying philosophy.13

He celebrated the political upheaval without being a militant revolutionary.

Since one cannot prove that it is inaccurate, you cannot discount its possibility.

It did not have to be this way. But as Trump aptly said of himself and his policy, “It is what it is.” He accepted more disease in hopes of stimulating a stronger economy and winning reelection. He’s waiting now for the return on that bet. As so often in his reckless career, his speculation seems to be that if the bet wins, he pockets the proceeds. And if the bet fails? The losses fall on others.

He continues by comparing open works to Quantum mechanics, and he arrives at the conclusion that open works are more like Einstein's idea of the universe, which is governed by precise laws but seems random at first. The artist in those open works arranges the work carefully so it could be re-organized by another but still keep the original voice or intent of the artist.

UNESCO broadly defines Indigenous Knowledge as ‘theunderstandings, skills and philosophies developed by [Indigenous]cultures and societies with long histories of interaction with theirnatural surroundings’.

sing Obsidian for thematic analysis .t3_t3bjuw ._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; } I am planning to do this. Just wondering if others have been down this path or have suggestions.I am going to be doing a fair bit of thematic analysis of literature (journal articles) and interview transcripts. Essentially - read, find interesting themes, and discuss. I have used Nvivo to do this before. But Nvivo is (a) proprietary (b) slow as a tortoise on immodium

When you understand how words allow us to hold an unlimited number of things in our limited minds, then hopefully you can begin to see how important they are to the way you design your personal knowledge base. The labels that you choose for your folders and the notes that you put in one versus another matters, as do the tags that you create and apply to your notes.This is what working in your knowledge base is all about. It’s not just about taking notes and writing. It’s about continuously classifying and reorganizing information — nurturing and pruning, adding, removing, making connections, and moving things around.Gardening. Chewing. Thinking.

நிகழ்காலத்தை அவதானிக்க கடந்த காலத்தின் கூறுகளை கையாள்கிறது. வருங்காலத்தை நோக்குவதில்லை. தொழில் மயமாகிக் கொண்டிருந்த, சமூக ஏற்றத் தாழ்வுகள் உருமாறிக் கொண்டிருந்த விக்டோரியன் காலகட்டத்தின் பெரும் படைப்புகள் அன்று சரித்திரமாகி விட்ட கால கட்டத்தை கதை களமாக கொண்டுள்ளன. (Middlemarch, A Tale of Two Cities) தற்கால நாவலாசிரியர்களும் உலகப் போர்களிலோ, அதற்கும் பிந்தைய காலத்திலோ தங்கள் கதை பொருட்களை தேடுகிறார்கள்.

Note taking is my 'other brain' that I use to get things done. I casually glance at past notes, and am often shocked how much progress I've made all due to these notes. I don't get everything done, but that's not the point. The point is to get thoughts out of your system and into notes so you can organize your life better.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exobrain[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalism

Amie Thomasson (2021) contends that we should reject a widespread descriptivist picture of modality. According to descriptivism, the primary function of modal discourse is to track and describe modal facts and properties, which supposedly exist independently of our expressive capacities and make true our modal statements. Instead, according to Thomasson’s Modal Normativism (MN), modal discourse is distinctively normative, in that it serves the function of expressing, teaching, conveying, or (re-) negotiating semantic rules (or their consequences) in particularly advantageous ways. (2021: S2087)

Thomasson (2013) is a recent extended discussion of the relation between fictionalism and her own preferred ontological view, which is argued for by what she calls “easy arguments”, a kind of ordinary language arguments. Thomasson’s ontological deflationism says, roughly, that all manners of philosophically controversial entities exist, and do so in some sense trivially

Necessarily, for all x and all artifactual kinds K, x is a K only if x is the product of a largely successful intention that (Kx), where one intends (Kx) only if one has a substantive concept of the nature of Ks that largely matches that of some group of prior makers of Ks (if there are any) and intends to realize that concept by imposing K-relevant features on the object. (Thomasson 2003: 600)

Obsidian is also powerful for what it does not prevent you from doing. It gives you leave to use your data with your choice of other tools.

two main problems with framing decisions and policies in terms of usefulness: (1) being useful is not always to our own benefit – sometimes, we are being used as a means to someone else’s end, and we end up miserable as a result; and (2) the lenses themselves of usefulness and uselessness can obscure our view of the good life.

The study of cognitive development suffers from a deep theoretical tension – one with ancient philosophical roots.

I find the simple association of metamodernism with the Age of the Internet quite limited. Instead, I think metamodernism would be better associated with the Age of the Online Creator.

political self-consciousness sort of 00:55:29 receding as one goes further back in time there was a book published in 1946 by the Dutch archaeologist Henry Frank Ford's called befall philosophy which 00:55:42 was about the the ancient Middle East Mesopotamia and Egypt and all that sort of thing but he wasn't actually arguing that these people didn't have the capacity for philosophy he was simply 00:55:55 pointing out that they didn't have an explicit written tradition of speculative thought like that of the ancient Greeks so that when they did speculate they did it in other ways 00:56:07 through images through discourse on the nonhuman world etc etc to find the idea that there have actually ever been individuals who didn't possess any capacity for philosophical reflection

there's an exception ah yes indeed there is an exception to that which is largely 00:08:28 when you're talking to someone else so in conversation and in dialogue you're actually can maintain consciousness for very long periods of time well which is why you need to imagine you're talking 00:08:41 to someone else to really be able to think out a problem

இந்திய மரபின்படி ‘உண்மை’ என்பது இங்குள்ள அனைத்துக்கும் அப்பால் ஒரு சிறப்புத்தளத்தில் [விசேஷ தளத்தில்] உணரப்படும் ஒன்றுதான். இங்குள்ள அனைத்தும் மாறா உண்மைகள் அல்ல. சாராம்சங்கள் அல்ல. நாம் வகுத்துக்கொள்வனவும் எடுத்துக்கொள்வனவும்தான். மனிதனைப்பற்றி, இயற்கையைப்பற்றி நாம் அறிவன அனைத்துமே அவ்வாறு நமது ‘வியவகாரிக சத்யங்கள்’தான்.

Leaving there and proceeding for three days toward the east, you reach Diomira, a city with sixty silver domes, bronze statues of all the gods, streets paved with lead, a crystal theater, a golden cock that crows each morning on a tower.

it is a decisive question as to how any political system -- and which one -- can be adapted to an epoch of technicity. I know of no answer to this question. I am not convinced that it is democracy.

He just means “secular” or wants a marked separation of church and state. Same for the gnostics (Druids, Druze, Mandeans, Alawis).

Where philosophy meets tech.

“The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology.

“We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims,” said inventor-philosopher Buckminster Fuller.

Optimism is just a form of fatalism

always checking

neoliberalism and social conservatism have frequently coexisted in practice. Yet the alt-right fits none of the previously identified alliances

Critical pedagogy, among other things, borrows its ‘critical lens’ from the critical theory. It views society as divided and hierarchical (i.e. based on power relations); and education as a tool used by dominant groups to legitimise the iniquitous arrangement. By enabling the oppressed to look at the oppressor’s ideologies critically, it believes, education can assist them in ridding themselves of their ‘false consciousness’ – an important step, as we will see later, in their struggle for liberation. As is apparent, contrary to traditional claims of the ‘neutrality’ of education, “critical pedagogy views all education theory as intimately linked to ideologies shaped by power, politics, history and culture.” (Darder 1991, p. 77) And the primary function of the critical pedagogue is thus “to empower the powerless and transform those conditions which perpetuate human injustice and inequity.” (McLaren, 1988) – a concern that it shares with critical theory.8

Paul likes to quote the philosopher who first came up with the idea of the extended mind, Andy Clark, when he says that humans are “intrinsically loopy creatures”.

We argue so passionately about food because we are not just looking for health – we’re looking for meaning.

Guiding Principles

have a philosophy that if someone can provide any more meaningful information to a problem even if it indirectly solves the problem, I think that should also be rewarded.

“What other subject is routinely taught without any mention of its history, philosophy, thematic development, aesthetic criteria, and current status? What other subject shuns its primary sources—beautiful works of art by some of the most creative minds in history—in favor of third-rate textbook bastardizations?”

BwO

Kant, Hume, Reid, The French and German Enlightenments, Philosophy of Religion

William Poole, “The Genres of Milton’sCommonplace Book,” inThe Oxford Handbook of Milton, ed. NicholasMcDowell and Nigel Smith (2009), pp.367–81, argues that since Milton’scommonplace book was an exercise in moral philosophy (the discipline towhich his headings of ethics, economics, and politics correspond), it wascompiled for action.

t. One of Moss's interesting observations is that Jesuit schools detached dialectic from grammar and rhetoric, and realigned it with philoso- phy. Protestant schools, by contrast, wanted rhetorical and dialectical analysis to run in paralle

The point of Zettelkasten is to digest each thing you read well so you don’t need to go back to look at it again.

Diels, H. and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Zürich/Hildesheim 1964 The standard collection of the texts of and the doxography on Anaximander and the other presocratics.

Aristotle already thought the argument to be deceiving. He ridicules it by saying that according to the same kind of argument a hair, which was subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not break, and that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve. To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition. Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are always in danger of becoming falsified on closer investigation. They contain a kind of subjective aspect: “as far as I know.”

We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold theory of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious question of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle’s version of Anaximander’s argument runs like this: “But there are some who say that it (namely, the earth) stays where it is because of equality, such as among the ancients Anaximander. For that which is situated in the center and at equal distances from the extremes, has no inclination whatsoever to move up rather than down or sideways; and since it is impossible to move in opposite directions at the same time, it necessarily stays where it is.” (De caelo 295b10ff., DK 12A26) Many authors have pointed to the fact that this is the first known example of an argument that is based on the principle of sufficient reason (the principle that for everything which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way rather than that).

These observations were made with the naked eye and with the help of some simple instruments as the gnomon. The Babylonians, in particular, were rather advanced observers. Archeologists have found an abundance of cuneiform texts on astronomical observations. In contrast, there exists only one report of an observation made by Anaximander, which concerns the date on which the Pleiades set in the morning. This is no coincidence, for Anaximander’s merits do not lie in the field of observational astronomy, unlike the Babylonians and the Egyptians, but in that of speculative astronomy. We may discern three of his astronomical speculations: (1) that the celestial bodies make full circles and pass also beneath the earth, (2) that the earth floats free and unsupported in space, and (3) that the celestial bodies lie behind one another. Notwithstanding their rather primitive outlook, these three propositions, which make up the core of Anaximander’s astronomy, meant a tremendous jump forward and constitute the origin of our Western concept of the universe.

It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander’s book. On the other hand, we must recognize that we know hardly anything of its original context, as the rest of the book has been lost. We do not know from which part of his book it is, nor whether it is a text the author himself thought crucial or just a line that caught one reader’s attention as an example of Anaximander’s poetic writing style.

Whence things have their origin, Thence also their destruction happens, As is the order of things; For they execute the sentence upon one another – The condemnation for the crime – In conformity with the ordinance of Time.

The only existing fragment of Anaximander’s book (DK 12B1)

However, perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales should be credited with this new idea. Diogenes Laërtius ascribes to Thales the aphorism: “What is the divine? That which has no origin and no end” (DK 11A1 (36)). Similar arguments, within different contexts, are used by Melissus (DK 30B2[9]) and Plato (Phaedrus 245d1-6).

Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz have edited the doxography (A) and the existing texts (B) of the Presocratic philosophers in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin 1951-19526. (A quotation like “DK 12A17” means: “Diels/Kranz, Anaximander, doxographical report no.17”).

Minto is the originator of the MECE principle pronounced "ME-see",[6][3] a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive (ME) and collectively exhaustive (CE).[7] MECE underlies her Minto Pyramid Principle,[3] which suggests that people's ideas should be communicated in a pyramid format in which summary points are derived from constituent and supporting sub-points:[8] Grouping together low-level facts they see as similar Drawing an insight from having seen the similarity Forming a new grouping of related insights, etc. Minto argues that one "can’t derive an idea from a grouping unless the ideas in the grouping are logically the same, and in logical order.”[3]

The WebSocket Protocol is designed on the principle that there should be minimal framing (the only framing that exists is to make the protocol frame-based instead of stream-based and to support a distinction between Unicode text and binary frames). It is expected that metadata would be layered on top of WebSocket by the application Fette & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 6455 The WebSocket Protocol December 2011 layer, in the same way that metadata is layered on top of TCP by the application layer (e.g., HTTP). Conceptually, WebSocket is really just a layer on top of TCP that does the following: o adds a web origin-based security model for browsers o adds an addressing and protocol naming mechanism to support multiple services on one port and multiple host names on one IP address o layers a framing mechanism on top of TCP to get back to the IP packet mechanism that TCP is built on, but without length limits o includes an additional closing handshake in-band that is designed to work in the presence of proxies and other intermediaries Other than that, WebSocket adds nothing. Basically it is intended to be as close to just exposing raw TCP to script as possible given the constraints of the Web. It's also designed in such a way that its servers can share a port with HTTP servers, by having its handshake be a valid HTTP Upgrade request. One could conceptually use other protocols to establish client-server messaging, but the intent of WebSockets is to provide a relatively simple protocol that can coexist with HTTP and deployed HTTP infrastructure (such as proxies) and that is as close to TCP as is safe for use with such infrastructure given security considerations, with targeted additions to simplify usage and keep simple things simple (such as the addition of message semantics).

or Jonas, one of the questions we must face is this“What force shall represent the future in the present?”

e book does not wholly succeed, but Jonas’s central idea ispowerful and has not been given the attention it deserves. !at ideaarises from one governing insight: Under technocratic modernity,“the altered nature of human action, with the magnitude andnovelty of its works and their impact on man’s global future, raisesmoral issues for which past ethics, geared to the dealings of manwith his fellow-men within narrow horizons of space and time, has

reflecting on the year after george floyd for me is that the different responses that we all have right are valid and true and authentic and they create

But, whatever our personal feelings may be, our assigned mission as psychologists is to analyze all facets of human and animal behavior into their component variables

should be assigned through a random, mechanical process – something Aristotle considered to be the hallmark of democracy.