I'm ashamed. I'm not near that talent.

Spiral pasta is fusili, right? My favourite kind of pasta, superior to penne let's agree. I had pasta with pesto alla genovese homemade in Italy once, absolutely loved it. — Lionino

Fusili and their ilks. Yeah, I've given up on penne. Not my kind of pasta.

It can only be saved by deep frying in the shape of dinosaurs for dino-bites and then doused with ketchup. — Hanover

:grin: don't mind the children, @Lionino.

Spiral pasta with pesto sauce -- just grind the fresh basil leaves, lots of olive oil, salt and pepper, and parmesan to the consistency you like. Serve with whatever pasta of your choosing. Top with sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil.

But I chuckle at where it may have taken off: this idea that Math pre-exists our constructions. — ENOAH

I wish I still had the philosophy of math anthology book that featured the math philosophers who argued for the construction of mathematics as an empirical endeavor.

But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more. — javi2541997

Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.

We still have choice if we stay at a job or leave based on numerous factors thankfully. — Born2Insights

Three months ago I yelled at the president of the firm because we couldn't agree with the procedures of a project. I thought it was unethical. I didn't walk out of the office, but I cried. He walked away. I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite.

I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not. — ENOAH

Sure thing.

For example, every number is predefined, so when we build an equation or a formula, each one of the terms have already been defined -- and no wonder the equation works! :scream:

One of the things that we like to use as math object is the circle or a sphere because of the circumference, diameter, and arc angles. So, from this, we claim that math is out there waiting to be discovered and the proof of this is that circle and sphere exist in nature. We are obsessed -- no we lose our mind to it. In our mind the circle signifies antiquity and wisdom. It signifies disciplined and scholarly thoughts. Hey, the solar system is full of round things!

:100: :up:

In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344

Is this one of those No true Scotsman fallacy for damage control? "Woke leftism does not come from Neo-Marxism!". Let me know if otherwise. — Lionino

So how is the above supporting your claim?

Did they or did they not use the Critical Theory of the postmodern to write their own worldview? Derrida's post-structuralism certainly has nothing to do with critical race theory. So, how in the world did they spin it off to something else?

It's Critical Theory... not 'Critical Race Theory'. You should read it. — creativesoul


Both exist and one is derived from the other. — Lionino

I will consider this a joke until further notice.

Making no judgment whatsoever is silly. — Mikie

It's also dangerous.

and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). — Bob Ross

Aristotle's eudaimonia -- the purpose of humans is eudaimonia.

It is not that mathematics differ in every culture -- there is a standardization of mathematics across societies. Just like there is a standardization of engineering across cultures.

But the postmodernists would argue that it is empirically derived. This is how you can argue in favor of a postmodern view. Mathematics has an empirical origin -- not from a universal truth. They are not there to question the veracity of the math methods -- they are there to argue against the objective truth -- (referring to a priori or universal truth).

It can be shown that we are living in a block universe once we accept the special relativity. You might be interested to read this. — MoK

That'll be for another day. Not sure if I accept the block universe. Thanks for the link. Good read.

I see, so you are claiming space and time are substances—contrary to your original claim. Unless you are just noting that they are not separate substances when you said they are not substances. — Bob Ross

I can't call spacetime a substance because a substance is a separate property from all the other things in the universe. I just explained in my previous post that you cannot separate spacetime from existence.

Aha, my plan worked after all. :grin: — praxis

All for the best. :razz:

Let's chill!

Apparently I’m not as funny as I think I am. :sad: — praxis

Whatever posts you've written in the forum which I had read, I liked your posts. You seem to be level-headed to me.
I didn't say this earlier because I didn't want you to think I was pandering.

Now, does that bolster your self-esteem?

I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst. — praxis

Jesus! That would cripple me to the point of not being able to participate in a forum like this. The fact that you're here and having that condition is a puzzle to me. I wish you the best.

Which sounded to me like you were arguing that we cannot determine what is exactly a posteriori and what is a priori, and that space/time are so entrenched in our thinking (being the forms of our experience) that we cannot make sense of a world without it.

This sounds like space and time for you are just the forms of our experience, and we cannot say anything about reality as it is in itself because we cannot think away these forms.

Was I misunderstanding? — Bob Ross

Yes, you were misunderstanding. Your conception of spacetime is metaphysical, but what I was trying to explain is it is more than metaphysical -- in fact, we should start with Einstein's spacetime continuum, which consists of the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension which is time. He posits that spacetime can shift shape.

So with that under consideration, space and time are, in fact, a physical reality. My starting point that human cognition is temporal (as well as spatial) is well within the dimensions of spacetime.

Are citizens responsible for the crimes of their leaders?

This is a poorly written question and certainly written to arouse the reactionary responses, not the intelligent responses.

There is accountability. In a representative form of government, the reason why we elect the leaders is to represent the people and to make the decision on behalf of the people, decisions that are beneficial to the people.
Crimes are not beneficial to the people. If the actions are criminal, then the leaders must be held accountable for those crimes. The people can vote the leaders out of office.

Honestly, the thing that stands out in my perception is your name— which I like— and the fact that you usually write well and are fairly unassuming. I don’t know much else about you though… — Mikie

Thank you. No, that should stay that way. It's good to know less -- it's the thought that counts.

And of you, as well -- good to know you are one of the mods. That's all I need to say about you.

It sounds like you are saying they don’t exist in reality at all, and then noting that we cannot think them away. — Bob Ross

How is a whole paragraph of my answer not show at all that spacetime don't exist?

I understood your points and don't really disagree with them; but I am unsure as to whether you believe space and time are substances or not. What do you think? — Bob Ross

They are not substances. If you recall Aristotle, and others, have written about things like substance, form, essence, etc., all within the template of space-time, and never outside of it. We cannot separate space-time from the universe, therefore we cannot separate space-time from existence. It is a zone -- a multi-dimensional zone in which things exist. To speak of space-time as thing in itself is nonsensical. A thing in itself is anything that has its own properties and dimension existing within space-time. Tangible objects are things. Humans are things. But a universe is not a thing.

One thing that I find so peculiar (and for which I have gotten a lot of flak) is the almost complete lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, and lack of applying the theme that is being discussed to oneself, on the spot. Esp. in Western philosophical discourse, any request for such is instantly dismissed as a fallacious ad hominem. I just don't understand this. — baker

I know. Caring is hard. Like loving is hard. :wink:

You need to outsmart them, Baker. Write it differently instead of using words that betray your undertone. If I come along and post in a thread in favor of paternalism, for example, and just blaarrgghh the basics, sans nuance and metaphor, like I have-no-reservation-so-take-it-or-leave-it, then guess what I'm gonna get in response?

It seems that way to me, also. But I suspect AI is crawling along the alleyway waiting to slip through a cracked door. This could be a plus . . . or not? :chin: — jgill

You'll know them by the essays they write. haha! :lol:
They write for themselves, and it's not a two-way communication -- they'll respond to you but not to you.

There’s a dozen or so people who are certainly above average. But there’s a lot of morons too. — Mikie

Well, in that case, I only read the dozen or so people.

What he is likely misremembering is the few times I stated that there are crazy people in this site. And we all know that there is. — Lionino

lol. :sweat:
I don't read most posts in this site. So, I must have missed the crazy ones.

I hope those few crazies did not leave a lasting impression here such that they now define this site.

And you like to throw around these blanket insults too: sometimes it's that most people on TPF are idiots, .... — Jamal

You simply misinterpret what I say — a joke — — Lionino

This here is something you don't get to say and be awarded the interpretation that it is joke. I avoid using this word when I'm joking. I only ever say this word if I mean it because it would always be received as meant, not banter.

That said, I actually find this place to be populated by above average intelligence. I do not always 'speak' softly and sweetly here, but imagine being out there in the general population and trying to talk about philosophy and other things not pop culture. This is a refuge, to me.

It seems like denying spatiotemporal relations sideswipes all of knowable reality and replaces it is with a giant question mark, and makes reality (which we can speak of) phantasms. — Bob Ross

Space-time is always a part of existence. I don't know if "property" is the correct word. We can't perceive anything unless it's space-time because our constitution and the mechanism of perception is designed to function in space-time, nowhere else.

I think, though, you might be thinking of the "temporal" definition such that something is perceived in a particular unit of time or sequentially. I always have a hard time trying to explain this, so I hope I am making sense. Human cognition is temporal, that is: sequentially; but a computer memory is not.

Here is an explanation:

An example is the human feeling of impatience or tiredness -- something took too long to finish or to arrive. A computer will not have an accompanying subjective feeling of tiredness for waiting, or boredom from waiting, or simply, giving up because something is taking too long to complete. Or a computer will not have the feeling of unfairness because a first-come-first-serve rule is violated.

Another attempt at explanation: If I am walking in a street and see a tall electric tower, I expect that tower to be there on my way back using the same route. I can even gauge at what time I'm going to see it again given the length and distance I've traveled so far.

PS: I am better at 'getting it', rather than explaining it.

I'm simply a tag away — Noble Dust

Someone with conviction!

I think the question should be -- how do you perceive a forum member. So, if I'm answering it this way, I'd say @Noble Dust will explain anything if you tag him and @Benkei can be a gasshole. lol.

@baker -- well, Baker can a benevolent prick.

Whatever you say, dude.

"What goes around comes around". This doesn't always happen. Some bad actions never got consequences.

Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter? — Relativist

I didn't say that's the full story. I'm just stating the fact that no one opposed to it once it's in effect. So, everybody contributed to the deficits and debt.

What's your point? I simply answered your question. My point was that it's silly to just give credit or blame to a sitting President based on the status of the economy. — Relativist

My point is, you cited one example of his bill, and then you went on to criticize it. I responded by saying, that while the democrats did not vote for it, I asked you if they indeed partake in the lowering of their tax liabilities. It's in effect from 2018 to 2025. Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes.

I don't see that there should be a confusion in my response to your post.

No. It received no votes from Democrats. — Relativist

You have to think outside the box. They didn't have to vote yes, but they knew it was going to pass and become a law. Math works. They all benefited from it -- ask any democrat if they refused the tax credits and deductions to lower their taxes. None of them objected to it when it went into effect. All this without voting "yes" to the bill. So, not only they "preserved" their constituents faith during the process of passing it, they reaped the benefits of the TCJA aftwards.

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect. — baker

Absolutely!

Heaven is impossible to create on Earth.
But hell is easy.

The economy was doing well, and the summers weren't as hot. A President doesn't control either the weather or the economy. — Relativist

Where in my post did I say that Trump controlled the economy that was doing well. I stated a platitude -- the economy was doing well. A great economy helps any sitting president.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again.

The Paul Ryan tax cuts passed under Trump, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. — Relativist

You mean the 2017 tax cuts and job acts. What were the votes? Did both parties vote for it?

In my view, it plays into the narrative of the MAGA/Trump mediaverse, which is investing a lot of hype and hot air into bringing about this outcome. And believing it means they're succeeding, so I refuse to believe it! — Wayfarer

I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. When the pandemic hit, it was used against him like a perfect storm.

IMO, it's merely wishful thinking to believe that the eight year losing trend of 'suppressing minority voters, misogynist anti-choice, The Big Lie propagandizing' Republican candidates will not be reversed merely by Biden dropping out of the presidential race. Like 2020, most likely voters still oppose Insurrection/Criminal Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 rather than support President Biden. — 180 Proof

I don't follow the day to day american politics. I look at trends and studies. Trump seems to be the only one that is a "brash vulgarian" and a maverick, as @Tom Storm described earlier. Honestly, I'd like to see if Trump could win again. There is fear, for sure, in people because psychologically, Trump's impact is greater.

Why do you believe Biden will lose to a candidate he's already beaten once — 180 Proof

I reviewed my posts previously and I don't see where I said this. Please tell me where to find this thought?

But let's say, to answer your question -- if one believes the current president might not be president next time, things happen. Simple. He could suddenly keel over, for example.

I don't have a crystal ball.