Posts by Amanda Jackson5

James Lee77 said:That’s Thomas Aquinas for you, Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei.

Sure, but he didn't just pull that out of thin air; he picked it up from Aristotle, who in turn lifted it from the Pre-Socratics—those folks who argued that the laws governing thought are essentially identical to the laws governing being. Nowadays, we tend to frame this within the correspondence theory of truth, treating truth as a sort of "relational property." Essentially, truth is something—in the realm of the mind—that maintains a specific relationship to reality, whether that connection happens to be affirmative or negative.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

He actually never said that:

Jacob Cooper5 said:I’ve always had this weird fascination with people who actually bother to think—people who question everything. They have this way of just... slicing right through my logic, dissecting it so cleanly that I’m left standing there totally defenseless. And it isn't even about them trying to win an argument or dominate the room; they’re just analyzing the internal mechanics of my thought process—which, let's be honest, does have its own internal logic (pun fully intended here)...

It’s honestly exhausting when you run into those "shallow thinkers" who try to make up for their lack of depth by using fancy vocabulary and high-speed rhetoric. It’s all just a performance to protect the status quo, really. We end up wasting so much damn time on these pedantic little word games instead of actually getting into the meat of things—having a real, raw, intellectual clash that actually means something.

In that case, go ahead and try to find a true deep thinker who’s willing to challenge you through nothing but facial expressions and shouting, provided you can be certain they aren't just trying to outtalk you for the sake of it.

Here we have Sisyphus going back and forth with someone right up until the moment he gets banned. As for me, I’m just the guy with the mustache. And looks like there are a few other familiar faces floating around here too.

Since you’ve gone ahead and kicked this whole thing off, I’d say you might as well throw out the first question to get the ball rolling.

gentlerider7 said:So, I was digging through some old book the other day and stumbled upon this wild theory—I’m gonna try to recount it from memory here, so bear with me—that basically claims the whole trajectory of Western philosophy, from Aristotle all the way through the Scholastics straight into the modern era, isn't actually about what we think it is. See, the argument goes that the real common thread connecting all these eras isn't that classic Greek pursuit of "loving wisdom," but rather this obsessive, relentless hunger for categorization. It suggests that Western philosophy isn't actually a quest for truth, but just a massive, ongoing project to put everything into neat little boxes. And honestly? It kind of explains why there’s such a deep-seated hostility toward anything even remotely mystical or spiritual; a Western philosopher looks at a profound, transcendent experience and just freezes up because they can't find a damn category to file it under.

Please, as if he wouldn't have known. He basically categorized mystical experience as intuitive, or simultaneous, cognition, setting it up as the direct opposite of philosophy, which he views as discursive, or successive, cognition.

lonegardener said:I honestly can't pull that off. 🤣

My tastes have shifted so much over the years that the only thing I CAN really recall is the general "vibe" I got from a game when I first stumbled upon it. But even that isn't totally reliable. If my preferences have changed this drastically, my memories might be a bit distorted too. Plus, those impressions depend on two things: my old self, and the state of gaming at the time. A game that blew my mind back then might look pretty ridiculous today, given how far we've come with processing power and modern graphics cards.

That said, I can think of one game from when I was just a kid—a broke kid who couldn't afford to drop quarters into all those flashy arcade machines at the local pier. 🤣

Scramble

Ahh, total Proustian moments right there...

Mine has evolved too, though if I really sit down and think about it, maybe it hasn't actually changed that much. Come on then, just tell me—what's your absolute favorite right now? Or better yet, give me your top three from the last five years.

lonegardener said:Would anyone even know what to say if I actually sat down and typed out a three-page manifesto of all my favorite things? 😢

🤣

Just give us a top 10 or 20.

Eric Newman75 said:The New York Times just put together a compilation of the absolute best games out there, picking 20 titles that they claim you "simply have to play at least once."

Look, you don't have to agree with their picks—let's be real, objective "best of" lists are a myth—but we did end up mentioning a few of them in our own discussions.

I’ve played maybe half of the games on this list, if I’m being honest, which gives me just enough ground to say the whole thing feels pretty lackluster since it misses some of the true heavy hitters and iconic classics. If I were putting together my own somewhat subjective yet grounded selection of the best games, it would look something like this:

Tetris, Doom, TOAW (every version), Civilization (specifically III - V), Call of Duty (the early World War II stuff), World of Tanks, Ikariam, Total War (all versions), Panzer General (all versions), SimCity 4, Grand Theft Auto (all versions), Europa Universalis IV, and a few others that aren't coming to mind right now.

Steven Clark2 said:I actually have a few more titles on this subject that I haven't quite devoured yet. Forgive me—I mean read. 😁

Do share your thoughts on this whenever you feel the inclination. 🙂

I don't have much to add. I suppose I’d eat if I absolutely had to. 😁
Or maybe I wouldn't. Who can say for certain in any theoretical sense?
It’s the same deal with killing.
That isn't really a question of philosophy so much as it is a matter of diet.

A few years back, I picked up this book:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ith_a_Cannibal

It's worth a read.

Harold Doyle3 said:Pure philosophy is like pure existence—it’s Nothingness.

It’s like a pristine, sterile kitchen; if you insist on keeping it perfectly clean, you’re going to end up starving.

Maybe I didn't frame that quite right. Perhaps instead of saying "pure philosophy," it would be more accurate to call it metaphysics, though if we're following Hegel, metaphysics, logic, and ontology all bleed into one single thing anyway.

It’s actually been proven that certain video games can serve as a solid workout for your brain, potentially increasing gray matter density in specific regions. We're talking about something that could act as a legitimate preventative measure against dementia. So, when people joke about seniors getting hooked on gaming, it might actually be more than just a punchline; it could be a genuine health strategy.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

To me, freedom of spirit just means breaking free from censorship and that nagging sense of self-censorship—basically, escaping the ideological grip that tries to dictate exactly how you should think and what you should believe.

dustyranger8 said:I just can't get behind that.

Look, if you actually possess a shred of philosophical thought, then you've already dismantled religion within yourself, so there's no way it can continue to exploit you spiritually.

As for being exploited by capitalism? That’s not a matter of philosophy at all.

You’re actually making some pretty damn good points.

dustyranger8 said:I just can't get behind that.

Look, if you actually possess a shred of philosophical thought, then you've already dismantled religion within yourself, so there's no way it can continue to exploit you spiritually.

As for being exploited by capitalism? That’s not a matter of philosophy at all.

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Any kind of exploitation is inherently an ethical issue, which naturally turns it into a philosophical question as well.

It’s not just about that, either; you have to dismantle the external forces grinding you down every single day—specifically the kind of organized religion that drains your spirit and the brand of capitalism that bleeds your bank account dry.

gentlerider7 said:Philosophy is basically just one long, slow slide into deconstruction if you look at how things have been heading lately. I mean, if you start tracing the whole messy lineage from Hegel and Marx - Nietzsche and Stirner, all the way through to those postmodernists like Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida, it’s enough to make your head spin, right? It honestly feels like if we ever want to find any sort of "pure" philosophy again, we’ll have to stop chasing our tails and just go straight back to the roots—back to the Pre-Socratics.

If we’re talking about pure philosophy, I’d argue we need to head back to Hegel rather than the Pre-Socratics. Think of Hegel as having performed the final great philosophical synthesis, effectively drawing a line under everything that came before him—including those early thinkers. Once you pass Hegel, there isn't much left to say that carries any real substance. You can certainly keep philosophizing, sure, but you're really just using that highly refined toolkit he left behind, where logic, metaphysics, and ontology all blend into one seamless machine.

Ethan Gomez82 said:First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

👍

Sandra Murphy33 said:THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

I really dig this. I’ve been wanting to pick this up ever since I heard them reading snippets from it on NPR, maybe a year or two back.

Maybe "mudrac" should just be used as shorthand for some vulgar anatomical nonsense, much like how "diamat" serves as a lazy abbreviation for dialectical materialism in academic circles.