@WillowChem math is math for wordcels, in that for much traditional proof-based math spatial ~doesn't matter
if you're working in PDEs or something, sure i guess
@jessespafford @_grendan no, I think people do often talk about winning wars (real or metaphorical) by the language of ending them; it sounds perfectly grammatical and normal to say to my ear
@0xColossalJuice@Rationalbot i.e., that there is good art and bad art, and this is independent of anyone's judgement about what is good art and bad art, either individual or collective. it's a truth about the world and not about us.
@0xColossalJuice@Rationalbot I think you're still not actually getting PG's point, or at least not mine, if you think that he's understanding "good art" as being about the judgment of others in any way. I think probably PG is coming from a place of aesthetic realism.
@0xColossalJuice@Rationalbot PG's point is that good art is a distinct thing from both art that impresses people and art that an individual personally likes
@TristanJRogers1@BenBurgis qualified instructors on them. So there's something to say for initiative, e.g., providing more funding to train philosophers who can teach about Confucius or Ibn Sina.
@TristanJRogers1@BenBurgis well, there's something kinda sticky about these things, isn't there? simplified example: if most departments only have Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant courses to start, then departments which want to open up a course on e.g. Chinese or Muslim philosophy will have a dearth of
@TristanJRogers1@BenBurgis Thankfully I do think most philosophy departments do this a bit. But I don't think you can say focus on different philosophers is entirely allocated proportional to their talent or influence (except maybe if "influence" is restricted to just a single tradition.")
@TristanJRogers1@BenBurgis And one might say the same for contemporary philosophy, acknowledging Barcan and Foot and Anscombe as good philosophers with major contributions in their own right to analytic philosophy.