subkiyy

once upon a gavagai, there was a tonk | 🇳🇴🇦🇫🇰🇷

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

I'm 21.

When I was 18, I believed that every indicative metaphysics was concerned with describing features of the world.

Then I discovered Amie Thomasson and she changed my life forever.

11 lessons from America's most controversial and unknown philosopher:

[Phil Hoyeck @PAHoyeck]

I'm 36.

When I was 18, I believed philosophy could answer metaphysical questions.

Then I discovered Ludwig Wittgenstein and he changed my life forever.

11 lessons from Austria's most controversial and unknown philosopher:

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

Another W for intuitionism.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

Not sure what's worse: Gödel slop from Quanta Magazine or TikTok philosophers who claim that Quine rejected analyticity wholesale.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

I just double-checked. The actual reading list is:

[Athanasius @Athanasius_45]

A reading list from Ralph Waldo Emerson (Journals, vol. 6, p. 282):

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

Easy, mathematical truths are fully explained by the linguistic conventions of that language.

[Hermit Thrush Ⓜ️ @Hermit_Thrush]

Suppose we consider 2+2=4. What makes this true, eternally and independently of human thought, if not something about objective mathematical reality?

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

Tarski's wiki page:
> atheist
> roman catholic
> entered university to study biology
> became one of the most widely-revered logicians of the 20th century
> completed his doctorate under lesniewski, the arch-pedant
> lesniewski and tarski hated each other
> narrowly avoided being killed by travelling to go to some conference
> had (comparatively) many female students
> had extramarital affairs with half

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@wailoftheney Philosophy is continuous with [natural] science.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@sebastian_trifa @Y40IFRQTTING quench your thrist for knowledge.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@EdgeOfInfinty @AOMtheTaymi @doxa_ty "Will the sun rise tomorrow?"

Tanakh Enjoyer: Yes.

"How do you know?"

Tanakh Enjoyer: Because universals exist.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@AOMtheTaymi @ByJimbob I believe you're both talking past each other. You seem to read "logic(s)" as formal systems, in this sense OP's claim is quite queer. But OP presumably means the logical laws, and so here "what justifies them?" is fine.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@ibnrajab01 Logical Chess by Chernev

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

i might actually win

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@salsabilhistory "Ascent to the Absolute: Metaphysical Papers and Lectures" by Findlay Niemeyer

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

The field of metaphysics even envelops the love a man has for a woman

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

ramadan mubarak!!

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@Rainypainyy It depends, if you know you're unhealed and aware that you may cause her more harm than good, then love here would be (2). But if you're emotionally secure and you know you're capable of loving her in a healthy way, then loving her would be to do (1).

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@NRFMediaCell @Rainypainyy

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@abdul_now I like to think that the primary use of arguments aren't really to produce new belief(s), but a way to test them. A way to show explicitly what we are already commited to based on our set of beliefs. As beliefs and theories are almost enteriely prior to arguments.

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@moonbubbles3 You mean this scene?

[subkiyy @subkiyyy]

@emnode @Anthony_Bonato