I don’t “know” for certain. But it’s a thought that you might do well to heed yourself.
I do, but Plato did write this about Socrates. Admittedly it was translated maybe multiple times, but this is what all the sources show.
There is the feminine need to be part of the group, and then there is the masculine need to make oneself stand out. To some extent, every woman likes to stand out from the crowd, just as every man, to some extent, likes to blend in. When you have certain defined roles for men and women, they can lose touch with either their femininity or their masculinity. For Jung, becoming a whole person meant getting in touch with either his anima, or her animus -the feminine side of men, and the masculine side of women.
As to this question of Socrates: I don’t know for sure if such a person ever even existed. Whether he did or not, he has nevertheless been called the father of western philosophy. Why? Because Socrates is your starting point: Before you can know anything, with any degree of certainty, you begin by making no assumptions. This is also the foundation of science. Refutability is also a key concept in science. One must be able to challenge accepted beliefs, including one’s own beliefs, or else one’s development becomes thwarted.
I’m getting fed up with all the ‘masculine-feminine’ nonsense on these boards…
If women want to fit in, why do they dress flamboyantly, with outlandish vampire makeup?
Why is it the males who dress dull, and try to mimic all the other males behaviors and likes, such as sports, beer, and manliness?
Flamboyant males only applies to non-human persons.
Are you implying that one’s development includes a goal to attain?
You are wrong. Science begins with whole sets of assumptions. All ‘scientific facts’ exist within these sets of assumptions. It is what I hold against science. It is simply not serious enough.
==edit==
Although nowadays a few enlightened individuals make great progress within quantum physics. Most make quatum physics out to be nothing more than causal physics though… which is again because they are not serious enough.
Thus you have entirely missed something deeply important in philosophy.
It is a matter only of definition that a circle has the same radius throughout. It has nothing to do with physical reality (necessarily). It is not something that observation can confirm nor deny. It is simply true by definition, thus throughout all time, forgiving name changes, it will always be true that what we now call a “circle” will always have the same radius throughout. There is nothing else to it. If it doesn’t have the same radius throughout, it isn’t a circle.
Blasted sun only comes out in the day; never at night, when we really need it.
Correlation does not equal causation. If it is only bright out when the sun is in the sky, then this is merely correlation. If I assume therefore that the sun is the source of daylight, then this is not science, or it is bad science. All science, to the extent that it relies on assumptions, can be refuted. But in science, you don’t just say something is wrong, because there are other possible explanations. You propose alternative theories, hypotheses. But theories and hypotheses are not the same as assumptions; they require observations to either validate or invalidate them. For example, one could make an alternative hypothesis that the sun is not the source of light; rather, it charges the atmosphere, much like in the aurora borealis, causing the atmosphere to be our source of light in the daytime. But this hypothesis could easily be invalidated by the valid observation that the moon has a bright side and a dark side, but the moon does not have an atmosphere.
So when I say that Socrates is considered the father of western philosophy, it is because of this, and this is why Socrates is still relevant. And while Socrates was never sure of anything, we still accept this questioning of things as not only valid, but necessary for good science. But while accepting that we could be wrong about everything we think we know, we quantify this statement of Socrates by saying, “Don’t just say something could be wrong”; rather, we say “Prove to us that it is wrong.”
We all have goals, but no I wasn’t thinking of any one goal in particular.
That is a load of male horse droppings, if you ask me.
If I define 1+1 to be 3, while 1= 1 object, 2= 2 objects and 3=3 objects, my definition is wrong. I agree that within a certain set of rules, we can come to the conculsion that the definition of X=condion X. That was my point. I also included a second point, which is that the definitions make for an artificial environment which is not equal to reality. That is why I disagreed. My apologies if I skipped a few steps on the ladder and threw the ladder away before you could follow me.
A definition can only be wrong with respect to other definitions. There is no other form of “wrong” for a definition. A definition is merely the declaration of how a word is to be used. It can only be wrong if the word has been defined elsewhere as something different. And then only wrong if used wrongly in that other environment.
And realize that an “artificial” map of the environment is all anyone has to work with (or needs). The fact that the food you are eating is not 100% perfectly understood by your inner map is largely irrelevant to its nutrient value to you.
Which again shows your problem.
Any model we make should correlate with reality. Else it is pointless. Your models might be consistent, but only in your head. Outside your head, something else is going on man. Wise up.
There is a difference between the phenomenon and the noumenon.
I agree except that doesn’t make a definition wrong. It makes, as you said, the ontology pointless (probably). The ontology becomes pointless because the definitions are not useful in application.
There is a difference between being useless and being wrong.
Right, I define you to be so convinced of your own genius, that talking with you about anything will always result in you complementing yourself on your genius. Which is, simultaneously, the reason why you are here.
That is the definition of James S Saint.
The definition is always right, you said it yourself.
I think that’s actually a good definition of a definition, it’s better than a definition is a description of what something is, because for that you only need the comon sense reference like ‘dug, a chair is like, a chair dude.’ (while of course gesturing,. )
I never thought of it that way.
How can this work in quantumcomputers?
The definitions have to be quantum states and not 0 or 1 which are by definition what they are which quantumstates are sort of not.
So how can this work? Unrelated question. Read it in the newspaper today, they’re setting up an institute to build one of these things within the city limits.
Fuzzily, that’s how.
The 0 and 1 in computers refers to being there or not there. In quantum computing, all possible combinations of presumed things being there and not being there are calculated at the same time (parallel) so that the highest probability of something being there is determined as quickly as possible.
I am not unimpressed.
Thank you for the explanation.
Yeah that girl. Who’s hotter, her or Megan Fox. Put them at the same age early twenties in lingerie, sitting on the edge of the bed at a pillow fight photo shoot looking at you and waiting. You can only choose one. Don’t ask me. Those are the terms.
Who do you choose?
Ain’t that a fucking philosophical dilemma if there ever was one. When you have two women who have all the features you find attractive equally, but each have uniquely sexy ways of showcasing those features, you have a problem. Look at the eye to face ratio and cheek size of each. Quite different, but both very attractive. If they looked more alike the decision would be easy, but they don’t. Take your time, what I’m asking is very difficult, I understand.
#7 Olivia Wilde is much hotter than Megan Fox.