Answer: don't ask a topologist

You can dig half of the intended hole, but yes, a hole is a discrete thing that has no inherent dimensions.

Philosophy has also been largely ignored by contemporary educators. Both disciplines would benefit greatly from increased engagement and communication

Someone else mentioned they knew "laying pipe" as "taking a shit", but that's the first time I've heard it used that way.

I've always understood it to mean "fucking"

Well you did give me a perfect setup

I bet you are a lot of fun at parties

I think he means that the first time in history that someone recorded voices and played them back, nobody would have ever heard themselves speaking from a recording before that, so they wouldn't have expected it and may have been very confused about what was going on.

It only takes once

Nah, just makes you feel goofy.

If you also have shoes on, then you feel more naked because quickly putting on pants becomes challenging

"I understood that reference!" Is a joke from The Avengers; since Captain America has been on ice for 70 years he doesn't get most pop culture, history, etc. references that are commonplace today.

Somebody makes a reference (Wizard of Oz, maybe?) that is old enough that he does understand it, so he says that line with pride.

>Hegel himself described his dialectics as the “speculative mode of cognition”

Fair enough; like I said, it's been awhile.

Yes and no. But thesis-->antithesis-->synthesis is (in my possibly flawed recollection) more about how ideas interact with each other and the world to progress human knowledge, Russell seems to be talking more about the roots of our knowledge, that at the base they aren't built on what we would call knowledge epistemologically, but on the raw and naive "instinctual" beliefs that we have.

Seems to me that Russell's point is that while these are not immutable, we can examine them and modify them, they can't be wholly removed.

In this reading, I would say it's not a bad analogy to invoke Hegel, but it is a bit reductive.

It's been awhile since I've read Hegel, but I thought he was talking about societal ideas, as opposed to the internal, instinctive beliefs.

It's the superior format. Resistance is futile.

I prefer DD/YYYY/MM, myself

You don't know the things the voice in my head is capable of

Humanity ≠ Personhood, or at least that's the premise here.

For example, any of numerous aliens from many different Sci-Fi universes would almost obviously be counted as a person (though the legality of that consideration would not be automatic), but would not be human.

So the question here was, what makes for 'a person' in any of various ways we use the term, the legal definition being just one of them. Many people would argues that self-awareness, empathy, intelligence, awareness of death, etc. are all qualities that we associate with 'persons', whether human or otherwise.

New laws require legislative acts, which are hard enough to get for uncontroversial things that a majority of people want.

The activists took the legal approach because there was potential to get the goal they wanted without legislation. A judge could have theoretically ruled that Happy constitutes a legal person, and was thus entitled to the protections afforded to legal persons. They didn't, but they could have.

I suspect that if not the activists involved in this example, some activists are working on getting legislation passed, but this probably seemed like a tactic worth trying as well.

>I don’t need to separate art from the artists because as amazing as art can be it doesn’t save lives or change society

Sure it does. Art therapy helps people process pain, trauma, grief, etc.

Works of art inspire revolutions, and change the fabric of society

To be clear, I'm not responding to the article, I'm responding to your comment.

This is what I was reacting to: >why would I want philosophy to help people avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.

I don't care what the article says, I'm saying that this comment is missing the point of separating the art from the artist.

It's not about helping people avoid consequences; we can and should hold people accountable for their words and actions.

But if they have contributed work that has artistic, educational, scientific, etc. merit that is valuable to society at large, we should not jettison all of that simply because the person who contributed it has done or said terrible things. We should consider its value separately from it's creator, while also contextualizing it based on the sins of the creator.

The point is the art can be valuable even if the artist is reprehensible; same can be said of science, engineering, etc.

Washington said "me too!"

>It's honestly kind of troubling how we've all started using the terms "blue state" and "red state". It's so easy to simplify millions of people into colors on a map.

Mostly it's just a shorthand to identify who they will likely vote for. Time was more states were swing states or "purple" states, but now most of them are almost preordained given the gerrymandering and polarization.

I'm less troubled by the shorthand than by why it's become so reliable

Sebum sure is a disgusting word, isn't it?

You are assuming quite a bit of continuity in our civilization for the next 1000 years.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but there's a lot of ways that might not be correct.