The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Idealism = the doctrine that there is no external reality, only our ideas
No external canonical reality. One can still have an independent situational reality.
global relativism
Global relativism, if you mean absolute relativism, is a contradiction in terms. One can easily defend personal, moral, cultural and cognetive relativism (as I'm sure you would), but saying that relativism applies in the whole universe is foolish. Of course, at that point, idealism takes over. Metaphysics rules!
If you want to argue that we have no reason to think that our beliefs do represent reality accurately then at least a prima facie case is made by the fact that the alternative belief involves contradiction
And? Contradiction is fine! No sane man would say that his ideas/beliefs would hold true for the entire universe. Thats where the boundary for relativism is. Where one cannot make sweeping relative statements, its at a stage of cosmology where you're only choice is cognetive relativism, or god in any case. Quite simply, the absolute relativism you refer to does not exist, and an argument against is a strawman, at least according to my definition, for other lesser interpretations it may be a valid critique.
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
No external canonical reality. One can still have an independent situational reality.
Not of one is a regular idealist.
Global relativism, if you mean absolute relativism, is a contradiction in terms. One can easily defend personal, moral, cultural and cognetive relativism (as I'm sure you would), but saying that relativism applies in the whole universe is foolish. Of course, at that point, idealism takes over. Metaphysics rules!
This is only aimed at this particular argument for this Quinean kind of relativism.
And? Contradiction is fine! No sane man would say that his ideas/beliefs would hold true for the entire universe.
One cannot hold contradictory beliefs in good faith. I can't say and mean "All triangles are four sided figures"
Thats where the boundary for relativism is. Where one cannot make sweeping relative statements, its at a stage of cosmology where you're only choice is cognetive relativism, or god in any case. Quite simply, the absolute relativism you refer to does not exist, and an argument against is a strawman, at least according to my definition, for other lesser interpretations it may be a valid critique.
Once global relativism goes the doctrine has no point since it starts allowing claims that can be used to undermine other relativist claims about belief and knowledge.
Maniac, you're local library should be swamped with biographies, translations, germans + french + english versions, summaries, books about him and (semi) historical novels.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus
One cannot hold contradictory beliefs in good faith. I can't say and mean "All triangles are four sided figures"
Smoke pot.
Its a question of semantics. Is it conceivable of a people who refer to what we call a square, as a triangle? Of course!! . Needless to say, it is also possible to conceive of a universe with different rules and different logic system that allows a triangle in this area of perception to be a square in another. However, I'll spare you cosmology, lets assume this 4-d universe for all intents and purposes .
Nonetheless, even other beliefs that come under the lesser relativisms, like cultural or moral. "Democracy is best" or "freedom rocks" are beliefs that do not conceivably hold as true even for small contexts. The size of the context determines the breed of the relativism that applies to it.
This is only aimed at this particular argument for this Quinean kind of relativism.
If thats total relativism (iirc it is) then I concur. AS Philosophy is great for stimulating amnesia.
Once global relativism goes the doctrine has no point since it starts allowing claims that can be used to undermine other relativist claims about belief and knowledge
Not entirely sure I agree with that. As a relativist, if you say that "relativism is false", whereas I say "it is true", I have to hold that both positions are necessarily true for either of us respectively. I wouldn't hold your position as true because I do not concur with it, however, I hold that it is true for you.
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
I second everybody who said "just don't." Everything he says is just dithering psychosis prettied up to look like actual thought. Memorize the definition of "Antisocial Personality Disorder" in DSM-IV, then take some form of mind-altering drug(preferably one that causes paranoia) and watch a few hours of nonstop nature documentaries while repeating the definition to yourself over and over again and whacking yourself on the nut with a 2X4. It has basically the same effect with a lot less effort. If you want to really understand him, take to hanging around with Goths and drink excessive amounts of coffee for a few weeks afterwards, but you should be able to pass a college-level course on Nietzsche just by following the basic routine a few times and writing whatever comes into your head.
Originally posted by elijah
Dont. Never read philosophy, except perhaps Satre, Wittgenstein and Platos Republic. In all else, get summaries.
This is why philosophy sucks (as a subject). Its like bloody literature!! It's meant to be about concepts, if I want to read god knows how much irrelevant paperwork, I'll be a bureaucrat! Just read summaries that tell you about the concept, the argument, the problems etc etc. Then use your brain. I hate flowery philosophers that base their entire profession around what some dead guy wrote (sorry Agathon ). Theyre not philosophers, theyre lovers of philosophy. The real philosophers are the ones that are out thinking new stuff, even if its crap, theyre the ones that are at least making a damn effort!
Dear Maniac,
How is life?
Though I cannot give you useful advice about Nietzsche -since I know hardly anything about him- I will give you my opinion about studying philosophy.
Someone (who in my view was quite intelligent) once recommended me to read 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse'(1886).
I do totally disagree with this post by elijah and recommend the very opposite.
Try to read the original texts of the great philosophers!
Try to read those texts in the original language!
Hardly ever read summaries, though one good introduction to philosophy can be useful
Why read a summary written by some thrid-rate pseudo-philosopher when one can read the REAL thing?
the best introduction I have read is 'Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie' by W.Windelband
(do not read the part about 20th century philosophy, which was written by someone else)
since I enjoy reading great literature (the original texts, no summaries) in my view it is no impediment that some philosophical reading -Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre, St.Augustine- resembles literature
there are very few philosophers who are truly original
As a result I distrust "new" ideas on principle; Plato and Aristotle were dominant for about 2,000 years
most philosophers just redid their debate
Do not forget I.Kant!
Kant is fundamental to Western philosophy. He acts like a watershed.
Start with 'Kritik der reinen Vernunft'(1781) by Kant!
Do not forget J.Locke!
Non-Western philosophy (India, China) can be interesting too. They wrote some great literature too!
I agree with you about Plato, though he will always remain fundamental to Western philosophy. So one should still read Plato.
Long live Aristotle!
I hope you will enjoy reading TRUE philosophers,
Best wishes!
Imagine a culture where they speak another language, coincidentally having triangle and square swapped.
I do totally disagree with this post by elijah and recommend the very opposite
How about a case of to each, his own. I prefer summaries to the originals, where the originals suck. Some might get more out of the originals, and thats fine. I just dislike it when paying too much attention to the original texts impedes new thinking, after all, we all have human brains, no different to Nietzsche, Plato, Sartre, and possibly even Wittgenstein!
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Imagine a culture where they speak another language, coincidentally having triangle and square swapped.
Makes no sense. Sure can they use another word, but they still mean "triangle". If I mean "car" I say whatever word means "car". I never say the word that means "bike" when I refer to a car.
As long as we're suggesting alternatives, I advise the Screwtape Letters. C.S. Lewis is the anti-Nietzsche; he is easily understood, unassuming, genuinely warm and almost completely applicable to day-to-day life. Even if you aren't a Christian it's a good read for the points made and the sheer humor. Screwtape is also a particularly good start for the study of philosophy, since it describes many of the big pitfalls encountered in the course of philosophical inquiry. I particularly like the part about the Historical Point of View.
Originally posted by GePap
Zarathustra is full of nice images and quotes (why SMAC quoted it so often), but as far as getting to his concepts, not the best method..beyond Good and Evil and Geneology are both much better.
I assume you will read it in Dutch or german..if in English, get a translation by Kaufmann..by far the best translator of Nietzsche into english.
I dated a great niece of Kaufman, while I was taking a course on German philosophy (in english translations ) I quoted the go to women with a whip line - and whatever Kaufmans commentary was (I forget) , she said she couldnt imagine Uncle Walter in that context at all.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
im wondering if it really makes sense to read hegel without having gotten to a much greater extent into earlier philosophers? From reading ABOUT Hegel (mainly Fackenheim and Fukiyama) my sense is that Hegels main contributions are in putting thought in historical context, and require a familiarity with the history of western thought to really make sense. I wonder if Elijah isnt really right to suggest starting with Plato instead.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by alva -
Gepap:
Ever read Ouspensky?
Nope, never.
Everything he says is just dithering psychosis prettied up to look like actual thought.
Worse summary EVER.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
.
) I quoted the go to women with a whip line - and whatever Kaufmans commentary was (I forget) , she said she couldnt imagine Uncle Walter in that context at all.
Tweet
Comment