please don't stop

(with (c), the idea being that students learning philosophy should be exposed to how a reductionist view is defended, since reductionisms of various kinds abound)

In addition to Mill being a big figure in Anglo philosophy generally, I have to wonder whether utilitarianism constantly shows up in intro ethics because (a) Mill's defense is short (b) Mill anticipates lots of objections and hence is a good dialectical model (c) the axiology is reductionist

Lmfao

You’re a mensch! Thank you

There's an old New Yorker cartoon that I can never find depicting two guys at a bar talking. One is wearing a Yankees cap. Caption is something like "Oh no, understandable mistake, but I'm not a New York Yankees Fan. I'm a New York Yankees cap fan"

Congruent with the idea that there is homosexual behavior but not gay people who have a sexual orientation

Bleak

The weaker thing I think is that this trains students to learn how to distinguish natural language claims formulated unclearly or ambiguously. The stronger thing is that there is genuine merit in formulating arguments in a way where everything needed for validity is explicit

I was also surprised (unpleasantly) by the art style in the village. Can't say strongly enough that it's worth pushing through

*slaps roof of truck* this bad boy can fit so many incongruent counterparts in it

for muted horns you can't do better than Mingus. If you want the lonely noir feeling the go for Bohren & der Club of Gore, Sunset Mission in particular but their whole discography in general

Harder than Lost Lace? Dang

We love to name a claim ‘(**)’

[gestures in the direction of Smashing Pumpkins]

Not to mention the playing is so measured and precise, so tight. Some of the phrases and meters are genuinely weird and they just nail every single one

Among other things, they do "bring the riff back slower" but also in a new key, a new tempo, a new harmonic context, and an entirely different song

Is this where my beef with noam chompers begins