seems like swan not wanting to lose customers.
i bet there is a line in their fine print saying they won’t do it for u
nostr is your own garden
can cross pollinate with whoever u want
both?
the good life isn’t all that expensive when get down to it
i don’t think my wife has ever asked for advice.
it’s always venting 🤦♂️
if it’s a problem i can solve, i just take care of it, no need in telling her what the solution is.
skip the middle man 🤣
All good, religion is just a word to describe whenever metaphysics and anthropology meet.
Everyone is a philosopher, credentials are not needed to talk and engage in discourse. I guess i list my credentials just because i know some people use them as an initial guage. I’ve had one on one conversations with PhDs that revealed how little depth they actually have. I just listen to what people are saying.
The existence of God isn’t even a “religious” argument. It’s just logic.
There is no other coherent explaination why somwthing actually exists, as opposed to nothing exists, without some being that is complete act.
Call that Zeus, God, a flying sphegetti monster, makes no difference, you need a god like being else you have no way around the impasse of the origin. you either say something came from nothing or something always was, both logical absurdities.
Aquinas argues, and i find his case completely compelling, that logic/philosophy gets you to “a god exists” but that it takes revelation to get to “God is a loving person, and we are made im His image”
Just my experience, but i haven’t encountered any atheist, anti god person who ever engages with the arguments directly. It’s always some strawman gross distortion of the philosophical issues.
And that is basically what makes Dr. Feser’s story so compelling. He was an huge atheist, teaching philosophy of religion, just bashing people who believed in a god to his class. Then he got bored and started digging into Aquinas instead of just regurgitating things others said about him. He found all the critiques he taught in class skipped by the issues, never dealt with aquinas’s arguments, yet claimed victory.
If u care about truth, u follow it where it goes.
Just like all things in this world, it’s proof of work. I don’t preach or tell someone they have to think something. but i care enough about people to tell them the truth.
To answer how can a god know what you are going to do and you still have choice. we could go into the entailments of what eternal, outside of time means, unpack rationality, freewill, love, and morality: building the dialectic argument, but this ramble is going on for too long, so i’ll answer with analogy.
if you have a child, or a wife, someone you know inside and out, you know how they will respond to a situation.
my wife knows if we are threatened, i will respond with force even if it means laying down my life. Her knowledge of that, does not affect my nature, doesn’t change my being. and takes nothing away from my deliberate decision in the moment to fight or flee.
simply put, it does not follow that knowledge of a decision changes the nature of the decision itself.
thx for the msg, i’ve just been consumed with trying to get my
book over the finish line, it was a welcome distraction to engage with another about some
philosophy.
uhh, yeah your car insurance will say the repair shop’s insurance will have to cover, and they say its not covered so GFY. hope it’s not too stressful and it all works out
"Trump’s hard-nosed policies towards China are heaped under the patriotic-sounding rubric, “economic nationalism”, as if American workers derived some benefit from higher prices and soaring inflation. The fact is, however, is that ordinary people will suffer greatly from decoupling and see their standards of living fall even further. That’s because the policy is not intended to create jobs, increase wages, improve health care or provide lower-cost education. It is aimed at preserving Washington’s grip on global power so that corrupt western elites can create more mischief while driving the country further into debt and despair."
"Characterizing this as “cheating”, like Summers rightly says, should be rejected entirely. At the end of the day, who’s more “cheated”: the party doing the hard work of producing goods at very low prices on razor thin margins, or the party that simply prints a virtually infinite amount of fiat money to pay for all this stuff?"
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-concocted-the-tariffs-hoax-to-decouple-with-china/
“The fact is, however, is that ordinary people will suffer greatly from decoupling and see their standards of living fall even further.”
to steelman the position, the american middle class was significantly hollowed out due to these trade policies, so to say ‘it will hurt people, therefore we shouldn’t do it’ is like saying not to take medicine cause it tastes bad.
for bitcoin, it’s win win no matter who comes out ontop of this trade war
hopefully insurance doesn’t pull some bullshit with an “act of god” type of clause or something to wiggle out
yes, theology is the meeting point of metaphysics and anthropology, which when collide deflect as ethics
yes, their relation one of coexistence.
not strictly form/matter, but hylomorphic is the sense that humans relate to knowledge mysteriously as “both” not either or
Alex nostr:nprofile1qqs9336p4f3sctdrtft2wlqaq5upjz9azpgylhfd3dplwf005mfrr9sprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9uju6rfva5xc6t8dp6x2u3wvdhk6qg5waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk3mhucz with some home truths. “Government adoption is inevitable and part of the plan.”
Another variety of the Trojan horse for freedom argument?
Being angry about governments stacking sats is an admission of one’s ignorance on Nash’s non-cooperative game theory.
stacking sats is the optimal strategy for any player, friend or foe, that produces cooperative effects without coordination.
is the fixed point theorem wrong?
are economies not a series of recursive exchanges?
is bitcoin not a neutral permissionless money?
if not, people can calm down, employ the optimal strategy, stack their sats, and enjoy the ride.
so did another daniel
daniel tiger
it’s odd, how even Socrates uses the same logically invalid structure: I know that i know nothing.
dialectically, the statement contradicts itself.
but rhetorically, it conveys the importance of understanding our limits.
like if you tell a human being the truth dialectically with precision ,to be right sized, humbly proud, most all can’t do it.
epistemologically, the way humans “know” is how we interface with objective reality. When we use the term “knowledge” to mean certainty of some absolute, it breaks the valid metaphysics and anthropology human knowledge rests upon.
its really highlighting the difference between gnosis, possession of knowledge itself, and philosophy, love of knowledge.
don’t be a Gnostic
we don’t posses knowledge itself
we pursue it, interact with it, with love and care
yeah, if they aren’t telling me something out of my genuine best interest, i don’t give a fuck
