According to Lacan, language is a key component of human subjectivity, and symbolic systems shape our perceptions of ourselves and others.

Air quotes, also known as finger quotes indicate that a word or phrase is being used ironically, sarcastically, or in a way that is not meant to be taken literally. This gesture creates a gap between the signifier (the spoken word) and the signified (the intended meaning).

Language is a system of signs that does not correspond directly to reality but instead creates symbolic structures that shape our perception of reality.

The gap between the signifier and the signified is what allows for the creation of these symbolic structures, and it is this gap that air quotes highlight. The air quotes become a symbol of this gap.

This symbolic structure is reinforced by the fact that the gesture itself is not necessary for communication, the same end could be acheived communicating without air quotes.

Furthermore, Lacan argues that the subject is constituted by language and that the subject's identity is formed through linguistic structures. By using air quotes, the speaker is highlighting the constructed nature of language and identity. The gesture calls attention to the fact that language is not a transparent medium but instead shapes our perceptions of ourselves and others.

This was a quick idea I wrote down and reworded with gpt, does this make enough sense or am I just blabbering here?

I was wondering if it would be possible to help clear this section up:

However, the internal necessity perpetually to be, is inseparably connected with the necessity always to have been, and so the expression may stand as it is. “Gigni de nihilo nihil; in nihilum nil posse reverti,”30 are two propositions which the ancients never parted, and which people nowadays sometimes mistakenly disjoin, because they imagine that the propositions apply to objects as things in themselves, and that the former might be inimical to the dependence (even in respect of its substance also) of the world upon a supreme cause. The quote is from The Critique of Pure Reason, First Analogy, Principle of the Permanence of Substance.

I think they’re saying this:

• The idea of something being permanent means it has always been and always will be.
• You can’t seperate these two ideas: permanence requires both.
• People at the time of writing sometimes try to remove the “always has been” part as it conflicts with or removes the need for a creator (something which is permanent that created non-permanent things).
• These people applied the idea of permanence to things in themselves as if it were possible to perceive things in themselves, rather than their representations.

I suspect I could be wildly off here.

Like is it avoided or might you kill flies to prevent flystrike. Or is it ignored when you'll inevitably kill some small bugs/insects

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/6010002

The newest strip in my philosophy webcomic. To see the first one in this continuing tale go to https://noumenacomic.com/000

What do you think about this sketch?

For which parts of our life is it a metaphor?

What would different Ethical schools say about this?

• https://piped.video/watch?v=q-twcxsWHmk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-twcxsWHmk

The intent of this post is to encourage discussion and exchange of thoughts.

A question I'm trying to answer is when can values play a legitimate role in regarding something as misinformation?

I came across a review of The Misinformation Age which points out that the book doesn't offer a solution to this problem, and I'll be sharing a relevant excerpt here to facillitate a discussion, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the quote from the review or my question.

"In an endnote they clarify: ‘we understand “true beliefs” to be beliefs that generally successfully guide action, and more important, we understand “false beliefs” to be ones that generally fail to reliably guide action’ (p. 188). Their understanding of truth thus has a ‘strong dose of pragmatism’ and they further specify that it is a ‘broadly deflationary attitude in the spirit of what is sometimes called ‘disquotationalism’ (pp. 188–9).

"While I accept that doing what works is a good description of why scientists do and should pursue hypotheses, or why we sometimes treat hypotheses as if they were true for practical purposes, it’s not clear to me why we should equate this with ‘scientific truth’. Once a definition of truth is tied to notions of ‘success’ and ‘reliability’, ‘truth’ then inescapably becomes bound up with partial non-epistemic value judgements.

"The issue I see with O’Connor and Weatherall’s definition in the context of misinformation is that given reasonable value pluralism in democratic societies, there will oftentimes be competing claims to ‘scientific truth’ and it won’t be clear which (if any) should be labelled as ‘false beliefs’ or ‘misinformation’...

"I find it difficult to see how any theory that doesn’t give us the resources to distinguish between evaluative and non-evaluative claims can actually do the work O’Connor and Weatherall want in pushing back against propaganda. Moreover, adopting this kind of definition seems to risk encouraging people to paint too many things as ‘false’ beliefs, misinformation, and ‘alternative facts’, where disagreements are perhaps best understood as a product of legitimate value differences."

How do you identify certain thing as true?

Philippa Foot is most known for her invention of the Trolley Problem thought experiment in the 1960s. A lesser known variation of hers is as follows:

Suppose that a judge is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime. The rioters are threatening to take bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed from the riots only by framing some innocent person and having them executed.

These are the only two options: execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit, or let people riot in the streets knowing there will be loss of life. If you were the judge, what would you do?

I recently got interested about the Age of Enlightenment, and more specifically Voltaire - and would like to read some of his works to understand him better.

Can anyone suggest any "Essential Voltaire" that I can start with ? I know Voltaire is most known for his "Candide", but I want to take it slow.

I started a webcomic dealing with themes from philosophy. It's been going for a few weeks now.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but must be lived forwards.” - Soren Kierkegaard

Couple of days ago I saw a post about on atheist community about a quote saying atheist can't base their morals on anything.

I commented that if religion didn't accept some premises like god, they wouldn't either. Some said I am wrong and downvoted me. So I decided to post here about to what extent can I be skeptical about premises, to see where I am mistaken (or commenters).

Before that post, for a while I had an idea that even the analytical truth/necessary truth (whatever you name it) like "a is equal to a" are premises which can not be proven (since they are the basics of our logic, which will we be in use to prove claims) even though they seem us to be true by intuition. They just have to be accepted to be able to further think about other things.

So my question is since we can question the correctness of basics of our logic and cant find an answer, we can not justify or learn anything. Also, there lays the problem of do we really understand the same thing from the same concepts, and does language limit us?

If I am mistaken, which is highly probable, please correct me and don't judge. I am not much of a philosophy reader.

I would really appreciate it if you could share some resources (video, article, book, anything...) about limits of our understanding, logic, language and related topics.

Thanks in advance...

Sincerely apologize if this is the wrong place for such a question(/rant).

The context of the question relates to "Self" and maybe about "Power" in general.

I'm assuming the following maxims hold true:

• Unexamined life not worth living...
• Philosophy is lived. Choices primarily determine your philosophy

Please to correct my assumptions or reasoning. Can elaborate on above if needed.

I tend to myself in circles regarding the importance of philosophizing and examining my life. Maybe it's a symptom of some mental issue.. With every new idea I learn, I now have to consider it and balance it with all I've learnt in the past. Each choice becomes a battle of value systems and ideas and perspectives and constraints. It's tiring to the point where I try not to think and just "do".

But then that path leads me to an autopilot where my choices fall to my default "human" state overridden by the philosophy modules installed at the time. Then it devolves into the unexamined life. Or then life throws a curveball. I have to snap out of it and need to reassess everything going into the philosophizing state above.

Philosophy feels like an indulgence.

I'm guessing this pendulum is not new. On a global scale, Academia are cutting philosophy department budgets as it's easier to divert money to "actionable" disciplines. No point in "wasting" time in thinking about thinking about doing things. Who needs a meta-compass if we need to walk the distance anyway (even though it helps a tremendous deal if the compass is in the right hands (which hold the power)).

I know I've reduced the argument to 2 buckets. I'm currently trying to consume Zen literature trying to get rid of my buckets and/or/xor trying to bring harmony of various buckets in my life.. (https://tinyurl.com/verse20)

My question is: how do you manage all this philosophizing in your life? How useful is this indulgence?

Happy to accept any books/articles on this. Thank you.

I guess this was mainly a Continental thing, but for a while philosophers often wrote novels that in some way expounded their philosophy. I think Nietzsche was perhaps one of the earliest, with Zarathustra. All the French existentialists wrote novels, too. What happened to this trend?

EDIT: I just realised that arguably this goes back all the way to Plato! But I was thinking less of straightforward, largely plot-free dialogues and more of full fledged novels, like Sartre's Nausea.

Is there really no alternative justice system than crime and punishment? Seems that punishments are taken for granted as necessary and that we only debate on the reason it is accepted.

If not, can someone explain why it isn't?

Other than (metaphysical) anti-realism, which I'm under the impression is an umbrella for all types of denial that there is an independent, external reality.

I suppose you could even envision someone taking the stance that there is an external reality, because they have found empirical proof, which would make them a realist as well as a proponent of whatever this is.

The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game.