One of my favorite things to see is random people trying to interact with unfamiliar outdoor cats. Just standing there with a hand out, making kissy noises, maybe meowing at the cat while it ignores them. Mankind at its best and least dignified
This is me and I am not ashamed. Because sometimes that shit works.
^frrrr
Basically always works for me; I am queen of the cats. (Except I don’t make the kissy noises, I just slow blink and crouch with my hand out).
*bragbragbrag*
Making friends with strange cats is my everyday superpower.
My husband was playing a video game tutorial, and it said something about the “vehicle”. It took me almost half an hour to stop mumbling “vehicle” over and over.
A while back my husband was listening to an audiobook of the Bible and there’s a bit in the Old Testament somewhere that lists all these places “and their suburbs” and for several days I added “and their suburbs” to everything. “What do you want for dinner?” “Chicken.” “And their suburbs?”
I just need everyone to know how much I really, really, REALLY hate Aristotle.
And there are three kinds of hatred for Aristotle, the first being visceral, so called because it rises from the intestines and through the middle of a person, yet never wanes nor increases but remains constant; and the second is called passive, and this occurs when a scholar or reader comes upon the works of Aristotle by chance, without seeking them out of their own volition, but rather confronted with them unexpectedly as a man set upon by bandits along a lonely road, but this sort of anger passes quickly; but indeed the third is active, and this occurs when a person seeks out Aristotle with the particular intention of becoming choleric; this sort of person seeks out the works of Aristotle wherever they may be found so that they might read them and thereby conjure up some bilious reason to cast invective and rebuke upon his theories and observations, and this anger is kept by its possessor at a boil.
Aristotle (and descendants) is a never-healing, festering wound in mankind’s intellectual heritage and an indelible shitstain, still infecting and maiming minds.
Aristotle is The Worst™.
I actually take issue with the description above of the second kind of hatred. Because despite the faulty logic, bullshit justifications, arbitrary self-helping definitions, lack of any kind of rigor or reality testing of ideas and (at best) sloppiness in observations that one meets in Aristotle, he is still presented as an intellectual giant.
Could you explain why you have this opinion?
I mean, Nero also did pretty well for himself living in the time that he did, from a certain point of view. Depending on what your idea of success is, y'know?
Considering the number of notes on an ancient philosopher joke I’m glad I didn’t originate this post, but hey at least Aristotle didn’t aggressively bother people as they tried to go about their business, like that one guy whatsisname
Nearly every single day I have considered reblogging this again and tagging you with a “I hope you’re happy with yourself” comment :P
I just need everyone to know how much I really, really, REALLY hate Aristotle.
And there are three kinds of hatred for Aristotle, the first being visceral, so called because it rises from the intestines and through the middle of a person, yet never wanes nor increases but remains constant; and the second is called passive, and this occurs when a scholar or reader comes upon the works of Aristotle by chance, without seeking them out of their own volition, but rather confronted with them unexpectedly as a man set upon by bandits along a lonely road, but this sort of anger passes quickly; but indeed the third is active, and this occurs when a person seeks out Aristotle with the particular intention of becoming choleric; this sort of person seeks out the works of Aristotle wherever they may be found so that they might read them and thereby conjure up some bilious reason to cast invective and rebuke upon his theories and observations, and this anger is kept by its possessor at a boil.
Aristotle (and descendants) is a never-healing, festering wound in mankind’s intellectual heritage and an indelible shitstain, still infecting and maiming minds.
Aristotle is The Worst™.
I actually take issue with the description above of the second kind of hatred. Because despite the faulty logic, bullshit justifications, arbitrary self-helping definitions, lack of any kind of rigor or reality testing of ideas and (at best) sloppiness in observations that one meets in Aristotle, he is still presented as an intellectual giant.
Could you explain why you have this opinion?
I mean, Nero also did pretty well for himself living in the time that he did, from a certain point of view. Depending on what your idea of success is, y'know?
I just need everyone to know how much I really, really, REALLY hate Aristotle.
And there are three kinds of hatred for Aristotle, the first being visceral, so called because it rises from the intestines and through the middle of a person, yet never wanes nor increases but remains constant; and the second is called passive, and this occurs when a scholar or reader comes upon the works of Aristotle by chance, without seeking them out of their own volition, but rather confronted with them unexpectedly as a man set upon by bandits along a lonely road, but this sort of anger passes quickly; but indeed the third is active, and this occurs when a person seeks out Aristotle with the particular intention of becoming choleric; this sort of person seeks out the works of Aristotle wherever they may be found so that they might read them and thereby conjure up some bilious reason to cast invective and rebuke upon his theories and observations, and this anger is kept by its possessor at a boil.
Aristotle (and descendants) is a never-healing, festering wound in mankind’s intellectual heritage and an indelible shitstain, still infecting and maiming minds.
Aristotle is The Worst™.
I actually take issue with the description above of the second kind of hatred. Because despite the faulty logic, bullshit justifications, arbitrary self-helping definitions, lack of any kind of rigor or reality testing of ideas and (at best) sloppiness in observations that one meets in Aristotle, he is still presented as an intellectual giant.
Could you explain why you have this opinion?
I’m pretty sure that Aristotle and Plato are actually some of the most poorly understood philosophers in history, perhaps even to a larger degree than Rand. I’m also pretty sure this was a conscious decision on their parts, though.
Plato at one point states (through Socrates, of course) that all books are bad, because a book cannot tailor an argument. He further clarifies, though, that a book could theoretically be worthwhile if it were so complex and multi-layered that it presented many different arguments depending on how it was read, with each type of reading implying a type of person, and that type of reading producing the argument that person needs.
It seems unlikely that Plato would have written so much if he believed his books to be useless, so it seems reasonable to expect that he at least considered the dialogues to be examples of this method.
Some slightly greater evidence for this comes from the regular logical flaws in his arguments. Plato makes a ton of really simple mistakes, often in a context that makes no sense. For instance, he occasionally describes a common type of mistake or explains how an opponent’s argument is wrong, and immediately follows it up with an argument that makes the same mistake. Identifying these failures seems to often reveal alternative views of the argument, or subtexts where it feels like Plato is saying something different to the reader than Socrates is to his debate partner. These cases were noticed independently by several members of my classes before the generalized theory was proposed, also, so at least anecdotally there is reason to believe this is not just fitting the facts to the theory.
Aristotle, along with some later thinkers (including Aquinas and Descartes), has some suspiciously similar cases. One of the more common mistakes made in interpreting Plato is taking the Republic as a design for an actual government, as opposed to a metaphor for the soul. This is a fairly obvious mistake because Plato literally states at the beginning that the Republic is a metaphor for the soul, and there are several aspects of the society that are opposed to other statements given by Plato, as well as facts about the lives of Plato and Socrates. After all, they lived in Athens for a reason. Aristotle, though, when talking about government, discusses how he feels the Republic was a mistake in political theory, despite his great respect for Socrates. Given how close Aristotle was to Plato and Socrates, and how clearly incorrect this interpretation is, I take it as a wink from Aristotle to the people who can see the mistake. Of course he understands Plato, so by lying all he is really proving is that he also knows better than to just show it.
Aristotle also shows the same telltale obvious mistakes which can reveal alternative conclusions . Even when he is not talking about Socrates, he regularly has faults in reasoning that would change the meaning of his argument, and the altered arguments often seem more powerful. Aquinas does this, too. As does Descartes, in pretty much the most obvious way of all. Descartes literally warns the audience that most people won’t understand what he is really saying, and that if you don’t understand him, you will make serious mistakes as a consequence. Because of this, he says, he lies to disguise the parts of his meaning that require stronger understanding, so that only those who will understand them will see those points.
While I have not yet compiled the quotes needed to come to any formal conclusion on this (next year, probably), I definitely believe that there is a long tradition of important philosophers lying so they can better tailor arguments within their works. Without this conclusion, I agree that Plato, Aristotle, and most of their intellectual descendants are sloppy philosophers who do not nearly deserve their status as geniuses. With it, however, they become much more significant and valuable thinkers than they already were.
(I wanted non-gendered terms that still implied being top of the pecking order. Note for non-German speakers the “big” isn’t actually represented in the name, so it’s a bit of a conceptual leap, but w/e.)
Sometimes people ask, why is xyz house bad? Asking this question does not imply that the asker has bad taste or no taste whatsoever - it means that they are simply not educated in basic architectural concepts. In this post, I will introduce basic architectural concepts and explain why not all suburban/exurban/residential houses are McMansions, as well as what makes a McMansion especially hideous.
Disclaimer: These same principles do not always apply to Modernist or even canonically Postmodern architecture. These principles are for the classical or traditional architecture most residential homes are modeled after.
Design Principle #1: Masses & Voids
Themassis the largest portion of a building. Individual masses become interesting when they are combined together to form a façade. The arrangement of these shapes to create weightis called massing. As the pieces are combined, they are divided into categories: primaryandsecondarymasses (1).
Theprimary mass is the largest shape in the building block. The secondary masses are the additional shapes that form the façade of a building.
Windows, doors, or other openings are called voids. Voids allow creation of negative space that allow for breaks within masses. Placing voids that allow for natural breaks in the mass create balance and rhythm across the building’s elevation.
The secondary masses should never compete with the primary mass. For example: an oversized projected entry or portico (secondary mass) will overwhelm the house (primary mass) behind it. The McMansion has no concept of mass. McMansions often have so many secondary masses that the primary mass is reduced to a role of filling in gaps between the secondary masses. An example:
Another issue with McMansions and mass is the use of too many voids. Some McMansions are so guilty of this they resemble swiss cheese in appearance. In the below example, the masses are so pockmarked with voids, they give the façade an overall appearance of emptiness.
My friend really hates McMansions, and is writing crash-courses in why you should hate them too.
god’s work
I’m pretty okay if this just means I have no taste in food architecture or something, but I don’t mind any of the examples of McMansions. I find them more visually interesting. They’re look like houses that would be fun to explore. -shrug-
Do wonder if it’s a cultural difference thing. Like, if you’re not used to the specific style of American architecture, you’re just going to see them differently?
So I only just discovered that the items you can buy to raise rep with various factions in Fallen London don’t necessarily get used up when you use them to raise a connection. <_< there’s usually a fate-locked option, a normal option, and an option for a mega-boost that will use the item up, but the other two options can be used again and again to raise your faction connection, which suddenly makes those items seem a lot more reasonably priced and is great for factions like the University colleges which are really hard to grind if you’re past a certain point in the university plot, but are also necessary for some of the up conversions.
This is concept art for Shadow Witch from game called Heroes of Might and Magic 5 by Ubisoft and Freeverse. In the right corner you can see how she and her upgraded version actually looks in game. i don`t think it`s comfortable fight like this. Also, they make really strange sounds when being attacked, more like moan of pleasure than pain.
She looks like she’s mad somebody made off her with clothes and is off to get them back.
The moan of pleasure sound when being attacked!!: oh my god. These. Games.
I loved so many of the MM games (6 was the best) but: YES! THIS! So many of the female monsters made these sounds that were absolutely 100% gasps of pleasure whenever you hit them. It was weird af, and as a very young female gamer, I found it really uncomfortable and embarrassing and it made me feel like I wasn’t supposed to be playing these games.
“The Greek god Apollo, for instance, seems to have begun as the Demon of a Mouse-fraternity in pre-Aryan totemistic Europe: he gradually rose in divine rank by force of arms, blackmail and fraud until he became the patron of Music, Poetry and the Arts and finally, in some regions at least, ousted his ‘father’ Zeus from the Sovereignty of the Universe by identifying himself with Belinus the intellectual God of Light.”
(Robert Graves, The White Goddess)
Sure, Graves. Whatever you say.
I think the problem is that you aren’t reading the illustrated edition, which is far more persuasive.
The Greek god Apollo seems to have begun as the Demon of a Mouse-fraternity in pre-Aryan totemistic Europe.
He gradually rose in divine rank by force of arms, blackmail and fraud until he became the patron of Music, Poetry and the Arts.
He finally, in some regions at least, ousted his ‘father’ Zeus from the Sovereignty of the Universe by identifying himself with Belinus the intellectual God of Light.
The sorcerer’s apprentice is actually actually about Apollo trying to overthrow Zeus: fact.
Seems as good an explanation as any for those statues of Apollo that have a mouse head in place of genitalia. Also, any excuse to form a post-facto demonic conspiracy theory around Disney pleases me.
In all seriousness, though, I’m inclined to cut Graves some slack as he was severely mentally traumatized from serving in the trenches of WWI. In addition to the horrors of war, he saw the brightest young poets of his generation (Wilfred Owen is seen by many as the Keats of the 20th century) die in the senseless fight. He was, I think on some level, searching for an explanation for the seemingly senseless and unending dance of inspiration and death that life presents.
I already knew his history. I’m inclined to cut him slack as a person, but not as a scholar. If he wants to present his work as a a scholarly piece then it deserves to be torn apart by the rigorous academic standards that apply to everyone else. (Which of course rules out a* lot* of “academic” literature from before the 1980s - well tell our undergrads not to use any secondary source before that date for precisely this reason). There are other people past and present who have also been through immense trauma who don’t make shit up and present it as historical fact. It’s a disservice to them not to hold Graves’ work to the same standard.
I’m not going to pretend he wasn’t spewing utter crap and presenting it as historical fact because of his personal history. He chose to present it as fact so it deserves to be treated as anything else presented as fact.
I’m also just incredibly bitter about the sheer volume of misinformation he managed to spread.
I can appreciate him from a reception point of view, but as a scholar he’s a joke.
I didn’t realize anyone was still taking him as a credible scholarly source. I would only defend his worth in from an artistic/philosophical/speculative viewpoint. If you’re encountering contemporary academics who earnestly cite his “research” in classics, folklore or ethnography, I can understand why you’d want to take the time and energy to give him a scholarly dragging. I assumed he’d already been discredited by this point, but I am only peripherally familiar with him. I have to admit I enjoy being in in a field that’s subjective enough that you can use virtually any source as long as you’re properly postmodernist about it. Nothing is true and everything is permitted, basically. “Art as Device” is still one of the top 10 most important texts in Slavic literary criticism and it was written by a twentysomething college dropout in the 1910s. I suppose it’s not a huge surprise that literary scholars have trouble convincing people to take us seriously, but that just means we get to cast ourselves as misunderstood creative martyrs. It’s like being an artist on an academic’s salary. At least, that’s how I see it, maybe because I’m still bummed I couldn’t afford to go to art school.
No academic does take him seriously. I’m not sure what I said that suggested I was encountering academics who did. But the problem is that most people who read Graves aren’t academics, and his books don’t come with a warning that they’re actually nonsense.
Just look at Wikipedia articles on Greek and Roman myth and you will see Graves’ “Greek myths” cited all over the place by people who don’t know better and don’t realise that he was creating “Greek” myth just as much as recording it. For instance: Graves simply can’t cope with the idea of variants, and therefore tries to collate every variant of a myth into one big original myth, and then presents that as if it were an actual Greek myth that actual ancient Greeks shared with each other. His “Greek myths” are a work of fiction, presented as fact. And they’re stills presented and bought and read that way.
Graves had a lot to answer for.
My artist’s salary and my academic salary are exactly the same: nothing :C
