#Pyrrhonistic

[labgrownmeat]

another (for the most part very interesting) youtube video on greco-buddhism, another bizarre claim that pyrrhonism and madhyamaka are fundamentally similar because both schools believe "nothing exists"--this is not true of either school, neither pyrrhonism nor madhyamaka make the strong, unqualified claim that "nothing exists." why does this keep happening? i kind of blame the modern pyrrhonist movement since every content creator parroting this claim seems to ultimately be sourcing it back to one book

[sabakos]

i think my rejection of wittgenstein is essentially pyrrhonist in nature

[cozyunoist]

what do you get from hume and what do you think communists can get from hume

I think the headscarf is quite chic personally

well as you might infer hume was very formative in my intellectual development, & i still recommend him insofar as he’s a wonderful writer! i think he motivates epistemology/metaphysics brilliantly, he takes you in the right direction re scepticism (particularly towards causation), & you can also straightforwardly draft him into the sort of expressivist-ish position i’ve sketched on here before.

that said, as for what communists can get from hume? i’m not sure that he is the most sophisticated exponent of any of his positions. which is ultimately a good thing! he thought and wrote in a way that made him easy to take up. but it also means hume studies (phenomenal journal btw) today is going to be more historical than philosophical. i also have some bones to pick with him on apraxia, naturalism & bayle’s dictionary. he’s an academic, i’m a pyrrhonist; he’s a vague conservative; i’m communist. maybe what this means is that hume is best as a stepping-stone on the road towards getting comfortable talking with people doing philosophy again. he certainly was for me! as well as, ofc, great style inspo.

it’s not directly pertinent, but my personal story with hume is a little too funny not to share. i was 13 the first time i cracked the first critique. it felt a little like hitting my head against the wall… i had something like fifty pages of marginal notes on the first ten pages, and was really going in more or less blind. i’m most of the way through the second preface, & i get to kant saying ‘hume was pretty close, but his argument leads us to believe metaphysics is just delusion’. i was like, thank god, i should just go read this hume guy instead. so i put the book down, check out hume’s enquiry, read it satisfiedly, & don’t touch kant again for like four or five years.

[kenyatta]

To our modern minds, scepticism is normally associated with frustration and sceptical conclusions are usually taken to be disturbing because they seem to stand in the way of certainty about the world and our place in it. But famously, or rather infamously, those people in ancient Greece who called themselves Sceptics – meaning ‘investigators’ – were pretty happy about it. They thought of their scepticism as a way of life – as a way of reaching ataraxia or tranquillity. In their view, having beliefs is the ultimate cause of anxiety, and therefore the best way to avoid anxiety, to achieve peace of mind, is to get rid of beliefs altogether. The Sceptics in this sense are often called Pyrrhonists after Pyrrho, the ancient Greek master Sceptic who lived in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. [...] Sextus differentiates three schools of thought: ‘When people are investigating any subject, the likely result is either a discovery, or a denial of discovery and a confession of inapprehensibility, or else a continuation of the investigation.’ The first group of thinkers, whom he calls the Dogmatists, believe that they have discovered the truth, and that they know things about the world and the human beings who live in it. The two most famous thinkers from this school are Plato and Aristotle, but scholars often maintain that it is the Stoic school of thought that is the major target of Sextus when he talks about Dogmatists. The second group are those who are called the Academics; they are opposed to the first group and believe that, so to speak, we know that we know nothing. The third group, with whom Sextus identifies himself, are the Sceptics. These people, contrary to the Academics, do not deny anything, they just withhold their assent from beliefs: they continue their investigations and maintain that this continued investigation leads them to tranquillity.

Four scepticisms: what we can know about what we can’t know | Aeon Essays

[akumaofthemountain]

Pyrrhonism, the way of pure Skepticism

Pyrrhonism is, to this day, regarded as one of the most purely skeptic epistemologic [regarding the theory of knowledge] doctrines. It takes its name from the Greek character of Pyrrho of Elis, even though our sources regarding him are often quite contradictory and the pyrrhonistic doctrine for sure has changed substantially over time.

Among the first known pyrrhonists, we know Aenesidemus, who synthetized and expanded upon the first pyrrhonism, even though a great part of the pyrrhonist ideology is known by the writing of Sextus Empiricus.

Generally, Pyrrhonism advocated that both the sensible experience and knowledge were to be non-exact and possibly erroneous, and therefore they couldn't be considered as objective truths. Therefore, by practicing Ataraxia [Sounds like a TES V: Skyrim disease], the complete suspension of every belief and judgment, and therefore even rejecting the dogmatic truths we were supposedly given, we could reach Eudaimonia, a state of pure happiness.

Now, this becomes an ethical argument: If ethics are the study of the conditions of happiness, then Ataraxia becomes a fundamental practice for an ethical life; By suspending our judgement, we abandon every single strand of "human emotions" which, in fact, allow us to freely separate ourselves from any sort of negative feeling. Yet, this also means that we shall abandon any sort of primordial pleasure, in favor of a new, complex yet simple, concept of happiness.

Aenesidemus is famous for the formulation of ten tropes in favor of Ataraxia. Those arguments try to show to the viewer the inherent difference of thought and reasonability in different entities, trying to let him notice the weaknesses of human reason. The arguments are the following:

Different animals manifest different modes of perception;

Similar differences are seen among individual men;

For the same man, information perceived with the senses is self-contradictory

Furthermore, it varies from time to time with physical changes

In addition, this data differs according to local relations

Objects are known only indirectly through the medium of air, moisture, etc.

These objects are in a condition of perpetual change in colour, temperature, size and motion

All perceptions are relative and interact one upon another

Our impressions become less critical through repetition and custom

All men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions

Sextus Empiricus, trying to describe pyrrhonism in a later historical age, spoke about an alternative set of 5 similiar tropes which were to be used as a more brief demonstration (yet, still not a rigid logic proof, as they would be rejected by skepticism itself as dogmas). They are the following:

Dissent – There is an inherent uncertainty regarding the real truth on a variety of matters, therefore it's hard to find a real truth;

Infinite regress – Every proof requires another proof to be considered valid, otherwise we would need to search for axioms, and this is neglected by Skepticism;

Relation – As entities establish new relations, our interpretation of them varies;

Assumption – To reach for a truth, we involve assumptions, axioms or dogmas, and this is neglected by Skepticism

Circularity – The truth may imply a circularity of proofs if we reject axioms and dogmas. We could have a proof A which itself requires a proof B, and a proof B which requires a proof C. But, by absurd, continuing by this, we could eventually have a proof which requires the proof A. On a simpler scale, we could have two proofs A and B which are both true to proof eachother.

Obliviously, when we look at old philosophies, we need to acknowledge that their fundamental consciousness of the world's inner mechanisms was somehow lower than our actual knowledge of it, and therefore quite some fundamentals of old philosophies would be simply rejectable by today's standards. Yet, we can slowly build a new knowledge by considering both our past and future, so why stopping at a mindless innovation when we can build upon (or maybe only be inspired) a particular fundament?

I hope this has been quite comprehensible, as english isn't my first language. Therefore, I wish you all a great day, fellow seekers of knowledge.

[stoicbreviary]

What am I to do with the fellow who insists he knows that nothing can be known, or is certain that nothing is certain, or affirms that opposites can be true simultaneously? I can wish him well, but there are no reasonable grounds to engage with him. 

[lepartiprisdeschoses]

Interesting, and I guess you can infer that these authors aren't Pyrrhonists if they're willing to speculate about what's probable or non-evident.

[principiumindividuationis777]

Why Pascal Is (Still) Right

Blaise Pascal's wager might, at first glance, appear to have direct relevance only to a culture within the Abrahamic tradition, which much of the West, since the late 20th century, no longer is, in practice.

However, his wager runs deeper, into existentialist territory not yet tread in Pascal's more rationalist era. Consider: It remains true that we are unsure of our own senses, the senses of others (e.g. their scientific studies), our own memories, the memories of others (e.g. scientists) and so forth, and even if a system of empirical observations were shown correct a priori (which would be paradoxical), it still would not explain anything about the purpose of human existence.

That is where faith must enter the picture. We are now exposed to many religions, some of which do not believe in Heaven or Hell as such, yet all of them rely, avowedly so, on non-rational trust in something or in someone.

What, then, is the meaning of faith, for the purposes of theology? Faith is finding a purpose that is absolute, transcending human opinion or inclination, for if it depended on these, it would be contradictory at the outset, and accepting this purpose without rational proofs or supporting empirical evidence, because all such evidence can, regardless, be doubted (and that includes science).

Without faith, one is a Pyrrhonist, a complete metaphysical skeptic, yet also not one, because one could not positively assert Pyrrhonism as "true" without contradicting it. A sense of utter purposelessness, which ultimately translates to a lack of a coherent self, might be understood as, in essence, a mental state of Hell.

Thus, faith is an existential necessity, even before one develops clearer views on the afterlife (if there is one). I cannot give you a reason, per se, to believe in any particular religion, because as a fideist, I frankly admit I have no rational or empirical evidence for my faith (though as a sort of skeptic with faith, I question all rational and empirical evidence for any proposition whatsoever), but I can say that it is as necessary for mental health in this world as it could possibly be, conceivably, for salvation in the next.

This is not to say that religion cannot be misused by hypocrites, because any idea can be misused. Eugenicists have always twisted science to their grandiose liking, for instance, and many bad people have abused parental and other family authority, but that does not mean that, practically speaking, we could live with the total abolition of science or of family. Neither can we be mentally healthy in the complete absence of religion.

Like it or not, an era with history's worst mental health crisis also being the era of the least religious faith is not coincidental. Anomie has bitter consequences.

[gravity-rainbow]

LOGOS

Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. ''I say'') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] It became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c.  535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]

Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse. Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos.[5] Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe) which foreshadows related concepts in neoplatonism.[6]

Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c.  20 BC – c.  50 AD) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[7] Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").[8]

The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[9] and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Early translators of the Greek New Testament such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD) were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word logos as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of in principio erat verbum was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun verbum for "word", but later Romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as le Verbe in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (verb) in favor of Wort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving the living word as felt by Jerome and Augustine.[10] The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.

[hungwy]

At heart im a pyrrhonist but i let myself believe things for fun

[labgrownmeat]

probably no one who follows me here cares about this but i think quite often about the modern pyrrhonist movement trying to claim pyrrho was "the greek buddha". i think its great. to me it seems pretty clearly crankery at its absolute finest yes but what a quaint universalist idea. yeah sure why not you little weirdos

[sabakos]

Suspending judgement on whether or not I'm a Pyrrhonist.

[official-impravidus]

5 Times Peter Did Someone Else’s Makeup

By @official-impravidus for @littlemissagrafina

Rating: General

Relationships: Tony Stark & Peter Parker, Peter Parker & May Parker, Peter Parker & Happy Hogan, Happy Hogan/May Parker

Characters: Peter Parker, Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, May Parker, Ned Leeds, Michelle Jones, Morgan Stark

Summary: and the 1 time he did his own

(written for the @friendly-neighborhood-exchange)

1

To put it simply, he had been in a rush. Competition season was just around the corner, and MJ was pushing the team to their limits with extra practice, which meant morning practice and after school practice. Peter had barely gotten out of the door once he remembered that he had to get to the school, being in the middle of a deep concentration as he perfected his winged eyeliner. Then, the after school practice ran a half an hour late because everyone was slacking on their ancient Greek philosophers. 

So there he was, scurrying out of the metal doors of Midtown and nearly ripping the car door off its hinges as he rushed into his seat.

“Hey Happy! I’m so so so sorry I’m late. MJ made us stay late because Flash didn’t know difference between Hypatia and Aspasia even though they have over a century apart, and then she started quizzing us on which philosophers specialized in Pythagorean, Peripatetic, or Pyrrhonist, and everyone kept mixing them up and we had to go over it for like twenty minutes until we all had it down and…”

“Don’t need the whole run down, bud. It’s okay,” Happy stated. “Couldn’t understand it if I tried.”

“Right. Sorry,” Peter said sheepishly. “How was your day?”

“Same old, same old. Once I drop you off, I’m heading back to the apartment.”

Peter’s eyes lit up. “Oh, it’s date night! Where are you taking May?”

“Do you remember that new restaurant near that bike shop?”

Peter’s mouth went agape. “That super fancy one where they put chocolate in everything?!”

Happy nodded with a soft grin. “That’s the one.”

“She always looks through the window when we pass by there! She looked up the menu and I swear she was drooling when she read about the bacon mac and cheese.” Peter smiled. “She’s gonna love it, Happy.”

“I hope so.”

“She will,” Peter reassured. With a content sigh, he pulled out his laptop. “I should probably get started on my research paper.”

“You know Tony’s rule,” Happy said.

“No lab work until homework is done,” Peter recited with a nod. “I know, I know. Which is why I’m doing it now.”

“Is it a blackout kinda day or a white noise one?” Happy asked.

“I could go for some of that boring piano music you like.”

Happy shoved Peter’s arm. “It’s not boring.”

“It just strips all the tenseness from my tight, aching muscles. It lulls me to sleep.”

“If it lulls you to sleep, then you shouldn’t be listening to it while you’re doing homework,” Happy said.

“Then, what do you suggest?” Peter asked.

Happy pressed the radio screen and a string quartet of Panic! at the Disco’s “I Write Sins Not Tragedies” began to play.

“Oh, you know me so well.”

Peter fell into a deep focus and had barely realized the car ride was over until Happy had said a soft “we’re here.”

“Thanks, Happy. Have a good evening!” Peter said cheerfully.

“You’re staying here tonight, right?” Happy asked.

“Yeah, I am. It’s a Compound weekend. Why…” Peter’s faced morphed into a disgusted grimace. “Actually, don’t tell me. I don’t want to know.” He shook his head. “See you later!” Happy gave a gentle wave before pulling out.

Peter let out a breath, shoving his hands in his pockets, as he headed into the Compound, fiddling with the watermelon gum wrappers crumpled deep in his jeans.

With a skip in his step, he entered the lab, plopping his backpack on the floor and hopping into his rollie chair with a little spin.

“Hello to you too,” Tony said with a laugh. “Bad traffic?”

“Late practice,” Peter corrected.

“She’s really drilling you guys, huh?” Tony asked. “Well, at least you’ll be prepared.” He looked up from his project, but stopped as he caught sight of Peter’s face. “New look?”

Peter furrowed his brows in confusion, but froze. He hadn’t used a makeup wipe on the drive there. “I… uhm… I… it’s not what it looks like.”

“Well it looks good. Would’ve barely noticed if it weren’t for the eyeliner it’s so natural. I mean really, you’re glowing. How do you get your skin looking so dewey and fresh?”

Peter’s brain could hardly catch up. “I mix highlighter with my foundation.”

“See, I’ve never thought about that. Mine always comes out so dull and flat. I’ll have to try that.”

“You, uh, you’ve worn makeup?” Peter stammered.

“When you’re on camera as much as me, you’ve gotta get at least a little pick me up. I mean, some of that shit is high definition. Do I really want people seeing my pores and pimples in high definition? No thank you.”

“Oh. Uh. Wow.”

“You can’t be new at this. I mean, it looks great. I’m jealous if you are.”

Peter shook his head. “I’ve been doing it for a couple months.”

“And why haven’t I seen it?” Tony questioned.

“I, uh, didn’t want you to think it was weird,” Peter admitted.

Tony softened. “Why would you think that?”

“I mean, I worry you think a lot of things are weird. I just, want to... impress you, I guess.”

“Well, wanna know what impresses me? That winged eyeliner. It takes Pepper ten minutes of fiddling with makeup remover on cue tips when she’s doing hers.”

Peter, nearly rendered speechless, nodded again. “It took a lot of practice.” He paused. “You’re really… you don’t think I’m weird?”

“I could never think you were weird, kid.” He pursed his lips. “Well, yes I can, because you put sour skittles in your chocolate ice cream, but that’s what makes me love you. Don’t be afraid to be weird. I’ve been weird all my life. Embrace the weird and conquer the world with your weirdness because one day, what used to be weird will be brilliant and people will want to be weird like you.”

Peter looked to his feet bashfully. “Thanks, Mr. Stark.”

“You know, Pepper has a big charity thing tonight. She could really use your help with her smokey eye.”

Peter perked up. “Really? I’ve… I’ve done makeup on May before, but I’ve never done it on someone with an eye shape like hers.” “Then this will be perfect practice!”

Peter got a little mascara on her eyelid, but he made up with the perfect blend of silver sparkle and charcoal shades.

2

“Stop squeezing your eyes, you’re gonna make the eyeliner bumpy.”

“Well, it’s a little hard to relax when you’ve got a pencil pressing against my eye.”

Peter sighed. “Ned, you just gotta breathe. I’m not gonna poke your eye.”

“It sure feels like you’re poking my eye,” Ned grumbled.

“I’ll do it even lighter,” Peter reassured.

It was 9AM, and Peter was trying to use as much precision in his rush to finish Ned and MJ’s makeup for the pride parade. He had finished his look, a blend of pinks, purples, and blues with silver glitter eyeliner, and was finishing Ned’s rainbow look, or at least, attempting to.

“You were doing so good, man,” Peter whined.

“Because it was all fluffy brushes before this!” Ned groaned. “Just get it over with.”

“I could if you would stop freaking squeezing your eyelids!”

MJ sighed. “Some of us are in the waiting dock, Ned.”

“I’m sorry! I’m not used to this!” Ned exclaimed.

Peter pulled gently at the skin on his browbone, making the skin pulled taunt enough to slide the eyeliner on with one smooth swipe. He followed suit with the other and slumped back into his chair. “Okay. You’re done.” 

“Oh, thank God, because I had to go to the bathroom at like the contour.” He scampered out of the bathroom, legs held tight. 

“What’s in store for me?” MJ asked.

“I was thinking a sharp edged blend of pink and to the dark pink to brown in the crease with a cut crease,” Peter thought out loud.

There was a knock at the door.

“You expecting someone?” MJ asked.

“No?” Peter said, confused. He went to the door, eyes widening in shock at the sight.

There was Tony Stark in a bright blue, pink, and yellow vertical striped suit.

“Mr. Stark! What are you doing here?”

“Today is pride, right?” Tony said with a cheeky grin on his lips.

“I-it is.”

“Great! Then, I’ll give you three a ride. I’m meeting the gang later.”

Peter’s nodded, mouth still wide open. “Because New York pride is endorsed by the Avengers. Right.”

“So, what do you say? I may or may not have pulled out my holographic chrome Ferrari.”

Peter rolled his eyes but let out a light chuckle. “Of course you did.” He stepped out of the way. “MJ’s look will be quick. If you want, I can do something for you?”

Tony grinned. “I’d love that.”

Behind his tinted shades, Tony rocked a pink crease, yellow lid, and blue lower lashline, a big smile adorned by a bright pink lipstick.

3

After the big robot invasion of 2025, the Avengers were beyond exhausted from the dealing with the repercussions and volunteering for the rebuilding.

For the first time in weeks after being preoccupied with volunteering, charity work, and clean up, they could finally relax for a group get together outside of work.

“You know what I could use?” Tony asked to no one in particular. “Really crappy, artificial, not at all traditional Chinese food. Who’s in?” The team all muttered words of agreement, melting into the cushions of the recreation room’s couches. 

“Text me your orders. I sent the menu in the groupchat.”

More mutters of acknowledgement.

Peter settled on the floor, makeup scattered on the coffee table, mouth agape as he stared intently at his reflection, fake lash in hand.

“What are you doing?” Steve asked.

“Graduation is just around the corner and I need to perfect my look for commencements,” Peter explained. He blinked, checking for any warping. “How does it look?” 

The team let out a low murmur of “oo”s and “ah”s and “nice.” 

“That looks fantastic,” Natasha praised.

“The adornments to your face are absolutely astonishing!” Thor praised. “Would you be so kind to apply your pigments to my eyes?”

Peter’s eyes widened. “You want me to do your makeup?”

“I’d love if you did mine, too,” Natasha said.

“I bet you could do some great red, white, and blue for me,” Steve said.

Peter looked around. “That could be really cool. Avengers inspired makeup looks on the Avengers? I mean, that’d be an honor.”

So he got started. As they feasted on fried rice and General Tso’s spicy chicken, they jammed to ABBA and looked fabulous while dancing to Dancing Queen.

4

“So, I made you some of that green juice you like so you can sip on that while we get you ready. We also put together a playlist of all of your favorite dishwashing music which we both know is also your hype playlist and you need to get a little hype! Let loose! In addition, we also brought you some of your favorite hors d’oeuvres such as chocolate covered strawberries, that basil spread with the tomatoes on the crunchy bread, caprese salad, and just a big pile of prosciutto because I know you like to stress eat salty meats.”

May smiled softly. “Thank you, baby. This is amazing.”

“How are you feeling?” Peter asked.

“Nervous. Excited. Mostly excited. How are… are you okay? With this?” 

Peter nodded. “Of course I am. You’re happy, Happy’s happy, and I… I’m happy. I’m happy that you could find something like this after Ben.”

She let out a shaky breath. “I’m getting married.”

Peter grinned. “You are.” He spun her chair. “Now sit there and be pretty while I do you even prettier.”

“You know, you were at my first wedding.”

Peter looked up. “I was?”

“You were just a baby, but Richard and Mary didn’t want to leave you at home after you had just gotten over your pneumonia. You were wearing a little onesie with a tuxedo printed on it, and you had your foofie.”

“I remember my foofie!” Peter smiled nostalgically as he envisioned the fluffy scarf that he snuggled with for years.

“You had just gotten it, and you would just run your fingers on the blue fluff, entranced by the texture on your little fingers.”

Peter chuckled. “Yeah. I loved that thing.”

“But, you caused a little bit of a scene.”

Peter furrowed his brows. “I did?”

“Well, your mom had just come back from feeding you and Ben wanted to make you giggle, so he was dancing with you, twirling and spinning you around, and I guess he jerked you around a bit too much and you vomited.”

“Oh no.”

“In his mouth and all over his tux.”

“Oh no.”

“So, really, there’s no reason to worry about messing anything up because at least you’re not doing that,” she said with a teasing grin.

“Well, I’ll try my best not to do that again,” Peter said. He softened, squeezing her hand gently. “You’re gonna make so many new memories and it’s gonna be awesome, May.”

“So are you,” May said. 

“I’m really happy for you.” He shook his head. “Now don’t you start crying and streak this amazing foundation I just put on.”

She let out a wet laugh and held her arms out. “C’mere.”

Peter gave her a tight hug, snuggling next to her in her cushy chair.

She placed a soft kiss to his forehead. “I love you so much.”

“I love you too.” He pulled away. “Now, c’mon. Stop stalling. I have to get this done so I can do mine.”

5

“Tony. Stop crying.”

“This is an emotional time and I am an emotional man!”

“It’s just homecoming.”

Tony crossed his arms and scowled at Peter. “Well you’re not one to talk about just homecoming.”

Peter pouted. “You crash a plane and nearly get killed by your homecoming date’s dad one time…”

“Look at my beautiful girl.” He pet her hairsprayed locks gently.

Morgan rolled her eyes with a smile on her dark red lips. “You’re so embarrassing, Dad.”

“So, when are we meeting this boy? Because then I’ll really be embarrassing.”

“Dad!” Morgan whined.

“You still have told me nothing about this boy. What are you hiding? Is he an Anti-Avenger protestor? Oh, oh! Or is he a scheming supervillain turning you to the dark side?” He gasped. “Does he work for Oscorp?”

“His name is Miles, he’s an artist, and he’s really really nice so please don’t screw this up for me because I really really like him.”

Tony softened. “I’ll behave.”

“Please,” Morgan pleaded.

“I’ll behave!” Tony repeated.

“He won’t,” Peter stated. “And we both know that.”

“Hey! I take offense to that,” Tony said.

“Well, as much as I love this wonderful family chat, I really gotta finish Morgan’s makeup, and when you stress her out, it makes her eyes scrunch up and I can’t get the blending right so… shoo. Scooch your booch outta here.”

“No. I want to stay,” Tony stated.

“Are you not gonna distract her?” Peter asked with a raised brow.

“Maybe…?”

“Tony!”

“Okay! Fine. I won’t say a word. You won’t even know I’m here.” Peter turned back to Morgan, packing a shimmery white on her lid, but flipped around when he heard a choked sob from behind.

“Tony,” he said exasperatedly.

“She’s just growing up so fast!”

1

Peter’s gloved hands trembled as he filled in his eyebrows in a room that did nothing to block the shutters of cameras and excited murmur from the large crowd on the other side of the wall.

Tony took his hand in his and gave them a gentle squeeze. “Are you sure you wanna do this? Because you can back out any time you’d like.” Peter shook his head. “It’s time. The new generation of Avengers deserve to have a real face to lead them, and for the public to trust us, they need to know that I trust them too. The world knows Spider-Man and his good. And now, they’ll know Peter Parker too.”

“They already know Peter Parker,” Tony said softly. “Peter Parker conducted the widest reaching scientific climate change campaign. He promoted carbon storage, protected and expanded forests in every country on every continent on the planet, and invented a reliable and accessible long-term energy source cheaper and easier to manufacture than fossil fuels. God, Peter. Once they find out that Peter Parker is Spider-Man, they’re going to love him even more.”

Peter’s face flushed a warm red. “Thanks, Tony.” He looked to his reflection and smiled sadly. Looking at his brown eyes, red blended to his crease and blue lining his lashline, he realized that this was the end to a lifetime of secrets and a new beginning where he could finally share the whole person he was.

“You ready?” Tony asked.

“How do I look?” Peter asked meekly.

“You look amazing.” He pulled him into a tender hug. “They’re gonna love you, kid.” He placed his hands firmly on his shoulders and gave a little squeeze. “Do you know how proud I am of you? Because I am. You’re really proving yourself to be quite the hero, and I don’t just mean in your bright red and blue, which really, are you sure we can’t negotiate something a little less gaudy…”

“Says Mr. Hot Rod Red and Gold…”

“I mean, bright blue? Even I have enough class and taste to know that bright blue is a little much.”

“Tony,” Peter said.

“I’m so proud of you kid. You’ve grown into a fantastic young man, and you’re gonna keep growing into a visionary for this next century. You might even outshine me.” He shook his head. “No. I know you will. Because I know you, and I know that you’re an intelligent, selfless, innovating, tenacious, unbelievably incredible person, and you’re gonna change the world.” He smiled a tight, teary smile. “And the world’s not gonna know what hit it once you give it all you’ve got.”

Peter slipped his mask on and took one last shaky breath. “Let’s go do this.”

My name is Peter Benjamin Parker and I am Spider-Man.

[autokratorissa]

Do you have any good resources or arguments regarding Marxism and skepticism? I’ve always found Marxist epistemology to be kind of weak, and I’m wondering if there’s some arguments made to help combat skepticism.

Not really, no, indeed I’ve found traditional Marxist-Leninist epistemology can at times be far too optimistic bordering on the naïve, a clear example being Lenin’s sweeping rejection of the position, which he attributes to Hume but I’d say is more Lockean, that the Ding an sich is locked behind a veil of perception, when it is not at all feasible to seriously rule out this possibility (though the dispute between direct and indirect realists strikes me as a very anachronistic one in the twenty-first century, as we can probably abandon it as a philosophical issue by graduating the question to the remit of the natural sciences, something which simply was not possible in Locke’s, Hume’s, Kant’s and maybe even Lenin’s time).

Something to keep in mind though is that, like all Hellenistic schools of thought, scepticism was conceived not in order to bring down claims to knowledge, but in order to allow us to achieve ataraxia; it was a eudaimonic theory at heart, not an epistemological or logical one: it’s message was that the world was unknowable, and so we can allow ourselves to not care. Ataraxy is a wonderful goal and because of it the Hellenistic philosophies are still poignantly relevant today, but ultimately this is ethics, and Marxism is not an ethical theory. To use one to refute the other is in my opinion rather dubious without further clarification. No biologist is a Pyrrhonist today, even if they do admit there are some things we will never understand. I think scepticism is a good and healthy way of critiquing any philosophical system or claim to knowledge, but it has its limits. We can always retreat to Russell’s “most economic and sensible hypothesis” defence when we’re really put up against the wall, as flimsy as it may be. Localised scepticism is useful and often blindingly obviously correct; global scepticism just is not.

The fact remains that Marxism can, and does, give us meaningful and, as far as we can tell, falsifiable knowledge of the world around us—is that world merely the world of phenomena, and not noumena? Perhaps, but why does it matter either way? We will only ever live in the world of phenomena, so if this is the only world Marxism can interrogate, evaluate and change, then that’s more than good enough. Abstract philosophical quibbles rapidly cease to be important when you’re faced with material adversity, and this is the point of Marxism: to change the world, not simply sit back and criticise it, and in this regard it already has over a century of applied functioning to see that it is capable of this.

[ts-2020-olympics]

And finally, we have the 3rd core value of the Olympic Games, which is YŪJO, meaning Friendship.

She/Her || 19

They/Them || 21

1. Age:  21 2. Country of Residence:  United States of America 3. Personal Claim to Fame:  Drag Queen :) also made a funny ass, shady ass video for a lip sync battle because I thought I was getting eliminated regardless 4. Pet Peeves: People who lie. People who lie. People who lie. And once again, people who lie. 5. 3 Words to Describe Yourself:  Loud, Energetic, Funny 6. Favorite Survivor Season:  Heroes vs Villains only because it gave me all the drama I had been missing up til that point 7. Favorite Moment of the Olympics:  When Caleb dressel won his first gold medal in the medley relay. I know him personally and swam with him in high school so I’m glad that he’s achieving his dreams <3 8. Odds of Winning the Game:  One in Two. The only person in my way is my own damn self

He/Him || 19

1. Age:  19 2. Country:  U.S. 3. Personal Claim to Fame: I make some bomb ass churros man 4. Pet Peeves: Sitcom laugh tracks, people who purchase exotic animals without any knowledge of how to care for them, self centered individuals, pyrrhonists 5. 3 Words to Describe Yourself:  simple, curious, and lazy 6. Favorite Survivor Season:  Really hard question but i’d say my top 3 are Pearl Islands, David vs Goliath, and Cambodia. What makes a good season to me is every contestant really playing the game and seeing how every perspective at once can affect what happens. In those three seasons most, if not all, the players are stepping out and really trying hard in their own way, some more than others but still. Also unique personalities help. 7. Favorite Moment of the Olympics:  Steven Bradbury of Australia winning a gold medal in the 1,000 Meter Short Track Speed Skating @ the 2002 Winter Olympics after being in last majority of the event yet still winning because all of the other competitors slipped and fell down before the end of the last lap. If I win it’ll probably happen similarly to this. 8. Odds of Winning the Game: Id have to consult with the astrological powers that be before id come up with an accurate estimation but random guess i’d say maybe a strong 2.5/10

She/Her || 24

1. Age: 24 years old 2. Country of residence: USA 3. Personal claim to fame: For a short time when I was young, I trained at the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center for luge in New York 4. Pet peeves: People listening to loud music in public, when people use a turn signal after they are already mid-turn, when a guy friend visits and leaves the toilet seat up without my noticing so when I get up in the middle of the night to pee I experience a truly tragic moment 5. 3 words to describe you: On time, observant, groovy 6. Favorite season of Survivor and why: Honestly Season 1, just because it's the first one I started watching with my parents, so it's nostalgic. 7. Favorite moment from any Olympics: 2012 Fencing competitions, they were all badass 8. What odds would you give yourself of winning: I think I have a chance to get pretty far in the game, because I am very focused during a competition. Since this is my first time playing, I don't feel confident that I will win, but I'm hoping I will learn the ropes, meet some cool people, and enjoy the game!

He/Him || 23

Hi everyone! My name's Will, I played a couple different orgs years ago and decided that 2020 was the year I finally get into Tumblr Survivor. I'm probably a little too obsessed with Survivor for my own good, but it hasn't gotten me in too much trouble (yet). I'm excited to get back into it and we'll see how things go! Looking forward to meeting everyone, playing the game, and having fun!

[aporeticelenchus]

I started to follow you because of a post where you talked about what type of skepticism you associate with grantaire and how it was different from combeferre’s type of skepticism. I thought: wow this person is SO smart, must follow! I stayed for the great les mis opinions

Oh hey, I remember that post! It was a good post! Or- actually, I have no idea if it was a good post, I don’t remember any of the details (you could easily have convinced me it was a post I thought about making but never actually did) but I stand by the basic premise of Pyrrhonist vs. Academic skepticisms mapping onto Grantaire vs Combeferre. That part I like.

At any rate, I’m glad you enjoyed it and I hope you’ve been enjoying your stay! I can’t promise smart but I can promise that I’ve read lots of very old books.