fruitvilla

Of course, you are right here (I think). I can't think of an argument to defeat solipsism (and perhaps idealism). But I think Schopenhauer was right when he said of solipsism: … a small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable, but the garrison can never sally forth from it, therefore we can pass it by, and leave it in our rear without danger. I tend to come down on the physicalist/materialist side of things. And of course, epistemology is all about what we can know.

My particular main dish is free will, with side orders of epistemology and perhaps theology. Of course, the rest of the universe impinges on these and other philosophical discussions.

Interesting, I think ... a couple of examples? And perhaps a reference to look up?

By all means, this was never meant to be absolutely inclusive, of all three ... philosophy, fandom and football. Having said that there is much that I disagree philosophically with fan's opinions of football. With the little of the second-hand/third-hand stuff I have come across of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, I may not be on board with them. Adorno .. don't remember coming across this philosopher.

I thought the few minutes Diaby and Bailey were on together, the pairing looked bright. When Bailey went off Diaby disappeared a little.

8 time zones and 7 200 km who's closest?

44 = 4 + 4 = 8, BK8 ?

He was one of our better players yesterday.

Help others? ... A Rotary club near you?

Only watched to the third goal. Probably, will watch the rest later tonight. Up to that point, I thought Cash was as effective as anyone so I gave him the man of the match. The whole thing was lackadaisical.

From their FAQ Some of the questions are slanted Most of them are slanted! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it’s important to realise that this isn’t a survey, and these aren’t questions. They’re propositions — an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That’s how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. The propositions should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

You probably are if you go by the people on this forum. There are communities where you would be a Bolshie

It's not the Wes Edens axis that bothers me too much but more the Nassef Sawiris axis. the WE axis is how much of your (and your neighbour's) money we are willing to spend for the common good vs the common good coming from working hard and smartly. The NS axis is how much government we want in our everyday lives. But of course, we do need to take the Political Compass with a bit of salt. I suspect the relative positions do reflect reality somewhat. If we were on an evangelical website there likely be more positive scores

Yesterday, Bruno Guimarães got an assist for the ball bouncing off his arm.

This has been posted before ... it's worth a little bit of fun The Political Compass It gives a bit of an explanation of what it is about and a review of where it thinks politics is at in certain parts of the world. I typically score -4, -4 or thereabouts.

I think both are correct in British English ... I tend to use center as in the center of a circle, but centre as in a shopping centre

In my youth, I voted for Maggie, and promptly left the country the following January. The interesting thing when I left I was mildly conservative and when I landed in Johannesburg the next day I was a leftie. These days I vote Liberal in a Canadian context.

Actually, it is the uneducated that dictate spelling and grammar. A European centrist would be a raving leftie in American politics.

It's OK ... I'd give it three stars, but if you're interested in that kind of thing then I understand. The general takeaway was there's more to empathy than just thinking one can feel what another is feeling in a given situation. It's when people enjoy empathizing or get hooked on it, it gets dark, especially in negative situations.

I think this painting seems incredibly modern considering it was painted in the mid 1400s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fouquet_Madonna.jpg

This game exemplifies how a nil-nil draw in football can be entertaining. Chelsea might feel a bit aggrieved ... robbed by Martinez ... such is life. 7/10 Cash I thought he had a really good game against a winger that obviously quicker than him 8/10 Konsa solid game 7/10 Lenglet 7/10 Moreno 7/10 Kamara I think Kamara and Luiz were off their game a little 7/10 Luiz 8/10 McGinn 6/10 Tielemans Diaby 5/10 Seemed to misread his team mates Watkins 6/10 Not as bad as made out. Despite the good individual play of the midfielders some howit did not gel and Ollie did not get the service. +9/10 Martinez Just some thoughts.

Has anyone noticed how dysfunctional the matchday thread can be?

Just finished The Darker Sides of Empathy by Fritz Breithaupt. Apparently, empathy is not all it's cracked up to be. The book is a little technical, but I let parts wash over me.

Dam Brexit.

Heaven