93iib 43zt5 dahee 52znz dfn83 576ek heays dke36 857f8 b9z2k h4yz3 hrzbz 8k488 fahn4 dkt9t sasd3 6ksn9 f2n54 94b43 994hk sk3ai Unisom… |


2021.10.22 12:10 Brief-Ad-9795 Unisom…

7 weeks today and Unisom has changed my life. I was having terrible nausea since 5.5 weeks, eating way too much (unhealthy food) constantly to keep the nausea at bay, raging insomnia, and too sick/tired to even go for a walk.
I can’t help but feel a bit apprehensive- is it okay to take it every night? I’ve had two early losses before this pregnancy, but we got to see a little bean on Tuesday measuring right on track with a strong heartbeat. I don’t want to do anything to mess this pregnancy up, even though rationally I know Unisom is not linked to miscarriage. I feel so drastically better when I take one before bed that I don’t want to stop taking it.
I know only my doctor can give me medical advice, but anecdotes from ladies who are farther along and have taken Unisom regularly since early in their pregnancy would be welcome. 💛
submitted by Brief-Ad-9795 to pregnant [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 giada_z I guess I need to set Harvey free on November 4. I'll miss him walking around the island.

I guess I need to set Harvey free on November 4. I'll miss him walking around the island. submitted by giada_z to AnimalCrossing [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 lilybcrossing free spooky diys (1 per person)

spooky arch ✅ spooky table ✅ spooky chair ✅ spooky tower ✅ spooky candy set ✅
✅= available ❌=taken
submitted by lilybcrossing to NoFeeAC [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 7meedo This is awkward , what would you do in this spot ?

This is awkward , what would you do in this spot ? submitted by 7meedo to BobsTavern [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 ZyfraWF Can you imagine a world where PL is cryptocurrency?

Imagine the prices of arcanes, armaments, warframes hahaha
submitted by ZyfraWF to Warframe [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 rando8709 Should income from selling blood plasma be taxable?

In the US, you can earn money from donating your plasma. My opinion is that we shouldn’t tax the income received for a few reasons that I think liberals would support.

  1. It would encourage more people to donate plasma, reducing the overall medical costs of people needing plasma
  2. People that sell plasma are typically low income, or in a tight financial situation
Do you guys agree or disagree?
submitted by rando8709 to AskALiberal [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 tkorzon5 Blueee

Blueee submitted by tkorzon5 to DemEyesDoe [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Iliketomobit Is it possible to change the marksmen care package gun sights into the 3x?

I have been using scout since s3 and ever since it didn’t take the sniper scopes anymore I used the 3x on it. When it goes into the care package next season would I be able to change the scope into 3x (never used tt in care package so I don’t know if it can be swapped)? As much as I am saddened by the fact that my most beloved gun is no longer within easy reach it would at least be nice if I could use the scope I used for 500+ hours….
submitted by Iliketomobit to apexlegends [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 game__captures Any evo owners on here

Is the gun supposed to vibrate lightly when a battery gets plugged in?
submitted by game__captures to airsoft [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 ChockenTonders nice try kiddo

nice try kiddo submitted by ChockenTonders to KidsAreStupid [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 BlueLightning888 What should I do? (TL;DR at the end)

[Originally a poll posted in crushes]
I posted this over a week ago and the TL;DR of it is basically that I was wondering whether to get in touch with an old crush of mine I met on the subway and followed on insta or to just focus on the girls in school because I see them way more frequently.
Most people wanted me to DM the old crush but I don't think that's a good idea anymore. I just don't think she's really interested in me anymore, if she ever were, so if I DM:d her it'd probably just be weird.
There's also a girl who's really cute in my school who I've had eye contact with a few times, although that probably doesn't mean anything. I think she might really be my type but the unfortunate reason I think that is because she's pretty close friends with my ex-crush who ghosted me... Might not be too awkward though since she only ghosted me on Snapchat after agreeing to meeting sometime, she still likes my Instagram posts for some reason.
The final way I could go is to wait until a gaming club or clique or whatever I joined starts and maybe properly get to know a girl there. Of course there's no guarantee that any girls will even join the club, that they'd be my type, that I'd be their type, that they'd be single, etc. , etc. The club might never even start because they're still trying to figure out how many are interested.
TL;DR: DM old crush I rarely see who's probably not interested, Somehow get to know ex-crush's friend who's probably not interested either, or get to know a girl in the gaming club who might not even exist, let alone be interested?
So what should I do?
submitted by BlueLightning888 to dating_advice [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Mike1metal Prog up over 20% rn

submitted by Mike1metal to Shortsqueeze [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Lawgamer411 Something we all missed yesterday during the commotion: Sundance is NB.

Something we all missed yesterday during the commotion: Sundance is NB. submitted by Lawgamer411 to battlefield2042 [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Creeper_King_Plays How to use winter?

Is there a safe way to use the winter of Canada to OC my components more? It's just so cold and perfect to cool but I don't know how to remove condensation and other elements.
submitted by Creeper_King_Plays to overclocking [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 jakefrmstatefrmm View from Mt. Washington right now

submitted by jakefrmstatefrmm to PittsburghPorn [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 SadlonelyGrace 👺

👺 submitted by SadlonelyGrace to madnesscombat [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Individual-Pain-6127 It's spreading

It's spreading submitted by Individual-Pain-6127 to Tinder [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 mas707 Ordered the new Jabra Elite 7 Pro - this is how I had to EQ it. guess what it sounds like!

submitted by mas707 to headphones [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 6Seasons-And-A-Movie Never seen the grey message before. Seems like they want it known they are not turning the buying off. Did they learn? Only time will tell...

Never seen the grey message before. Seems like they want it known they are not turning the buying off. Did they learn? Only time will tell... submitted by 6Seasons-And-A-Movie to amcstock [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 vigoroflife Foreign Airbnb stocking

submitted by vigoroflife to airbnb_hosts [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 ReclusiveEagle We are basically having 3 World Finals this year

But now not only are we getting a final in the quarters and potential (most likely) Semi's, we are getting an Ultimate Final this year.
This is the most insane worlds ever and if its DWG vs T1 its not just T1 vs DWG. Its Faker vs kkOma & PoohManDu. What is this insane timeline??
submitted by ReclusiveEagle to leagueoflegends [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Wavesofdesire diving buckle

Hi guys

I got a diving buckle like below but don't know how to knot it to my belt.
Does anyone have a good explanation or website?
submitted by Wavesofdesire to scubadiving [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 Darkshreaders3 Poshůl the corrupted beast of canine proportions

Poshůl the corrupted beast of canine proportions submitted by Darkshreaders3 to Bossfight [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 sjmarotta A Brief History of the Totality of Western Thought [seriously] to Provide Context for Zarathustra (Part 1 of 8)

A Brief History of the Totality of Western Thought [seriously] to Provide Context for Zarathustra (Part 1 of 8) Intro: Nietzsche, in my view, is a revolutionary thinker. To understand him better, we need to understand revolutions in thought. In this post we will start with cave-man thinking and trace the history of thought in the West up through to Nietzsche.
We will then rewind the entire process and give N's hammer and his "turning on its head" approaches to each of these stages of development. By the time we are done, we should have a context for this book, Zarathustra, which N called "The greatest gift ever given man."
I will probably reduce entire paragraphs into brief sentences, so pay careful attention to the words chosen, because each line deserves paragraphs or pages or entire libraries which have actually been dedicated to each of these statements or to arguing against them. We will flush out the conversation more in comments and discussions, but this is too large a task to make into a post unless it is reduced as much as possible first.
revolutions in thought:
Keep in mind, that we will be tracing the development of thought, but we will be doing so always keeping in mind the larger conversation of what this development sets up for us in the WAYS of thinking and how those also develop. The ways in which we can think are changed through revolutions... the development of thoughts in most of the history of philosophy are the struggling philosophers trying to work out how to resolve a problem left over or created by the LAST revolution in a way of thinking. The revolution comes and then a new problem is struggled with and comes to a head in the next revolution which dissolves that problem and leaves a new, larger but subtler one.
After this INTRO part, we will actually look at most of the important contributors of Western thought, and we will see three such revolutions:
  • The world was ticking along just fine, except not so much
  • Socrates starts a new game
  • Descartes revolutionizes that game
  • Kant dissolves the emergent problems handed us by Cartesians and gives us a new dimension to the game
  • Nietzsche goes back to Socrates and stands him on his head. We are left trying to synthesize the entirety of Western Philosophy with the massive underpinnings from which it emerged.
philosophical progress as exponential growth in questionability:
One way I like to look at the history of philosophy is as "the history of what is questionable". The philosophers are making things thinkable that were never thinkable before. Philosophy develops by making us aware of our assumptions by making those assumptions questionable, then we struggle to find the answer: was the assumption wrong all the time? Is there a new underpinning we can find which will make it more solid than it was before when we took it for granted? will we have to find new underpinnings, perhaps the negations of our previous assumptions? We have to do this work because the philosophers have identified what thoughts were manifesting in us before those thoughts ever existed in propositional form in any single mind.
An EXTREMELY BRIEF version of this way of viewing the history of philosophy is like this:
We started out thinking that what we do is what we do, and who could question it? Only an insane or evil person would.
Then the philosophers showed up, and started asking questions and pretending to have answers. They sucked us into this game, but the game was nascent.
Let us get in a time machine and listen in on various philosophical conversations through time to get a sense of this:
First a pre-philosophical discussion (we set our time machine to 22,320 BC):
Caveman 1: bears in the cave, we must do something.
Caveman 2: Follow Grog, he knows what to do, he will lead us to courageous triumphant victory and make the environment safe for all if we follow his lead!
Caveman 1: of course, let's go!
Now we get in our machine and speed up to about 300 B.C. (forward 20,000 years)
One ethicist said: "What makes a man a courageous man?" let us find the definition, the necessary and sufficient conditions which apply always and only to that man who is "courageous" then we can learn about his virtue and perhaps inform ourselves in how to live.
Student said: Well, how will we do that?
Ethicist: There is a courageous man, let us examine him and see that it is precisely X which defines him as courageous.
Second Ethicist: no no no. of course that is the courageous man, we all know that, but it is Y and not X that makes him courageous.
Third Ethicist: X is self-contradictory, if you examine the consequences of adopting that idea you will see that it leads to a contradiction of itself, so X cannot be the definition of a courageous man. Y is a tautology, when examined it actually adds NOTHING to out knowledge because it reduces to: "The courageous man is the man with courage", and we cannot use the term we are trying to define to define the term. The argument Y is reducible to pointless babbling. I say it is Z which makes that man a courageous man.
Fourth Ethicist: That man is not courageous at all! It is this other man who is courageous, and it is not Z but precisely ~Z (the negation or opposite of Z) that makes him courageous....
the conversation went on like that... people asking questions they never asked before, questions which were previously NOT ASKABLE because the community subconsciously was valuing the man based on dramatic underpinnings of their nature, and none of it was due to conscious consideration.
Now we fast-forward a couple thousand years and eavesdrop on a philosophical conversation (set time machine to 2000 years forward):
Philosopher 1: How can we have a conversation about which is the courageous man if I am uncertain that there even are men?
Philosopher 2: What do you mean you find the proposition: "Men exist" as dubitable?
Philosopher 1: I mean, last night I had a dream that I was looking at a tree, external to myself. I awoke to realize I was not dressed in a field, but rather naked in my bed and there never was a tree to observe at all... how do I know that there is a physical world of any kind if I could still just be dreaming and dreaming all the time? I could just be a brain in a vat somewhere, stuck in a matrix, fooled by some infinitely powerful malevolent being who makes me think I am thinking correctly when I seem to experience an external world, or even when I perform a mathematical operation, but I am always and only being consistently deceived in all these things!
Philosopher 2: You're a bummer man, but yeah, that is a problem.
Philosopher 1: I suppose there is only one notion in my head which I find indubitable, certain, completely beyond question: I am thinking. I cannot consider the idea: "Am I thinking right now" without considering the idea. but consideration of an idea is an act of thinking, so the proposition affirms itself whenever I ask the question...
You think it is getting bad here? We've only just started. Fast-forward another 240 years.
The Philosopher: You think that the proposition "I think" is a certainty? It is anything but a certainty to me. The fact that thinking occurs, that is a fine axiom for now, but is it not just a habit of your language to posit a doer behind every deed? Would it not be more accurate to say that "thinking occurs" or "the "I" is an illusion I make up to make sense of the fact that thinking is happening, but the truth is probably more like: "Whatever "I" am it is nothing more than the manifestation of the phenomena which one tries to tie together for convenience sake into a single knot. "Thinking happens" is all I feel comfortable asserting at present.
Seriously. Through this narrative we have a version of the story of Western Philosophy which shows that the "asking of new questions" is what philosophy accomplishes. It is as if humanity exists inside a wild expansive jungle, the artists attempt to give us pictures of what is out there in the darkness, and thank God for them!, but we do not KNOW anything in a propositional way unless the philosophers have cut down the trees and leveled the ground for us by asking questions, making thoughts possible; defining what words mean when they are used, and limiting how they can be used.
If we adopt this version of the history of philosophy, even for just a moment, and ask ourselves "does philosophy make progress?"... we see a kind of exponential growth
20,000 years ago, we were asking few questions: What should we do?
2000 years ago we were asking a lot more, and having a lot more to say: What is the kind of man who knows what to do in any situation?
200 years ago we were asking FAR more questions than we were 2000 years ago: What is a man anyway, why not question the evidence of our own eyes?
20 years ago, even worse: Why not question what is BEHIND our own eyes?
Those of you with a background in philosophy will recognize that the "Ethicist" above was Aristotle; "Philosopher 1" was Descartes; and "The Philosopher" above was Nietzsche.
Perhaps it is unfair to put N's thinking as "20 years ago" but through the course of our lessons we have seen the argument that N was writing posthumously, and that he predicted that his words would not really have an audience to comprehend them for at least 200 years anyway. This seems accurate to me when I think of the kinds of ideas which are being entertained in the last 80 years verses the ones dealt with in N's time.
In any event, it gives us a nice chart, if we take those milestones in the development of thought, and chart them out, we see the exponential growth

Philosophical Progress
Notice that this is NOT a "development of truth" graph... it is possible to accept this chart and believe that we used to know a lot more 2,000 years ago, and all this added questionability is distracting us from truths we used to know.
My view is that we develop PROPOSITIONAL knowledge... knowledge which is processed through analytical methods, ground through the filters of logic, emergent through debate and produced by the dialectic processes is made possible by this work of philosophers. It may be that the end result of all of this is that we find solid grounding for truths which artists, poets, mystics, mythologists have already had for millennia.
This is where modern man philosophers will certainly hate me.
Imagine the goal of the humanities is to settle in our minds the ideas of who we are in this world and what our condition is. Imagine "knowledge" in this context is like a mountain with multiple paths to the top.
One side of the mountain looks something like this:

MythoPoetic Side of Mountain
The other side of the mountain looks something like this:

Philosophical and Scientific Path to Top of Mountain
The gains we make as humans for knowing how to get to the top of the mountain in multiple ways is real. Even if it is the case that philosophers and scientists will EVENTUALLY get to the top of this mountain, just to find Hindu Deities, Moses, and Buddha sitting up there drinking tea together and laughing does NOT mean that what they are doing is stupid.
I, for one, LOVE philosophy, and although I don't love science, I am impressed by it and pleased to know that centuries of methodical bolt-drillers are providing a climbing path up the treacherous and difficult side of this mountain so that we can have a solid objectivist path to the truths the mystics meditated on for thousands of years. Obviously this would be valuable for many reasons, and a noble and beautiful heroic journey.
I have merely asserted this kind of a story, it is not demonstrated at all. I am aware of this. However, to tell this whole story, we have to CLIMB with the philosophers up that side of the cliff, examine the flat ground from which they started climbing, the ground they abandoned, and see what progress has been made.
We will see that the conversation has had a few moments of dramatic critical sickness... problems which came into such clear relief that it needs to be solved if we are to continue... the revolutionary philosopher solves it by dissolving it into a larger framework, and then the sickness takes time to grow again.
With all of that throat-clearing, here we go:
OUTLINE: Remember, we are looking at WAYS of thinking, and how they develop:
  • Why study history of philosophy, what is history of philosophy
  • Drama before thought
    • Cave-man
    • Expansive Cultures Uncodified
  • The mythopoetic
    • Gilgamesh
    • Pharaohs
    • Moses
    • Homer
  • The (pre-)Socratic revolution (dialectic search for the arche)--THE CRISIS EMERGES with the new types who want to have it all out in a go!
    • Thales
    • Anaximander
    • Anaximenes
    • Pythagoras
    • Xenophanes
    • Hericlitus
    • Parmenides
    • Zeno
    • Anaxagoras
    • Empedocles/
    • Atomists like Leucippus and Democritus
    • Sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias
    • Empedocles
    • Socrates
    • Plato
    • Aristotle
  • The Catholic Roman Expansion (The not-so-Dark Ages)--Still all footnotes to Plato, on the philosophical side-- but a strange preservation of the mythopoetic.
    • Aquinas
    • Augustin
    • St. John of the Cross
    • Anselm
    • The Priests
    • The Monks
  • The Cartesian Revolution -- Problem is Rationalism v. Empiricism (whence comes all our knowledge?)
    • Descartes
    • Spinoza
    • Leibnitz
    • Locke
    • Berkeley
    • Hume
  • The Kantian Revolution -- Dissolving the "rationalism v. empiricism" old problem, now interpret this one as objective or subjective phenomena
    • Kant
    • Fichte
    • Hegel
    • Schopenhauer
  • Nietzsche as judge throughout (rewind time) -- Dissolving pessimism v. optimism of nihilism... Resurrection of the mythopoetic or total reduction to materialism?
  • Kierkegaard
  • Marx
  • Jung
  • Peterson
The History of Philosophy, and why to study it Biology is a thing. It is the study of life. The history of biology is a thing. It is the dramatic record of the development of ideas about life through the examination and review of the conversations about it in the past. The Philosophy of Biology exists. It is the interpretation of the mathematical descriptors developed by the scientists who do their nitty-gritty work answering well-defined questions amenable to empirical testing.
Biologists do biology. Historians do "history of biology" but they have to understand biology to some degree to do it. Philosophers do "philosophy of biology" but they are the only ones who really know what the biologists are saying and what they mean.
Philosophy is a thing. But the history of philosophy is also a thing. But the history of philosophy is the history of ideas, and so it cannot be done by anyone but a philosopher. No mere historian can recognize the developments of the thoughts without understanding the thoughts themselves, but that requires historians of philosophy to be philosophers.
Therefore, philosophy has a unique relationship to its own history. To do philosophy is to do the history of philosophy. To do the history of philosophy is to do philosophy. (there are professors, and many of them, who are called "philosophers" who I would call "chronologists of philosophy" or "taxonomists of philosophy" -- these are people who have memorized and can parrot back on a test the 12 points of Descartes's argument for the existence of God in the third meditation; but who have no understanding of these ideas and are not really incarnations of living thinking engagement with the thoughts, but stop at mere recitation---but the true philosopher or historian of philosophy is what we are concerned with here.)
Philosophy is obsessed with its own history.
To study the history of what has become thinkable is to also study anthropology. So, we have to pull in all the rules of historiography, of interpreting texts, all the empirical side of story-telling which makes up the rules of the true historian, we have to adopt.
What is philosophy in general? Should we count what they did 3000 years ago as philosophy at all? But, what is philosophy? Well, philosophers disagree about this, notoriously (they disagree about everything, that is what they are, what they do!). Biologists share a methodology with every other biologist. Philosophers don’t even agree with a single method, we of course don’t agree on the answers, but we don’t agree with which questions are important as well.
  • There’s a DEEP question about whether or not we are actually going to be able to know what the writers of ancient texts thought.
    • I’m assuming that “what Plato thought” is recoverable… but with the pre-Socratics, this is iffy, we only have doxographical writings not their own writings.
I’m assuming that there is such a thing as the historical truth.
  • There are people who argue that there is no such thing as “Plato” just “Plato through this lens, or Plato through that lens” and so there is no such thing as the truth about what Plato actually said.
  • But this seems to suggest that Plato is REALLY significant because he has transcended death and is more alive today than most/all people “alive” today.
    • We are going to assume that there is something that we can come to understand as what Plato said. The historian’s job is to come to discover the facts of what Plato said. But THIS is a philosophical endeavor.
The historian of other ideas, like the history of Freud’s ideas, does not care if what Freud said was true. BUT the historian of what Socrates said CARES if what Plato said had any truth in it, because, if not FORGET HIM! also: if the idea isn't really different then it isn't really a development of the HISTORY of the ideas. So, part of the study of philosophy is the study of the history of philosophy.
  • One cannot do philosophy without doing the history of philosophy
  • One cannot study the history of philosophy without studying philosophy
We do this through a STORY
Tell a coherent narrative which takes into account each person’s influence… tell a story, then we can believe there is a history there that is realistic (based in realism) and justifiable. The proof is in the pudding.
That’s what we do in science, we put forward a hypothesis, and then we set out to see if it is a good enough story to take into account the “relativistic” things in a way that tells a convincing story well enough to justify the philosophical interest in ancient thought.
  • What they said is a matter of historical fact.
  • What they WOULD have said is based on what they did say and the principle of charity which says assume that they wouldn’t have contradicted themselves in any way.
“That no agent can eventually be said to have meant or done something which he could never be brought to accept as a correct description of what he had meant or done.” Skinner “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”.
Counterfactual reasoning, is what we use when we are judging the ideas of dead philosophers.
My concepts are often ones that Plato wouldn’t have had, but I want to use those concepts to try to make sense of their texts. There is a really important distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori. Plato didn’t have that distinction, but I’m going to use it to examine Plato.
I can’t engage in the process of trying to understand what Plato thought through my lens without judging him through my lens AND ALSO judging my lens through HIM! This is why it is necessary to do PHILOSOPHY to do the history of philosophy.
Before we can study the history of philosophy, we have to study pre-philosophical thought in the west This is Part 2.
submitted by sjmarotta to Zarathustra [link] [comments]

2021.10.22 12:10 gibbymoo Fri-yay is here 🥰🎉

Fri-yay is here 🥰🎉 submitted by gibbymoo to selfie [link] [comments]