Loki @f_loki@scholar.social

Gonna get back into type theory and programming language theory just to fork rustlang and add "no bl*ckchains" to the licence

I would like it to stop being a magic the gathering spoiler season for 2 seconds so I can focus on essay writing.

I'll take the confidence in my ability to articulate my stances but I want the 8 hours I spent on Reddit arguing with concern trolls back

Being on a philosophy masters has made me way too quick to jump into online arguments about my existence and existences I'm in solidarity with and I should work on this cos it sure is not good for my brain

My dissertation plan is 100% based on discussing maths. It might not be a 15k word document on the interpretation of Bertrand Russell sneezing once on Wittgenstein and what that says about mathematical ontology, but it's definitely discussing something about maths.

"Aren't you on a Philosophy of Maths MA?" Yeah and I'm using it as an opportunity to learn more about things I don't already have a background in.

I'm writing about type theory for the first time in almost a year.

I can ramble a ton, but honestly I don't miss analytic philosophy and the kinds of Pure Logic Philosophy in philosophy of maths.

I don't trust sources that discuss "postmodernism" unless they're discussing how the right uses the term anymore.

It's like the term doesn't seem to mean anything besides "lets group these philosophers together that vaguely critiqued enlightenment thinking in minor ways and then pin them as a problem group to have their work Destroyed By Facts And Logic (What Do You Mean Logic Deserves Critique? Damn Marxist!)"

Me: Come on Foucault just explain what the statement is

Foucault: Aha but I did, in the lines your eyes skipped

Me: Foucault do you mean metaphorically skipping over the lines or literal

Foucault: Discursive formations

Reading foucault while dyslexic and other self-inflicted hell journeys

I find this refreshing but also it's super hard to talk about if you're like me and haven't dedicated a career to understanding Foucault.

Is it me or are most of Foucault's discussions of what he's talking about in a negative space more than anything in Archaeology of Knowledge? He gives vague outline and a clear discussion on what he's absolutely *not* talking about but not much else?