#philosophy questions

[it-happened-once-in-a-meme]

Philosophic Vampire Discussion Questions

Warning: Vampire-related content including the usual things (blood, but not graphic description), mentions of addiction (not specified which)

What are some human traits that would make it easier for them once they're tramsformed into a vampire?

What are some that would make it more difficult?

Assuming that:

-vampires have to drink blood every now and then to function properly

->they can have big blood cravings

-they're vulnerable to religious things like holy water or christian artifacts (correct me on that, if it's not only christianity)

-vampires can grow very old/can only be killed very specifically

Examples:

Would having a strong sense of morals make being a vampire easier (being as nice to humans as possible->them not growing suspicious), or is a certain level of immorality neccessary?

Would being vegetarian before (for the animals, not just for the climate) be more helpful or difficult? Would the control over themselves help in holding back when they get the craving for human blood? Or would not wanting to drink blood make them too week? What degree of vegetarianism would be the best: from someone who just started to someone who's been vegetarian for very long?

Would being aromantic/asexual be of any help when it comes to craving human blood (which is often depicted as a sexual and/or romantic thing)?

Would knowing a lot about history help in finding new vampire friends, or would it make them angry to see someone act as if they knew more than them/were alive in that time?

Would having an addiction in the past make it more difficult because the more addictions someone's had, the more likely they are to become addicted to something else. Or could first-hand experience be useful because that person has already developed some distraction techniques?

Would being outgoing be of more help than being introverted? With being outgoing having the advantage of having an easier time approaching (& learning from) other vampires, who may already have centuries-old friendship, while being introverted would make it easier to protect humans from yourself, and keep out of vampire/other fantasy creature drama.

Would having human friends make being a vampire easier (having connections to humans, staying grounded), or more difficult (them passing away before you)? What amount would be best?

Is there an ideal age or point in life for a vampire transition?

Are there certain jobs that would make transitioning easier?

What kind of person would arose the least suspicion?

What are the (dis)advantages of being famous & rich prior to transitioning?

Do you have any recommendations of vampire media that go into some of these things (& that don't feature a minor x a very old vampire thing being presented as romantic/sexy)? 🤩

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[veryintricaterituals]

Something about Good Omens from a Jewish perspective, something about Crowley, about questions, something about how we are not in heaven, about how we get to decide the rules here on Earth, something about discussion, about wrestling with G-d, and something about how G-d is outnumbered and doesn't get a say, something about how "heaven" and "hell" don't really matter, about trying to make things better from the context of our lives, something about leaving the world a better place than you found it, something about drinking and enjoying life right here and now, something about "they tried to kill us and failed, let's eat".

[serpentface]

Faiza performing the Kagnoma Odo (pretty literally 'lion dance'), a weapons dance and one of the more important ritual duties of Odonii priestesses. A relatively new addition to this traditional dance involves the musket as the primary weapon, which is fired mid-twirl into the ground at the climax of the dance. Faiza is experiencing an 'oh fuck' moment because her shot is more than ideally diagonal, but she’s being so cool with it.

This is a wholly ceremonial performance at the onset of the pilgrimage, performed in full regalia and lion skin (of the small, semi-domesticated strain) but no armor. It’s also distinctly a display of political allegiance between the powerful and beloved Odonii priesthood (and its loyal military) with the increasingly reviled and destabilized imperial family, with Faiza prominently wearing a bracelet of the royal serpent, which was gifted (along with the musket) by the usoma Stavis Amanti himself (Usoma is the Wardi word for king, which has been retained in the context of emperors).

The Kagnoma Odo is the ultimate demonstration of the Odonii as an embodiment of the Lion Face of God and living vessel of military might and sovereignty, demonstrating her fitness and proficiency with weapons and as a spiritual unifier for soldiers. It is accompanied by drumming and occurs in stages, running through the three keymost weapons used in war- the spear, the sword, and the musket. The musket is of the most significance, given the weapon has developed a particular esteem as the ultimate embodiment of might and superiority. Assistants (almost always other priestesses, occasionally high ranking soldiers) load and prime the musket to be fired at the climax of the dance, where it is shot into the ground as the priestess leaps out of range of the shot. The firing signals the end of the dance and the rite itself.

While not the utmost exemplar of trigger discipline, only fully inducted and senior (and therefore very thoroughly trained) Odonii are permitted to perform the dance, and injuries during actual performances are quite rare (though are known to occur during training, more than a few Odonii have burns and wounds on their feet).

The most important renditions of this dance are performed upon declarations of war and before battles (in this case, generally done in full armor along with the lion pelt). It is also done during some trainings (while a dance, it is carefully choreographed to include naturalistic maneuvers of the weapons involved and helps soldiers limber up and learn to move their weapons). It is regarded as an impressive and motivating sight and a morale booster, and, seen at a distance, potentially intimidating to enemies.

A special variant of this dance is performed as means of fully incarnating the Odomache, which is done in full nudity with the body covered in the blood of the freshly sacrificed lion and cloaked in its raw pelt (the lion has become the corpse of Odomache in the moment of death, as part of its recreation of God's sacrifice). Her public, full nude appearance once (and only once) in this act is what allows the Lion Face of God to incarnate within her. Those in attendance see the spiritually vulnerable, naked human body obscured with the sanctified and deified blood and cloaked in the sanctified and deified skin. It is a merger of the contradictions of mortality and divinity, the boundaries between the two indistinct in flickering firelight and the flash of musketfire. She is witnessed by her people, dangling in between humanity and divinity and leading them in dance, and and is thus transformed.

[wiisagi-maiingan]

Job applications are psychological warfare and should be banned under the Geneva Convention.

[salty-an-disco]

I just know Shifty would love getting to personally meet the voices.

They were born out of a need for change and adaptability within the construct, after all, and are what molded her vessels, she’d love getting to know more of their unique perspectives.

[firestar5318]

What makes something meat or not meat?

[neverbreakheart]

[loveerran]

Can a person bound for the Terrestrial Kingdom be an asset to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Or should we kick them out?

[philosophybits]

Undoubtedly we have no questions to ask which are unanswerable. We must trust the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy. Every man's condition is a solution in hieroglyphic to those inquiries he would put. He acts it as life, before he apprehends it as truth.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature

[espiricalesper]

read the book of bill and gotta say, I thought y’all were kidding but this really is just ~200 pages of old man yaoi

also mcgucket getting a present for ford and not his wife is like wow ford pump the brakes w ur newfound harem

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi there! love your work! i recently had a prof say that all zoos (USA) are bad (so we shouldn't support them) and sanctuaries are better because using animals for entertainment is morally wrong, most zoo profits dont go to conservation, and conservation efforts are bandaid solutions to capitalism destroying animal habitats, so the real solution is to return the land to indigenous stewards to manage/rewild. i didn't disagree with the last bit, but the argument as a whole felt a little off to me for a reason i couldnt put my finger on. am i off base here? just feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

You're not wrong! There's a mix of reality and personal opinions in those statements, and it's definitely something worth critically examining. A quick fact-check of what they said for you:

All US zoos are bad

There's a massive range of quality of zoological facilities within the US (and around the world). Some are stellar and some are not, and it's really just not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella for almost any purpose. Unless, of course, your issue isn't with animal welfare, and it's philosophical, which is what it sound like in #2...

2. Using animals for entertainment is morally wrong.

This is one of my favorite things to talk about w/r/t how we exhibit animals. Entertainment has become equated with exploitation and implicit low welfare in the last couple decades, and so you get a lot of people saying using animals for entertainment is wrong. But those same folk will say that they enjoy seeing animals in other contexts, and they think that's okay. Where's the line between enjoying something and being entertained by it? What makes something one and not the other? Also, we know that people learn better from from situations which are enjoyable/entertaining - even just a fun teacher who jokes around vs a dry lecture - so how can that only be a problem when it's used to make viewing animals more impactful? I wrote a whole piece on this a while back (linked here) if you want to dig into this more. Some zoos (and accrediting groups) are shying away from "entertainment" type branding - shows are demos now, for instance - and others are leaning into "edutainment" that's done with good welfare and communicates actual education messaging. In short, this is a personal philosophical belief, and you're right to question if you agree. (Even if you decide you do think that too! It's always good to question why someone is arguing what they believe about animal use, and how they came to believe it).

3. Sanctuaries are better than zoos.

There's two reasons I think he's misinformed here. First, almost all exotic animal sanctuaries in the US are licensed exhibitors - just like zoos! I only know of a couple that don't exhibit to the public at all. It's an important part of their revenue stream, because gate take helps support paying for animal care. Also anything you see from a sanctuary on Youtube, Facebook, or TikTok? Also exhibition! They just message about it differently, and often have a different ethos about how they exhibit (e.g. tours to reduce stress instead of letting people wander, doing conservation or rescue messaging instead of just display). Second... look, most people assume that the word "sanctuary" means a facility is intrinsically more ethical than a zoo, and therefore they must be a good place. In reality, many sanctuaries get much less public and regulatory scrutiny (at the state level) than most zoos. There are good sanctuaries out there, but there are also sanctuaries where stuff goes on that would absolutely be unacceptable at zoos, and it slides because of the assumption that sanctuaries are inherently more moral and ethical and care for their animals better.

4. Most zoo profits don't go to conservation

This is correct! Direct conservation funding is often a small part of the money a zoo makes. However, that's because money goes to things like facility maintenance, new construction, paying salaries, etc. If zoos put all the money they made back into conservation programs, practically, they wouldn't have the funding to continue to operate. The question that I'd suggest asking instead is "where are they putting money into conservation" and "are they doing conservation work or just throwing money at something to display the logo of the program." Also, it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of what zoos do to support conservation isn't necessarily financial. Many facilities contribute "in-kind", by doing things like sending staff to assist with programs or teach specific skills, or by donating things like vehicles and equipment. Research zoos do also seriously contributes to in-situ programs, and breeding programs for re-introduction like the scimitar-horned oryx and the black-footed ferret are also conservation. Could many of the big urban facilities with huge budgets do more? Yes. But looking just at dollars spent on conservation programs is disingenuous and inaccurate.

5. Conservation efforts are band-aid solutions to capitalism destroying habitats / Returning the land to indigenous peoples to manage/rewild is the real solution to conservation issues

This is a little outside my scope so I'm going to only address the part that I know. First off, like, there's no One True Answer to conservation issues. That's reductionist and inaccurate. Conservation really is a human issue, though, and it often has to involve solving human problems that lead to negative results for animals. There's definitely an issue with what some people call "parachute conservation" where Westerners swoop in and try to tell people living in range countries how to best manage their animals and natural resources without recognizing their perspectives, needs, or what drives their behavior towards those animals. That's not just a zoo issue - that's an issue with a ton of traditional Western conservation work. And there is progress towards fixing it! In the zoo world, I've been very impressed with the work out of The Living Desert, where their conservation people spend a lot of time overseas teaching people in range countries to evaluate and improve their own conservation programs, so they can assess efficacy and also have data to apply for grants, etc. They provide support when asked, rather than trying to tell people who live with these animals regularly what to do. One of my favorite programs that TLD collaborates with (they don't try to run it!) is a group called the Black Mambas that reduces poaching by supporting entire communities to reduce the desperation for food/income, educating kids about animals, and running all-female patrols staffed by community members.

Overall, it sounds like your professor's view of zoos is really informed by their personal moral perspective, and possibly reinforced by a lot of the misinformation / misleading messaging that exists about the industry and about conservation work. They do have some specifics right, but not necessarily the context to inform why things are like that. It was a good catch to question the mix of information and approach it critically.

[pratchettquotes]

"What's a Zen?" he said.

The Fool's bells tinkled as he sorted through his cards. Without thinking, he said: "Oh, a sub-sect of the Turnwise Klatch philosophical system of Sumtin, noted for its simple austerity and the offer of personal tranquillity and wholeness achieved through meditation and breathing techniques; an interesting aspect is the asking of apparently nonsensical questions in order to widen the doors of perception."

"How's that again?" said the cook suspiciously. [...]

The Fool hesitated with a card in his hand, suppressed his panic and thought quickly.

"I'faith, nuncle," he squeaked, "thou't more full of questions than a martlebury is of mizzensails."

The cook relaxed.

Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters

[danshive]

So, you can know how long a mile or a kilometer is in terms of numbers, but... Do you KNOW how long a mile or kilometer is? Is that actual tangible information for you?

Example: If something is five feet, that has meaning I can immediately understand, because I can compare it easily enough to my own height. It's not a vague idea.

If you were to ask me where I'd end up a mile north from my home, however, I wouldn't have a clear answer for you in spite of knowing the surrounding area well. Even with a map, I would require a ruler (or the digital equivalent).

If told "go a mile that way to get a prize" (and ignoring that this is very obviously a trap), would you know when to stop walking without a predetermined landmark? This general idea isn't specific to miles or kilometers. What I'm truly considering is the difference between knowing something, and KNOWING something.

If that makes any sense.

[mjbythebay]

Because there's an eclipse, in latin class my teacher had us translate all these old Roman dudes thoughts and shit on eclipses and incase you didn't know they filled a basin with oil or tar so they could see the reflection of the eclipse and study it, or just watch it like normal because they were also obsessed like we are