SOCRATES: In the magnificent oration which you have just uttered, I think that you were right, my dear Agathon, in proposing to speak of the nature of Love first and afterwards of his works–that is a way of beginning which I very much approve. And as you have spoken so eloquently of his nature, may I ask you further, Whether love is the love of something or of nothing? And here I … yes, Glaucon?

GLAUCON: Is it of something?

SOCRATES: Yes, Glaucon, that’s what we’re getting to, but first I must explain myself… did you have a question, Aristophanes?

ARISTOPHANES: Going off of what Glaucon said, I was going to say that it’s probably something, too.

SOCRATES: …Right. But I must explain myself: I do not want you to say that love is the love of a father or the love of a mother–that would be ridiculous; but to answer as you would, if I asked is a father a father of something? to which you would … What is it, Phaedrus?

PHAEDRUS: This might not be right, but I think it’s that love is the love of a father or a mother?

ARISTOPHANES: Yeah, going off of what Phaedrus said, I think people love their fathers and mothers.

AGATHON: I agree.

SOCRATES: …Right, but – Okay, let me try something else. Is not a brother to be regarded essentially as a brother of something?




PHAEDRUS: Could you repeat the question?

SOCRATES: What I said was, is not a brother … Yes, Glaucon?

GLAUCON: This isn’t actually about this, but I was wondering if you could tell me what you mean by “justice.”

AGATHON: Wait, what page are we on?

The Apologist’s Anti-Elenchus

If Socrates were one of today’s apologists, his method wouldn’t look like this:

  1. Socrates’ interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example “Courage is endurance of the soul”, which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
  2. Socrates secures his interlocutor’s agreement to further premises, for example “Courage is a fine thing” and “Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing”.
  3. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: “courage is not endurance of the soul”.
  4. Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor’s thesis is false and that its negation is true.

It would, instead, look as follows:

  1. Socrates claims to have shown that his thesis is true and that all other theses are false.
  2. Socrates then asserts, despite the interlocutors doubts and disagreements, that his premises refute all other theses; in this case, it leads to: “god necessarily exists.”
  3. Socrates ignores his interlocutor’s demand for justification and evidence.
  4. Socrates’ interlocutor argues a thesis, for instance, “God does not necessarily exist,” which Socrates considers false because his thesis must be true.

As stated, philosophy of religion is the inversion of Socrates method. The apologist’s interest in dialogue goes as far as their belief that they can convert their interlocutor or sway minds in an audience, assuming there is one. The apologist otherwise doesn’t see any use for debate, for the apologist thinks it impossible to be proven wrong. Socrates’ elenchus aimed at discovering the truth of a matter whilst the apologist’s anti-elenchus aims at verifying what he already takes to be the case. Philosophy is about seeking truth rather than about verification of beliefs. Philosophy of religion simply has no place in the enterprise of philosophy. It is pseudo-philosophy and should be blacklisted as such.


31.8.2017 | sorry to be MIA lately! i’m sure at least some of you can relate to needing a little bit to get back into a routine when school starts :+)

i tried out stea for the title font if you’re wondering why it looks a little different than my usual lettering (which is watermelon script-based kinda)

also i’m still tracking #serenitystudies if you want to tag me in your original posts this year!

Click here for the video version of this post!


 One of the first things I learned in my freshman year is the absolute need to study every single day. Even if there is no big test or assignment around the corner, reviewing your classes daily is the only way to make sure you are strengthening your knowledge on whatever you are learning, as well as filling in any gaps on unknown material that was lectured before. For weeks (and months) I was certain that people who told me I needed to study every day were just very unorganized people or were frightening me on purpose. However, if you are taking a course heavy in information like Law, you will quickly understand that it will be very difficult to remember every single detail that was lectured in multiple subjects, on the long run – and, in the end, you are also tested on the small details and not only on the big overall scheme of each class. If I could go back to my first semester, I would really push myself harder and organize my days to be able to review my previous classes.


Being a coffee hater throughout high school, I was always sure that I would never like the taste of it in my life. However, as soon as I got into my second year of college, I found out that the only way to survive a few of my classes was to drink an expresso beforehand. My addiction to coffee began as a need to survive. Now that I look back, my first year in college probably would have turned out better if I had more energy in class and while doing my assignments. However, I still try my hardest to never drink more than one cup a day – that really keeps my energy levels up, without creating addiction.


One of the things no one told me before going to Law School was the ridiculous amount of money I would spend on textbooks every single semester. Each one of my classes requires one or two mandatory textbooks, plus statute law and a bunch of optional readings that most of the time you end up buying because they are nowhere to be found in the library. Also, since Law is constantly being developed and changed, buying second hand books is not the best idea - most of the legal references in those books are probably outdated.
I remember that in my first year of Law School I refused to buy most of the textbooks the professors required me to, and I tried my hardest to study only with my class notes. Well, guess what? That ended up, as expected, in poor grades. The problem with Law is that 50% of our grade is the result of how hard we work at home. In class the professor doesn’t lecture ALL of the material we need to learn; they just summarize it as best as they can and highlight a few important things that they find relevant. However, in the final exam, all those details and footnotes in the textbooks will prove really useful to solve the cases and if you didn’t invest in your textbooks in the beginning of your term, you will not be able to use that information in your answers, which really harms your grade.


That takes me to the next point. For me, the best learning method is preparing all classes beforehand, be it lectures or discussion based classes. I only realized this in the end of my second year in college - and I think it makes a huge difference in your overall performance in class; if your professor uses the Socratic method to teach, preparing your classes thoroughly beforehand is absolutely essential! 

Basically, if you anticipate most of what is going to be taught in your class, you will have most of the work done for that specific group of topics or information. By taking your own notes to class and completing them with what the information that the professor adds during the lecture, you will be able to reinforce your knowledge on the subject, finishing any incomplete arguments that you have written down and also letting you participate in class, asking questions on the thematic you’ve studied and discussing it with your professor and classmates. Also, preparing classes beforehand will let you organize your time better, scheduling a certain time to prepare a certain topic and/or chapter.


Unfortunately, I found it almost impossible to prepare classes and do all of this homework while I was handwriting my notes. If I could turn back in time and change something during my time in college, I would certainly stop spending so much time making everything pretty and would start typing it all. I am a big fan of handwriting notes - I love pens, stationery and also the handwriting part in itself. However, when I started getting an excessive workload, insisting on handwriting all of my preparatory notes, completing them in class and also solve and summarize case law by hand was hurting my grades, my social life and my stress levels (and my hand, lol). I then had to make the hard decision to give up on all of my pretty stationery and start bringing my laptop to class.

I still handwrite a few notes, especially when I use the column method (which you can find more about here), but I am actually happy now that I have made the change – I can be much more productive and organized while saving a huge amount of time for all the other things I enjoy doing.


Finally, and I think this is the most important piece of advice I can give you: some people enter college with a very specific mind-set on what they want to do with their lives. While you are reading this, there is a huge possibility that you have already thought about a certain career; maybe you are picking only the classes that you think will help down that career path, as well.

However, never ignore all the other options that will be laid out for you. I can personally speak about my own experience: when I entered Law School back when I was 18 (I am now 21), I had a very specific idea of what I wanted to accomplish after I graduated - I was sure I wanted to be a judge. As soon as I got into my second year and started studying the most basic principles of contract law, I was 100% sure that I had actually changed my mind, and that it was imperative to purse contract law. Then, in my 5th semester, I started studying Tax Law - I still remember thinking that Tax Law was it and I was then decided to pursue it for my master’s degree; but then, I was able to get an internship in a law firm, in the Intellectual Property Law department; and you know what? I changed my mind again

So it’s perfectly normal to change your mind along the way; you are not less worthy of college just because you are still not sure of what you want to do career wise. Also, changing majors is fine - it’s just a sign that you are progressing as a human being and as a student, that you were willing to embrace new opportunities and give up on something that would not make you happy. Just make sure that you do your research beforehand on different career paths and use all the opportunities that college gives you in order to learn new things and meet new people. Internships, and other short-termed opportunities like job-shadowing programs are great ways to understand if you fit in the specific area you are thinking of pursuing or if, in real life, it has nothing to do with you.

Lots of luck!


which camarilla clan should you fight
  • brujah: what the fuck is wrong with you? why would you want to fight the brujah? they kick people out of the clan if they don’t own enough switchblades and motorcycles. this will not end well. if you HAVE to fight the brujah, your best bet is to get them so mad that they start making bad decisions, but even then you’re probably fucked. don’t fight the brujah.
  • gangrel: these guys are all exactly as angry as the brujah but can also go full on animalistic fury at you. also they can melt into the earth and summon animals and shit. if you get lucky, you can distract them with some beggin’ strips or something, but don’t risk it. don’t fight the gangrel.
  • ventrue: if there are no consequences for this fight, then go for it. most ventrue got embraced straight out of the boardroom and have never thrown down a day in their unlives. however, if this ventrue has contacts, you had better believe you’re going to be hurting more than they will by the time they’re done with you. probably worth it, though. there’s a lot of people who want to see them punched in the face. fight the ventrue.
  • malkavian: honestly, you’ve got about a 50/50 chance with these guys. either they will melt your brain so hard that it’ll leak out of your ears or they will have no idea what the hell is going on. even if they aren’t entirely lucid, there’s still the possibility that they’ll socratic-method you into torpor. do it if you have to, but fighting the malks is not a good plan.
  • tremere: the bright side: if you fight the tremere, nobody is going to stop you. nobody fucking likes these guys. the drawback: if you fight the tremere, you are fighting the tremere. these guys can fly? they can summon fire??? they can give the laws of physics the middle finger if they want. however, if you find a tremere neonate, feel free to stuff that nerd in a locker.
  • nosferatu: this is an entire clan full of assholes with a chip on their shoulder. they can talk to rats. they can sneak around unseen despite being six feet tall and smelling like raw sewage. they probably know everything about you already. don’t let the sewer thing fool you: this clan could kick your ass and mine with their creepy hands tied behind their backs. don’t fight the nosferatu.
  • toreador: please. PLEASE. please fight the toreador. i don’t care what generation they are. i don’t care how many of them know celerity. punch them in their snooty faces. distract them with glitter. fuckin do it. i will pay you to fight the toreador. there are no downsides to fighting the toreador. if you win, you have beaten up a toreador. if you lose, everyone will probably still buy you a drink for trying. do it. fight the toreador.

anonymous asked:

Was the "Mr. Bonnefoy's class 2B" sign on Francis' door intentional (2B = 2p?) or am I finding useless connections that aren't there again, I feel like I am, you can ignore this ask

Actually, Anon, you are very observant and very correct! Also the room number is the year of Socrates’ death to reference the socratic method of teaching. I never thought I’d have a chance to point that out. You are like Sherlock Holmes or something, Anon, geez.  

(a half-birthday present for @volturisecretary  in response to this post)

Get ready for a wonky, Socratic discourse on dragon-making that I swear is not my real headcanon. Ahem.  Mostly.

So ever since I posted the reply to your reeds question the other day, I’ve been bothered by one of the lines I wrote: “…venom (or venom-y things) acts differently on inorganic matter than on human or animal tissue.”  I literally was lying awake last night because of this: WHY? Why do the humans turn into sparkly vampires and the animal just die? Why does venom treat humans so differently from animals? 

Answer: It doesn’t.

The only observable difference between the human and animal responses to vampire venom is death itself.  If that death did not occur (as it apparently does in many attempts at human transformation, too), would the transformation actually take place, considering the genetic and gross structural similarities between human and animal tissue? Assuming that it theoretically could, the question is: why doesn’t this happen?  Why does the animal die and thus the transformation halted?

I propose that the venom’s processes themselves do not kill the animal directly; its death is a secondary result of the pain and resultant panic. If a deer gets bitten and feels the venom start to work (plus being freaked out by the vampire’s presence and behavior in general), it literally just has a heart attack and dies. Animals do this. (I refer to the expertise of Emmett Cullen, who You Know has tried wrestling deer before.  It didn’t work; the deer just fell over and died.)  Sometimes, humans do this too.  But in a successful case, the human defense against this fear cascade is higher order brain function, i.e. sentient self-awareness, i.e. “It is my destiny to be with this adonis-like sparkly vampire forever and therefore It Will Be Okay. Kill me but don’t really kill me.”

Therefore!  If, theoretically, an animal could be found that is both intelligent and brave and generally awesome enough to withstand the torment of transformation… could it happen?  Let us discover this mystery together.

Thesis: Dragons do not exist; therefore Caius cannot have a dragon.

Premise One: Was Aro intrigued-to-near-insanity at the end of Breaking Dawn by the startling existence of actual shape-shifters and vampire/human hybrids?  He was.

Premise Two: Would this make Aro scurry back home to his subterranean library and reexamine his dusty Legends of Extraordinary Creatures scrolls with a fresh eye? It would.

Premise Three: Is the Twilight universe ruled by the Fates and their handiwork, Le Destiny? It is.

Premise Four: Is Aro a spoiled immortal brat whom the Fates have given everything he ever wanted, only for it to come back and bite him à la Midas later on? He is.

Premise Five: Therefore, will Aro discover proof that dragons are indeed real, probably concealed in some ancient poem that he is now magically able to translate? He will.

Premise Six: Will he find a genuine dragon after a decade of searching?  He will.

Premise Seven: Are dragons awesome? They are.

Premise Eight: Would said dragon, therefore, theoretically be able to survive the transformation? It would.

Premise Nine: Can Aro help himself in these situations? Come on this is Aro we’re talking about.

Conclusion: Caius is getting a vampire dragon for his birthday in 2017.

“One of my favorite moments was 1L year Contracts when I got called on in class. It was that realization that ‘Holy crap, this is law school.’ The professor questioned me for 20 minutes. You think they’re going to move on and then you realize they’re not moving on. It’s all on you. But it turned out to be such a confidence-boosting moment because I was able to answer the question. I was nervous but I got through it. That was so exciting for me because it was my first class of 1L year. I finally came into it, like, I’m a law student. I did it. Here I am. We never talked about that case again, the whole year. The Baby M case. But it definitely set the stage for the rest of the year. Come prepared. Have something to say, whether you want to say it or not.”