|
All of those Jews were polluting the blood of my local community, obviously that's a serious form of aggression so I was within my rights to put them in a
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Gahmah posted:wherefore we can look upon the depiction of the Nazi's and their super science in popular media, if only there were less regulations on medical testing, and the best speakers commanded production, we could advance more quickly as a society, source: wolfenstein Not as of the latest wolfenstein, thank Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:"Follow the NAP" is so vague that you can justify literally anything with it Make this the thread title and just close it down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
We generate new philosophical problems every loving day and you idiots think we'll someday have exhausted all that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:We generate new philosophical problems every loving day and you idiots think we'll someday have exhausted all that? Philosophical problems will be a thing of the past when the SINGULARITY arrives! Any day now! Any day...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Then comes the problem of us being total overlords of our (perfectly replicated, highly advanced) virtual world. What then is real? If the virtual world is an absolutely perfect simulacrum of the physical universe then what differentiates them from each other? If such a simulation is possible What says the original universe isnt a similar simulation? (And this is like 5th grader metaphysics. PHILOSOPHY NEVER ENDS YOU WILL THINK FOREVER)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
It is a basic problem of the way we think, where we are able to create nonsensical statements which automatically seem deep. It's just a more modern turn on the old "what is the sound of one hand clapping". [edit] This 'brain-in-a-jar" kind of bullshit philosophy I mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder that the Libertarian Party Presidential Primary Debate on Stossel airs at 9pm on Friday on Fox Business. Of course, only three candidates will actually be there, so might be interesting to see all the glorious tears from the Libertarians that didn't get invited. iirc, it's going to be Gary "Feel My" Johnson, McAfee2016, and that one guy who used to work for Fox and Fox Business, but I'm sure he made the cut because he's a serious candidate and not by pulling some strings at the network.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Struggling with systematic skeptical doubt is what ended the stranglehold of Aristotelian scholasticism on European thought, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:It is a basic problem of the way we think, where we are able to create nonsensical statements which automatically seem deep. It's just a more modern turn on the old "what is the sound of one hand clapping". Yeah, exactly. Every brain-in-a-jar or chain-of-simulations hypothesis is fundamentally unfalsifiable, and gets to share a table with the infinitely many unfalsifiable hypotheses about metaphysics that can be expressed in a language. Easy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Out-of-hand dismissal of an enormous literature based on little or no actual familiarity with the material is not the mark of wisdom, probably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Out-of-hand dismissal of an enormous literature based on little or no actual familiarity with the material is not the mark of wisdom, probably. He said, in the thread where we talk about arguing with the most long-winded group of ideologues of our time. No, I don't think there's an enormous body of [noteworthy] literature about the brain-in-the-jar style of postulate, any more than that can be said of ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:We generate new philosophical problems every loving day and you idiots think we'll someday have exhausted all that? Stinky_Pete posted:He said, in the thread where we talk about arguing with the most long-winded group of ideologues of our time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:He said, in the thread where we talk about arguing with the most long-winded group of ideologues of our time. Yes, and as this thread has made clear, jrod's opponents were almost universally better-acquainted with libertarian literature than he was. Stinky_Pete posted:No, I don't think there's an enormous body of [noteworthy] literature about the brain-in-the-jar style of postulate, any more than that can be said of ghosts. Here. But then I suppose you're gonna lean pretty hard on 'noteworthy,' which just strikes me as a kind of intellectual hubris that I find really grating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I suspect that a lot of philosophically interesting things could be done with ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:... Descartes? The man whose "proof of God" was "I have an idea of an infinite being that is perfect in every way and made everything. Well gee, I can't have come up with that out of nowhere! Hmm, of all the possible sources from which I could get that idea, naturally ruling out the people and books that told me about it, I can only conclude the idea came from the infinitely powerful thing itself!" ? That's exactly what I'm talking about. There are people who are allowed to be philosophy professors who think that's a really strong argument. Juffo-Wup posted:Here. But then I suppose you're gonna lean pretty hard on 'noteworthy,' which just strikes me as a kind of intellectual hubris that I find really grating. Okay, what do these papers accomplish? Arguing about the best way to define some words? What does someone learn by deciding whether or not they might be a brain in a jar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:The man whose "proof of God" was "I have an idea of an infinite being that is perfect in every way and made everything. Well gee, I can't have come up with that out of nowhere! Hmm, of all the possible sources from which I could get that idea, naturally ruling out the people and books that told me about it, I can only conclude the idea came from the infinitely powerful thing itself!" ? That's exactly what I'm talking about. There are people who are allowed to be philosophy professors who think that's a really strong argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't want to sound rude, but do you genuinely think you're making a good case for your position here? I forgot what my position was, and what we were talking about. I just like griping about how old uninformed philosophers with little understanding of their own cognitive biases and abuse of language are still put on a pedestal. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Just a friendly reminder that the Libertarian Party Presidential Primary Debate on Stossel airs at 9pm on Friday on Fox Business. Of course, only three candidates will actually be there, so might be interesting to see all the glorious tears from the Libertarians that didn't get invited. iirc, it's going to be Gary "Feel My" Johnson, McAfee2016, and that one guy who used to work for Fox and Fox Business, but I'm sure he made the cut because he's a serious candidate and not by pulling some strings at the network. It's good that Fox Business is treating Libertarian politics with the seriousness it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I forgot what my position was, and what we were talking about. I just like griping about how old uninformed philosophers with little understanding of their own cognitive biases and abuse of language are still put on a pedestal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Okay, what do these papers accomplish? Arguing about the best way to define some words? What does someone learn by deciding whether or not they might be a brain in a jar? These are the sorts of things one might expect to learn by reading the papers in question, or even just by reading the one paragraph editorial summary on the page I linked. But don't let that stop you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:These are the sorts of things one might expect to learn by reading the papers in question, or even just by reading the one paragraph editorial summary on the page I linked. The argument summarized there can be easily countered by adjusting the hypothesis to say "I am a meta-brain in a vat." I see no need to "refute" a hypothesis that purports no consequences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Not as of the latest wolfenstein, thank Christ. It was like a clone of Half-Life 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:The argument summarized there can be easily countered by adjusting the hypothesis to say "I am a meta-brain in a vat." I see no need to "refute" a hypothesis that purports no consequences. Yep, you did it. You just Solved epistemology. What fools we all have been. If only Hilary Putnam were still alive to see his obvious error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yep, you did it. You just Solved epistemology. What fools we all have been. If only Hilary Putnam were still alive to see his obvious error. Why does solipsism even need to be solved in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does solipsism even need to be solved in the first place? Well, you might think that empirical knowledge requires a firm theoretical foundation. Or you might think that a good solution would tell you something interesting about reference or justification. Or you might be interested in questions about moral value. Or you might think that you can generate an interesting conclusion about how our minds process perceptual information. I've answered your question; here's mine: what particular expertise do you think you have that enables you to call into question whole academic fields while knowing next to nothing about them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does solipsism even need to be solved in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, you might think that empirical knowledge requires a firm theoretical foundation. Or you might think that a good solution would tell you something interesting about reference or justification. Or you might be interested in questions about moral value. Or you might think that you can generate an interesting conclusion about how our minds process perceptual information. I didn't know I needed a doctorate to ask a pretty simple question. gently caress me for wanting to learn, right? Edit: Cingulate posted:It doesn't, don't worry. Nothing about this would change your life in any way. Philosophy is the "love of truth", not the "changing of matters that are in dire need of changing". Where did I say it needed to "change my life"? Don't project onto others, it's not very appealing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I didn't know I needed a doctorate to ask a pretty simple question. gently caress me for wanting to learn, right? If that was really your intention, then I apologize. But I don't think it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I didn't know I needed a doctorate to ask a pretty simple question. gently caress me for wanting to learn, right? To be fair, I too (seemingly mis)read you as arrogant and cynic. I still stand by my own answer, just ignore the condescending tone if your question was genuine. On the other hand, I would defend an aggressive position of the major benefit science would derive from paying closer attention to questions of epistemology - specifically philosophy of science, and most specifically, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It doesn't, don't worry. Nothing about this would change your life in any way. Philosophy is the "love of truth", not the "changing of matters that are in dire need of changing". That's philalethy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:If that was really your intention, then I apologize. But I don't think it was. You know I'm not Stinky_Pete, right? I've honestly never talked to anyone very knowledgable about this subject, and I honestly did want to know what perceived value people who do know about this saw in it to help me get some insight into the subject. Chill, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Guys, guys. Let's heal the divisions and focus on what we have in common: realizing philosophy is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To be fair, I too (seemingly mis)read you as arrogant and cynic. Have you ever considered not being a condescending rear end in a top hat? You should give it a whirl if for no other reason than the novelty of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Have you ever considered not being a condescending rear end in a top hat? You should give it a whirl if for no other reason than the novelty of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I've answered your question; here's mine: what particular expertise do you think you have that enables you to call into question whole academic fields while knowing next to nothing about them? I think you can question the value of some "problems" in epistemology, which are only debated by picking different definitions for words, without calling all of philosophy into question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Maybe it's about the journey and not the destination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I think you can question the value of some "problems" in epistemology, which are only debated by picking different definitions for words, without calling all of philosophy into question. That's true, but it more or less requires substantive engagement with the work itself. There are certainly deflationary accounts of many of the common debates in epistemology, and they're written by people with a deep familiarity and understanding of the work of the people they're critiquing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Guys, guys. Let's heal the divisions and focus on what we have in common: realizing philosophy is garbage. Logical Positivist spotted. More sincerely, philosophy is important because it attempts to answer questions of "why" when science can only go after the whats and hows. Like, if a libertarian were fully grounded in reality and science, and was still fully dedicated to shrinking the government because he thinks pollution and oligarchy are actually awesome, we would still have philosophical grounds to criticize them on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Maybe it's about the journey and not the destination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
