[atreestump]

[spoiler]bread[/spoiler]

[atreestump]

[spoiler]fisted[[/spoiler]

[atreestump]

Haha try again :p

[atreestump]

The simple creationist pokes a speeding computer! lol

I made a slight error on ‘poking’, if there are any mistakes like that we can find the closest approximation.

Okay, so same structure.

[spoiler]A slimy[/spoiler]

[atreestump]

[spoiler]computer[/spoiler]

[atreestump]

[spoiler]poking[/spoiler]

[atreestump]

To say philosophy comes down to the study of language for me is only part of he story, ultimately I believe philosophy is about ‘how to live’, and ‘how to live correctly’ hence it originally being ‘the love of wisdom’, if we forget it’s application to life and fall into being overly abstract then we start to go in the wrong direction….language is the tool of philosophers, and part of their role is to examine and create ideas to grasp something that hadn’t previously been clearly expressed or uncovered, as ideas are expressed in language we study texts to familiarise ourselves with the ideas of those that have gone before us to try and understand what they were / are trying to say to see if it is relevant to our lives

Totally agree. I was chatting with someone on YouTube and they seem to be sold on Nietzsche’s view of the herd as being in their place, what I would previously say is the Plato view of slaves and the ones in the cave. I find this hard to grasp why someone would want to just leave people to rot, believing that they are happy in their place. I explained some of the Foucault themes that evolve Nietzsches’ view of slave morality into something more along the lines of defiance and resistance instead of weakness as strength, but then this guy said that he only ‘likes Foucault for his philosophy and psychology, not his politics’ and I don’t believe you can separate them like that, it is consistent throughout – the point is that there is a practicality to Foucault that we don’t see in Nietzsche and when I look at the background of people who take the ‘let’s have slaves, they will like it anyway’ view, they are not aristocrats themselves, they are working class which makes their use of philosophy useless in my opinion.

I think the practical philosophy side of things has been lost in the meaning of philosophy, yet many proclaim to be humanists, or to use rationality and modern technology to improve life for humans. What I see however, is instead of giving the poor more resources, they advocate sterilisation for tax relief, or instead of preventing overseas military intervention to lower the flow of refugees, they juistify it as ‘rebuilding foreign societies’ and then oppose immigration! Not so rational if you ask me, never mind wise.

I liked the bit in the Wittgenstein Derrida article you shared that said the goal of philosophy is not truth, but clarity.

[atreestump]

I just bought both of those books.

[atreestump]

Yeah, I’m looking at it as my first Wittgenstein guide more than anything. I will look for more on Derrida elsewhere to contrast with this book. Do you have any recommendations for understanding Derrida more comprehensively, now that I get the basics?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

I liked South Park’s take on tribalism as of late, that we all get blamed for the actions of others who others believe are in the same group. The same thing happened before both wars too, one murder was enough to blame an entire country or ethnic group. There is definitely a revisionist movement going on that excludes groups who conveniently are minorities, exclusion is a means of accumulation.

[atreestump]

If human life is sacred, would you say that killing in self defence is rational?

I think intervention is a good move, but on the other hand, I can also see good in projects like Dignitas.

I guess the worst outcome of ‘legalising’ suicide, is that people might kill themselves because society isn’t caring enough for vulnerable people.

[atreestump]

Thanks for the link, I will bear all of that in mind when reading it. I’m still waiting for my copy.

I’m not sure I follow the ‘no metaphysics’ view towards Derrida’s philosophy, yet the introduction book you bought me says it’s a metaphysical materialism.

[atreestump]

I gave that as an example to show where institutional help does not even begin to occur. Who knows, which is why I’m libertarian on this matter.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

True, being biologically alive is alive, but a life worth living?

The deontic version of suicide looks into whether suicide should be considered a rational option, then you have to ask how it can be rational, taking into account cognitive and interest factors, possible future outcomes etc. What if an able bodied human being is in such an oppressive situation that they would be better off? I recently read a few stories about transgendered people being sent to prison and they commited suicide to avoid rape.

There’s an old joke where a Scotsman is going to be made into a boat, so he pokes holes in himself to render the ‘boat’ useless.

[atreestump]

I’m referring to someone like Terri Schiavo. I’m all for assisted suicide as long as it’s in the interest of the one who is yet to die. How that can be sorted out I don’t know. Being only bodily functions with no self preservation, or no possibility of returning to consciousness is not ‘alive’ to me.

[Author]

Posts