Jump to content
ban ad hominems

Free Philosophy Thread

Recommended Posts

psycho, your own posts are too unremarkable and impersonal to be judged. Like a couch potato judging a soccer match. Easy position to take, easy position to judge from. Also, mental health professionals insist that it takes proper consultation to assess mental health. Just FYI.

It's always women who are quick to judge in this way. I'd like to know the reason behind this trend. Maybe upbringing, more uncritical support of the girl leading to overconfident judgment in adulthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and this is false. It's a way to outlaw any free speech against the feminization of society. Any views that discriminate between the male and female is painted out as extremist, when in fact it may point out a real difference and take no authority over how to act on the fact. It's legal to defame Muslims, but you can't point out that women treated you differently than men and wonder why it is so. You must not reflect upon the source of the actual, real difference that you experienced. You must play and pretend that everything that happened in your life fits the model of political correctness in order to not insult any hopes that the world may be so equal. If you objectively state your observations, share your data coldly as they are, you're not a friend of the progressives, who wish reality to have been so differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I literally never read philosophy at school. So maybe that's what's going on here. I'm on level 1 and everyone else has already been through this in the worst and most repulsive way possible: classrooms.

I've had very few classes in philosophy, I have a technical background.  I mostly read articles and consult with professional philosophers in person.

ban ad hominems likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say, psycho, so I'm just gonna leave you hanging with this clip that I thought of randomly, that I don't remember the lyrics for (so trust me, there's no intentional message in it, it just feels 'right' in a Lynchian abstract way).

I honestly enjoy when you call me a whiny bitch, psycho. There's something lighthearted about it that I can't find in posts where you call me Hitler or various (other) serial killers. Comparatively, 'bitch' is recommended for any possible future correspondences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmers were the highpoint of civilization because they were self-sustainable and relatively comfortable and peaceful. The following progress has had hidden expenses that are unchecked and chaotic and not in self-contained energy transit, but open-ended global energy transit that no one can contain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read Ishmael and I still think it's great. Obviously not a measured critique on humanity, but it raises a lot of necessary points.

As to farming being the high water mark of civilization: :lol:

Parrot likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eat Shadows

 

Farmers were the highpoint of civilization because they were self-sustainable and relatively comfortable and peaceful. The following progress has had hidden expenses that are unchecked and chaotic and not in self-contained energy transit, but open-ended global energy transit that no one can contain.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/local-food-no-green-panacea-professor-1.827317

"Food miles are, at best, a marketing fad," Desrochers says in his report.

He uses the example of strawberries. Highly efficient farms in California produce roughly 17 times as many strawberries as a typical Ontario producer using the same amount of land and resources.

"When you're that efficient you can invest in better handling and storage," he says. "The environmental impact of transportation isn't very significant."

Moving that food to consumers via highly efficient rail, ocean freight or even comparatively costly air is a better move, environmentally, than trying to re-create the ideal growing conditions for the fruit in Canada, he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The love of wisdom. Shouldn't that be a pretty folkish, demotic business? Rather, we have 'philosophers' almost protected academically by title, regardless of their merit and relevance. There's so little public "wise speech" on climate change, for example. Mass media, mass decisions, but the relevant thinkers are absent.

Is there any really relevant weighty wisdom coming from the institutions? What makes them weighty? (plz, no 'fat Zizek' jokes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Slavery - weekly philosophy bite:

If everything can be bought and sold, except for humans, then do humans become infinitely valuable, or worthless? There is no such thing as a human totally alienated from value. The question is, how does the value compete with other values, i.e. the values of 'dead things' and non-human pets and so forth?

You may object that wage labour is a form of valuation, but this is not to be compared with valuation of owning a thing. This is a form of rent, or a valuation of the thing's time.

In order to correctly value a human life, in fair competition to a video game or a pair of jeans, one must dispel the taboo of slavery and bring life to the marketplace on equal terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't excuse self interest.

And I best point out that self interest doesn't need being excused in the first place. 

As an anarcho-socialist, I would point to the works of Kropotkin to demonstrate that altruism and self interest can be completely in sync. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. I am a pretty serious thinker when it comes to economic philosophy, resource allocation, social justice, and environmental ethics. I'm not about to stoop to the level of 16-year-old Facebook discourse.

I've already recommended to you that you read Mutual Aid, which, while dated, is an excellent rebuttal to social theorists at the turn of the last century who promoted a doctrine of primary self-interest and philosophical egoism, which I find a rather abhorrent world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, Harcourt, man, do you have a goodreads account? Like, where you rank and promote books that you deem in high esteem?

 

Also, I came across a little book called 'Black Earth: The Holoblahblahblah title is long'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/books/review/timothy-snyders-black-earth.html?_r=0

it's pretty relevant to our discussion about climate change and risk of terrorism (you know back on atease when you reported me to NSA and also claimed that only religion could make people that cruel.

 

edit: )

 

it's cool with me that you're too serious 4 thread btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×