User Controls
I am the most educated on topics of philosophy, religion and spirituality
-
2016-11-11 at 3:17 PM UTCAsk me anything on these subjects.
-
2016-11-11 at 3:27 PM UTCDo you personally adhere to any particular philosophy, religion or spirituality? Why or why not?
-
2016-11-11 at 3:31 PM UTCWhat are your thoughts on middle eastern philosopher Al-Farabi and his incorporation of non Aristotelian elements in his works of logic? You fucking Paki.
-
2016-11-11 at 3:37 PM UTCBullshit. I'm the modern day da Vinci ubermensch.
Have you ever used an Entheogen before?.
-
2016-11-11 at 4:40 PM UTC
Do you personally adhere to any particular philosophy, religion or spirituality? Why or why not?
I am principally opposed to applying a "label" to oneself. I am a student of the philosophical pursuit at large, and I'm not invested in calling myself "a thing". Anyone who studies philosophy understands that at its base, there are no right answers. There is only the next step in the argument. I apply the philosophical method to all my thinking:
http://mcps.umn.edu/philosophy/14_15Boyd.pdf
I'll be happy to answer questions about my views on specific issues, though. -
2016-11-11 at 4:44 PM UTCWhat do you think of Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism?
Can we find a natural basis for the analytic/synthetic distinction? -
2016-11-11 at 4:45 PM UTCAlso do there exist necessary a posteriori truths?
-
2016-11-11 at 4:45 PM UTCAlso what is the metaphysical possibility of zombies?
-
2016-11-11 at 4:57 PM UTC
What are your thoughts on middle eastern philosopher Al-Farabi and his incorporation of non Aristotelian elements in his works of logic? You fucking Paki.
He's not important. The thing you need to understand about middle eastern philosophers and intellectuals is that it is impossible to understand their views without understanding the religious petri dish in which they were cultured. Al-Farabi is no different. Al-Farabi has an important position in the history of philosophy, but it's not really worth discussing him in a modern context.
And I'm not sure what you want me to say about non-Aristotelian elements in his work; Aristotle was around 2400 years ago. Aristotelian logic is undoubtedly built into the foundations of modern Western thinking but Philosophy has advanced in leaps since Aristotle was around. -
2016-11-11 at 4:59 PM UTC
Have you ever used an Entheogen before?.
No. I did eat a pot cookie for the first time recently and got destroyed. Won't be doing drugs again, that's for sure. -
2016-11-11 at 5:05 PM UTCWhat do you think about animism?
-
2016-11-11 at 5:08 PM UTCHow do you justify living, despite your life having no intrinsic value or meaning?
I'm not referring to nihilism, I'm referring to the fact that you're a dirty fucking paki. Kill yourself. -
2016-11-11 at 5:14 PM UTC
How do you justify living, despite your life having no intrinsic value or meaning?
I'm not referring to nihilism
For a second let's pretend that you were referring to nihilism, if life and death equally have no intrinsic value or meaning why does anyone have to justify living or dying? -
2016-11-11 at 5:27 PM UTC
What do you think of Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism?
Can we find a natural basis for the analytic/synthetic distinction?
The ideas presented in Two Dogmas of Empiricism are probably one of the first things you learn in a college philosophy class when you are being introduced at a shallow level to various philosophical frameworks (and the overarching criticisms of those frameworks) at a shallow level, so I'm not sure what I could add to it that hasn't already been said. Two Dogmas is of course a very well argued and important paper.
I do not think we can find a natural basis for the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements; such an idea itself would pose a thousand basic epistemological problems. But I also don't think a natural basis is necessary, and that's really what I think is important to state in this reply to you; the structure of this post suggests to me that perhaps you think that Quine denies the distinction between analytical and synthetic statements, which he does not. In fact he argues that both exist, but are simply different by degree, and the distinction is... well, distinct. -
2016-11-11 at 5:33 PM UTC
Also do there exist necessary a posteriori truths?
I think this is a true matter of where you start from, philosophically. And changing where someone has begun their philosophical inquest is a bigger problem than even how we know that we know. -
2016-11-11 at 5:39 PM UTC
How do you justify living, despite your life having no intrinsic value or meaning?
I'm not referring to nihilism, I'm referring to the fact that you're a dirty fucking paki. Kill yourself.
Maybe this is all in your head, and I'm the part of your subconscious that has total control over your emotoions, Because I have total control over your emotions. -
2016-11-11 at 5:44 PM UTC
What do you think about animism?
Trite, but I won't stop anyone from believing in it. Consider the soul problem, and apply it to animism, you have my thoughts. -
2016-11-11 at 6:52 PM UTC
The ideas presented in Two Dogmas of Empiricism are probably one of the first things you learn in a college philosophy class when you are being introduced at a shallow level to various philosophical frameworks (and the overarching criticisms of those frameworks) at a shallow level, so I'm not sure what I could add to it that hasn't already been said. Two Dogmas is of course a very well argued and important paper.
I do not think we can find a natural basis for the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements; such an idea itself would pose a thousand basic epistemological problems. But I also don't think a natural basis is necessary, and that's really what I think is important to state in this reply to you; the structure of this post suggests to me that perhaps you think that Quine denies the distinction between analytical and synthetic statements, which he does not. In fact he argues that both exist, but are simply different by degree, and the distinction is… well, distinct.
So you just made this thread to passive aggressively insult people (poorly) or what? -
2016-11-11 at 7:10 PM UTC
Trite, but I won't stop anyone from believing in it. Consider the soul problem, and apply it to animism, you have my thoughts.
What is the soul problem? How does it apply to animism? -
2016-11-11 at 7:41 PM UTC
So you just made this thread to passive aggressively insult people (poorly) or what?
???
I was answering your question to the best of my ability, and I wasn't trying to insult you. There is no reason to be upset.
