You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

S

Comments

You're probably not? What kind of answer is that? You either are or you aren't. How can you not be sure? Don't you know what you're talking about? And...
February 15, 2016 at 00:12
I've only read the passage in bold. I don't think that it'd be productive to discuss the hypothetical scenario of political change being brought about...
February 13, 2016 at 15:07
I suspected that that would be your response: denying that there can be cases in which poisoning does not (immediately) frustrate the will of another ...
February 11, 2016 at 17:55
You're missing the point, it seems. My example was specifically about cases of poisoning which do not frustrate the will of another being - not immedi...
February 11, 2016 at 16:21
Why not? Seems like a cop out. Is there nothing wrong, in your view, with poisoning someone, if doing so does no immediate harm? If everyone (as oppos...
February 11, 2016 at 12:16
Merely repeating that which I've already acknowledged is pointless, and your denial is without explanation. How is it not trivial in light of what wil...
February 11, 2016 at 02:17
About as convincing as the argument that Elvis is still alive.
February 10, 2016 at 13:39
It is if you define it that way, but why would you do so? What are numbers composed of? What is red composed of? What are quarks composed of? Or don't...
February 10, 2016 at 13:34
Pascal's wager is disingenuous if doxastic involuntarism is the case. A wager is one thing, but belief is a different kettle of fish. I can quite easi...
February 10, 2016 at 13:05
My thoughts exactly. He has made plenty of general points, the implications of which do not only effect him. N.B. the celibate; not the Thorongil.
February 10, 2016 at 11:00
You can't care that much about frustrating the will of another being, otherwise you'd set aside the trivial exception of the time in which there is no...
February 10, 2016 at 10:53
It's not so much about commitment, but about whether, given their position, their behaviour is reasonable or makes sense. They may not, at least expli...
February 10, 2016 at 00:07
But you agree that they're indistinguishable in terms of the conclusion that one ought not have children? That's what really matters here. I reject bo...
February 09, 2016 at 18:08
But, as I said earlier, anti-natalism and anatalism do not seem distinguishable based upon the issue of whether or not one ought to have children, sin...
February 09, 2016 at 17:28
What's your point? I don't see how that's supposedly relevant or detracts from what I've said. It's evident from various dictionaries that my initial ...
February 09, 2016 at 16:12
Indeed. I think that that's a better analogy than the ones that I provided earlier.
February 09, 2016 at 13:43
Well of course, at least throughout most of history, but I similarly doubt that you could be as naïve as to suggest that there is only one meaning, or...
February 09, 2016 at 12:55
Well, I just googled "celibacy meaning", and the Google definition - the very first one that came up, above the results - is "the state of abstaining ...
February 09, 2016 at 01:21
But a victory nonetheless. Hurrah. Actually, none of that quite sums up what I took it to mean, and I reckon that my interpretation is also quite comm...
February 09, 2016 at 00:46
Yes, that is the content of that particular objection, but when I raised it, I didn't forsee that what began as a mole hill would become a mountain. (...
February 09, 2016 at 00:03
The problem with your reasoning, however, is that you erroneously conclude that a celibate is, necessarily, someone whose lifestyle negates the possib...
February 08, 2016 at 23:35
You see, I genuinely don't understand why you would make such comments in light of the earlier criticisms made by Hanover and I. It's a simple matter ...
February 08, 2016 at 23:14
Don't worry, I've done the work for you again, because deep down, I have a kind heart. Please see the edit in my previous comment. I will address the ...
February 08, 2016 at 22:39
Sigh. Okay then, fine, I'll do the work for you and reiterate, yet again, my point which Soylent did not reply to at the end of our dialogue, for what...
February 08, 2016 at 22:13
Well, I don't enjoy repeating myself. There are a couple of points which I've objected to, and I believe that I've been quite clear in pointing them o...
February 08, 2016 at 21:50
It was as a result of taking you to mean what you say. As you can see, I've addressed quotations from your own post. I admit, I do find it difficult t...
February 08, 2016 at 21:25
Well, life is what you make of it, as they say. We set our own life goals, and choose our own direction. An objective purpose is not necessary, and li...
February 07, 2016 at 23:54
I have a couple of points. Firstly, to state that it is "quite nihilistic and useless" doesn't make much sense to me, except in relation to a particul...
February 07, 2016 at 21:20
Incorrect.
February 07, 2016 at 21:10
But a massive fault with this theory is that it doesn't accurately portray the quality of life for most people based on their own assessment. Most peo...
February 07, 2016 at 18:21
So, by implication, self-torture and then death. Is that what you're advocating? Or are you just describing the position? And again I ask, to what end...
February 07, 2016 at 17:41
You've misunderstood. I didn't claim that that's what they think. That's my response to your point, which was "to get off the merry-go-round of desire...
February 07, 2016 at 12:58
What do you mean you don't know? Of course it cannot happen, unless by brain damage or death. A foolish goal then. So you're implying that satisfactio...
February 07, 2016 at 12:19
Perhaps so, but it doesn't make much sense to me in general. It seems, ironically, an excessive response to perceived excess, and one which is likely ...
February 07, 2016 at 02:41
I don't think that your reply to Hanover actually addresses the very clear and specific point that he made, nor does it seem to address anti-natalism ...
February 06, 2016 at 18:49
This also might have been mentioned already: the option to create a poll in which one can cast multiple votes (but obviously only one vote per option)...
February 05, 2016 at 20:44
I agree with that, although I'm not sure I'd limit confirmation to the individual's experience of the world.
February 04, 2016 at 16:44
My positions have varied throughout my interest in philosophy, but for a long while now I've moved away from the sort of scepticism which you seem to ...
February 04, 2016 at 15:46
But the former is a poor reason to become (or identity as) an anatalist, and should not influence the decision. It should be incidental. Celibacy is o...
February 04, 2016 at 15:02
Like others, I think that, despite any similarities, there are clear differences. Metaphysical claims are claims about the world, but only a subset of...
February 04, 2016 at 14:20
Yes, like this prominent part of your comment: ...which Augustino didn't address, but which ought to be condemned. :D
February 04, 2016 at 13:43
Are you saying that he is saying that he is celibate because he is anatalist, or vice versa? It seems to me that it's vice versa, based on the followi...
February 03, 2016 at 22:05
That might not have been directed at me, but I'll reply anyway. Personally, I feel much better living a more comfortable and honest life identifying m...
February 03, 2016 at 21:51
Yes, tea came from China. Many of our national treasures are of foreign origin. The Royal family, the national anthem, and curry. It all came from Afr...
February 03, 2016 at 21:01
If so, I hope they pay up before they rise up against us and attempt to wipe us out like in the Terminator films. Or perhaps it won't be so bad and th...
February 03, 2016 at 20:47
OK. Good for Thorongil if he finds the term "anatalism" useful. I, on the other hand, do not find it particularly useful. I don't talk about anti-nata...
February 03, 2016 at 20:25
Is that a serious question? First of all, the view that people ought to be motivated out of a sense to promote the common good need not represent a pr...
February 03, 2016 at 19:35
Was Marx really of the position that we're all motivated out of a sense to promote the common good? Or was he rather of the position that we ought to ...
February 03, 2016 at 18:37
No, it's not correct to state that a celibate is an anti-natalist, in any sense, simply by virtue of being celibate. The prefix "anti" means "opposed ...
February 03, 2016 at 17:48
So, you Yanks don't have sparkling water? Odd. If only you would've been content with taxation without representation and hadn't kicked up such a fuss...
February 03, 2016 at 13:27