Just to be clear, I like the two ways to philosophize thesis. I just don’t give analytic dissection the priority. We need to assert, and then dissect....
It is one thing to call something wrong because it is incoherent or invalid. These are process problems - like, “you don’t follow the rules” or “that ...
Absolutely true. We need at both to make a science of knowing the world, and more than science to know really people. But the skeptics seem to be argu...
Exactly. That is why I pointed out the underdevelopment of Banno’s admission in passing: That is a huge indictment against presuming one of the two wa...
This is exactly what we are talking about. Like the assumption “all men are created equal” endowed with unalienable rights including “Liberty and the ...
I think we precisely must assume this. There must be one true narrative, or else, all narratives are equally born and equally soon to be gone. Maybe t...
Because I’m trying to understand statements like this: And this: “truths become available within human discourse” — Banno But then there is this: “tru...
A good example of this is the incoherence of saying gender and sexuality are malleable objects of choice. If we suspend the “bias” of “assigning” gend...
That was my point about there being a third way to philosophize. Which is making me realize a fourth way might be seen as naive common sense. Non- ana...
How can a law possibly limit free speech? A law is just speech from the government. You said speech can’t cause anything so it can’t limit anything. S...
Like I tried to say nicely, not a serious discussion. What I specifically do in response to the law is another discussion. Whether words have effects ...
And none of that is because of the Declaration on Human Rights. That has no effect on anyone. It is because of the First Amendment to the US Constitut...
Absolutely I believe that free speech must be protected in the law. Government can’t tell anyone what to think or say about anything. That is the star...
You keep utterly missing the point. What forces the police to arrest people? They just magically know what is legal and what is illegal? Or do they fo...
All laws, written down, are words meant to influence actions. That’s what the law does. That is how it works. If this is a serious discussion about fr...
I agree. It is difficult to sound genuine when speaking of being qua being - sounds like word salad from a history nerd who probably couldn’t hang for...
More clarity. Cool. Explanation has to be on a different level than the thing it explains. Always leaving the explanation itself lacking an explanatio...
Yes. Discussion becomes a bait and switch. They posit something, thereby staking a metaphysical position, but then, if someone disagrees, they switch ...
As a person more interested in discussing world views and seeking truth, another response to this great post might be: I’ll admit I might be full of s...
This is well-put as usual, which is why you are such an interesting thinker. I don’t have a philosophy, but this describes me pretty much. I have some...
But isn’t that all blathering about ourselves, meaningless in the world, only for the sake of being reinterpreted into some other blather, if in fact ...
Exactly. And if nothing determines language, then all that we say is arbitrary. Yes. Although language can be any which way to the equivocator who is ...
…or beginning…or even a specific process… An eternal reinterpretation…of the same process… How not arbitrarily? From whence comes that which prevents ...
I think there is another aspect to this discussion relating to change, labor, and the ability to accept and overcome suffering. Take all of the obviou...
I think I am simply saying, if one wants to tell someone else “you are wrong” than one is operating from the standpoint that something is objective be...
Don’t these other ideas have to come after addition, if they don’t actually include the idea of addition anyway? But ok. But doesn’t this just raise a...
Perhaps I don’t understand the question, but it seems like everyone is skipping over the obvious. We have to assume everyone can understand at all, an...
Yes, more precise is better. But less snappy. Maybe, you can have any opinion you want, but if one has the two opinions “you can have any opinion you ...
That is well put. But there is a bit of tension between these two terms: “truth is not invented by humans” and “truths become available within human d...
I mean wrong in any sense or application. There is your opinion. There is my opinion. We can leave it at that. But if we want to debate which opinion ...
That deserves its own thread. It’s the nut of so many discussions. If one answers that giving an opinion is “performing a kind of power move, making u...
Hey Jeremy, I hope you don’t mind me hijacking your questions for Count. I think there is a narrow but unique contribution to be gained from post-mode...
Huh? Just because I can do 50 other things doesn’t mean I am not reacting right now to your words. What does “can you” have to do with it? Cause and e...
I certainly see what you are saying. I just think there is a sort of categorical, paradigmatic difference between a government that has to respect fre...
Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still imme...
How about, the ability to engage the beholder’s mind (teaching them, making them reconsider something, saying something better than ever experienced b...
You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of you...
Comments