No, because that question relates to hobbyism. What it's saying is the following: if your life is out of order -- if you're miserable and immature, fo...
Again I agree to disagree. The entire branch of ethics deals with this very issue, as you know. If you relegate philosophy to the purely theoretical, ...
Yes, it is subjective. It's based on a belief that I want humanity to go on. I've been clear about that. Now let's move on to the real world. I'll put...
I don't see how this quotation is relevant. What you quoted was in response to this: I really don't see where this is going anymore, and I don't care ...
So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree. Whether or not we agree that huma...
When I say to look at what people do, I'm not saying that philosophy isn't doing anything. It is. Reading is doing something. I'm meaning it in the co...
Thinking is an activity, and so a kind of "doing." But reagrdless, I like to separate them too -- so in reference to your question: first we have to a...
Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out): So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? Again, wh...
True, it does depend on answers to that question. That's partly what I'm doing: applying that question to our actions, including the activity of "deep...
Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves ...
Exactly. How philosophy fits in with that is relevant, I think. I understand. To be even more clear, I'm asking how philosophy fits in when we look at...
:lol: Touche. Sure -- again, as I said before, I'm not saying it's an either/or: either grim duty that's "good for you" or fun activity with no other ...
Then I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I don't think it's important; quite the opposite. But in the same way a Christian would consider reading the...
Maybe a better way to express my point here is not in quoting Jesus and using parallels with religion, but to switch to what's called "political hobby...
Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there'...
I think it certainly can become an addiction, a habit, a hobby, etc -- like anything else, yes. Something we mindlessly do for "fun." And that's fine....
I don't agree with that, but it's not an irrational position. Very true. Simple in nature but extremely hard in practice. And pretty rare, in fact. I ...
Well done. :clap: Very true. Nor do I care to. They're so irrelevant as to not even be worth the effort. Pointing out that they're frauds, when possib...
Some of that is true, some is blatantly ridiculous. My feeling is that Chomsky could intellectually mop the floor with any of those writers, as he's d...
Like, for example, by reading Maps of Meaning? I literally can't even type the titles of these turds without laughing a little. They sound so profound...
Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Anarchism has a long tradition, and he talks very clearly about it. Related to socialism, Marxism, communism, etc.,...
Because both these men, and you, mean so little to me that's it's not worth the effort of writing it myself. If that's hard for you to figure out, aga...
Give me one example of what you consider passive-aggressive. He's had thousands of interviews, so it shouldn't be hard to point to one. Well they don'...
I see no basis for this remark. I really don't see Chomsky as an egomaniac in anything, politics or otherwise. Especially not to "rival" Peterson and ...
Exactly. I think it's just an avoidance of real work. It's much easier to pontificate about truisms. But also it's a kind of trickery to sell books, b...
:lol: "If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested me...
Then you aren't very widely read. It's no wonder you think this, considering you laud the likes of Jordan Peterson and his "profound" contributions to...
Oh how witty. :rofl: What are these contributions, exactly? Where is the work? Both are pseudo-intellectual charlatans. A lot of posturing, a lot of a...
Nice copy-and-paste of secondary sources, but nowhere does Heidegger disparage Kierkegaard. The only Heidegger quote (I think): This isn't a disparage...
Of nihilism. So perhaps "meaninglessness" but not necessarily bloodshed. I personally think he got it right -- the Christian church is losing its grip...
The lectures being published in two volumes is not the same as him writing two volumes. But yes, he did consider Nietzsche important enough to have fo...
I can't find a single time he "disparages" Kierkegaard. As for Nietzsche, he didn't write two volumes, he taught several courses -- and later than Bei...
One of the most challenging and influential books on this, of course, is Being and Time. Heidegger is highly influenced by Kierkegaard. It's worth the...
How very profound. Actually, you do exist in the future. The future is now. Grandchildren will exist a hundred years from now. People will exist -- pr...
Why does there have to be a "reason"? Shaping the future generation of human beings seems pretty important to me, although I myself still have no kids...
I never once said your source was Richard Dawkins. I never once stated that Aristotle (or Plato) weren't influential in the development of the church....
Oh, you mean like this: Also a great argument. True. Given that you did the exact same thing, I figured it was appropriate. Oh no! :fear: Coming from ...
Sorry, but it wasn't the "poor newbie" who brought rationalism and empiricism into this discussion. What I'm setting straight is the useless, simplist...
By making this distinction, which is useless. Anyone who is a pure empiricist -- if such a thing can be imagined -- and truly believed we were "tabula...
Comments