I honestly believed.

[abandonconflict]

i didnt even imply you were attacking descartes...
you may have inferred it, but thats most likely a result of your immediate and visceral distrust of anyone who reads Ayn Rand and doesnt immediately demand a book burning.

Now you're suggesting I agree with the idea of book burning.

You did imply I was attacking Descartes, by giving the impression that you were defending his views on the existence of the soul. This was in response to my observation that he sought physical evidence to support his philosophical and ontological views which directly contradicts what you claimed regarding philosophy being completely unrelated to physical sciences. Whether or not the science employed by philosophers is empirically sound is of little value to the conclusion in philosophy and this tactic of yours to dodge direct counters to your claims by implying that my argument had a different meaning is just plain rude. In short, I wasn't talking about Descartes to point out if he was right or wrong, I was talking about Descartes (after you mentioned him) to give an example of the interconnected relationship of philosophy and science which was the topic.

This highlights your most frequently used tactic in argument fwiw, which is to falsely attribute views to your opponent. I think you do this because you're not actually reading what they clearly claim since that would require reading something you didn't write yourself.

 

[Dr Kynes]

... not THAT kind of masonry ...

... this kind. cn

silly bruin. we all know what kind of construction you're interested in:

They seal in the freshness.

 

[abandonconflict]

You have been falsely attributing views to me for this entire thread Kynes. You have basically contended that Libertarian Socialists are loyal to the Soviet Union.

 

[cannabineer]

silly bruin. we all know what kind of construction you're interested in:

They seal in the freshness.

Got it, but to meander back to topic ... this idea of small groups and voluntary associations is Mesolithic. Any sort of civic structure is thus excluded, which is needed to make any sort of material structure (masonry, irrigation, towns etc.) that began us on our path to technical badassery - so this is also out. She was a utopian, one from a long line of simplistic social thinkers. Jmo. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

Now you're suggesting I agree with the idea of book burning.

You did imply I was attacking Descartes, by giving the impression that you were defending his views on the existence of the soul. This was in response to my observation that he sought physical evidence to support his philosophical and ontological views which directly contradicts what you claimed regarding philosophy being completely unrelated to physical sciences. Whether or not the science employed by philosophers is empirically sound is of little value to the conclusion in philosophy and this tactic of yours to dodge direct counters to your claims by implying that my argument had a different meaning is just plain rude. In short, I wasn't talking about Descartes to point out if he was right or wrong, I was talking about Descartes (after you mentioned him) to give an example of the interconnected relationship of philosophy and science which was the topic.

This highlights your most frequently used tactic in argument fwiw, which is to falsely attribute views to your opponent. I think you do this because you're not actually reading what they clearly claim since that would require reading something you didn't write yourself.

<--- one of those usually indicates somebody who is poking a little good natured fun.

the book burning bit was, as most would assume, an humorous interlude, and not an assertion that youre about to start torching libraries and burning authors at the stake.

descartes looked for the soul and found dick. even himself did not declare that the soul is therefore absent, he decided it was intangible. thats why he is a philosopher not an anatomist.

science seeks the answers to the questions of the physical reality, philosophers look for the answers in the HUMAN reality which is often quite different from actual reality.
however, as all things are observed through the human perspective, philosophy can claim jurisdiction over EVERY human endeavour.
this does not mean they are always right, or even always not insane. (nietsche, tycho brae, machiavelli, david icke)

 

[cannabineer]

<--- one of those usually indicates somebody who is poking a little good natured fun.

the book burning bit was, as most would assume, an humorous interlude, and not an assertion that youre about to start torching libraries and burning authors at the stake.

descartes looked for the soul and found dick. even himself did not declare that the soul is therefore absent, he decided it was intangible. thats why he is a philosopher not an anatomist.

science seeks the answers to the questions of the physical reality, philosophers look for the answers in the HUMAN reality which is often quite different from actual reality.
however, as all things are observed through the human perspective, philosophy can claim jurisdiction over EVERY human endeavour.
this does not mean they are always right, or even always not insane. (nietsche, tycho brae, machiavelli, david icke)

The trouble is that philosophy can only make "soft" claims about reality, human or otherwise. The best it can do is strive for consistency - internal, then maybe external. So far no model in our minds has done a comprehensive job ... even though a surprising number of people believe (claim, declare, shout from the line of pike) that it can, and did. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

You have been falsely attributing views to me for this entire thread Kynes. You have basically contended that Libertarian Socialists are loyal to the Soviet Union.

no. libertarian socialism is a disguise used by modern marxists to conceal their marxist leanings. the entire "philosophy" is based on siezing the property of others and claiming it for the collective (rather than "Nationalizing" it for "The State") and having these "Means of Production" properties administered by a board made up of the "employees" who work there (which is totally not a Soviet, somehow) and their production being used for the greater good of the "community" (rather than the glory of "The State").

i never even implied that you were some kind of woolyheaded USSR fifth columnist, but your "political philosophy" has too much in common with "Autocratic State Socialism" (Stalinist Marxism) to be simple accident, and is too implausible to be a real political theory, or even a political hypothesis.

the cited wikipedia page was the sort of amateurish gibberish that gets pumped out of neo-leftist psuedo-radicals on their first weekend on campus, while they are still drunk on their new freedom from the 'rents, but not yet fully cognizant of the responsibilities they must now shoulder in fixing their own meals and tending to their own laundry. after the first semester they will look back on their fervent Livejournal entries and Twitter posts with shame, and the realization that they were totally full of shit, and social democratic nanny states are the way to go, just before they Delete Fucking Everything! and remake their image in the mold of thoreaux or trotsky for a few semesters.

in brief, "libertarian socialists" are dupes, the very soul of the "fellow travellers" who make the advance of marxism so much easier by greasing the wheels just before they get crushed underneath the juggernaut as befits counter-revolutionary petty bourgeois pigdogs who are too foolish to submit or flee from the proletarian zeal of the true revolutionaries.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The trouble is that philosophy can only make "soft" claims about reality, human or otherwise. The best it can do is strive for consistency - internal, then maybe external. So far no model in our minds has done a comprehensive job ... even though a surprising number of people believe (claim, declare, shout from the line of pike) that it can, and did. cn

 

[cannabineer]

^^he should be touching pinky to lip, the pig. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

libertarian socialism is a disguise used by modern marxists to conceal their marxist leanings.

All capitalists live by the Ayn Rand code, fap to pictures of Ayn Rand, name their children after her and consider her writings holy writ.

 

[abandonconflict]

descartes looked for the soul and found dick. even himself did not declare that the soul is therefore absent, he decided it was intangible. thats why he is a philosopher not an anatomist.

It wouldn't matter if he found a jet airplane. If philosophy was not interconnected with physical science, he would not have looked. I find it odd that you feel so compelled to repeatedly remind that this is not evidence that there is no soul as if you feel I'm trying to deprive you of this.

 

[UncleBuck]

Forced social safety nets breed poverty and laziness (in many different ways). There have been plenty of organizations who have done a good job assisting the poor and unfortunate without government forcing anything.

so i'm sure that poverty and laziness did not exist before the safety net, and if they did, non governmental organizations took care of it better than our safety net does.

do the stats bear this out?

 

[Dr Kynes]

It wouldn't matter if he found a jet airplane. If philosophy was not interconnected with physical science, he would not have looked. I find it odd that you feel so compelled to repeatedly remind that this is not evidence that there is no soul as if you feel I'm trying to deprive you of this.

dude. seriously.

descartes' vivsections to find the soul found no such organ. if he had found it he would not be called a philosopher he would be called an anatomist. philosophy stops being philosophy when the philosopher's focus leaves the humanistic world of philosophy and enters physics, anatomy, biochemistry, neurology, or any other discipline of science, or even psychiatry, metaphysics, parapsychology and other fanciful flights of religion.

thats why philosophers are so unemployable. their expertise is by definition unprofitable for those who make buy transport and sell real goods and services. if a philospher makes his living by any means other than writing dry poorly received pamphlets and journal articles he becomes an "author" a "sociologist" or a "patient in an insane asylum"

also, if he found a jet airplane in the body of a dog or a horse im pretty sure that would be a significant discovery... he wouldnt be called decartes the philosopher, he would be descartes, the genius who discovered a jet airplane in the colon of a horse and invented shitty airline travel.

 

[abandonconflict]

dude. seriously.

descartes' vivsections to find the soul found no such organ. if he had found it he would not be called a philosopher he would be called an anatomist. philosophy stops being philosophy when the philosopher's focus leaves the humanistic world of philosophy and enters physics, anatomy, biochemistry, neurology, or any other discipline of science, or even psychiatry, metaphysics, parapsychology and other fanciful flights of religion.

thats why philosophers are so unemployable. their expertise is by definition unprofitable for those who make buy transport and sell real goods and services. if a philospher makes his living by any means other than writing dry poorly received pamphlets and journal articles he becomes an "author" a "sociologist" or a "patient in an insane asylum"

also, if he found a jet airplane in the body of a dog or a horse im pretty sure that would be a significant discovery... he wouldnt be called decartes the philosopher, he would be descartes, the genius who discovered a jet airplane in the colon of a horse and invented shitty airline travel.

If he was a philosopher and not an anatomist, why vivisect anything?

 

[cannabineer]

dude. seriously.

descartes' vivsections to find the soul found no such organ. if he had found it he would not be called a philosopher he would be called an anatomist. philosophy stops being philosophy when the philosopher's focus leaves the humanistic world of philosophy and enters physics, anatomy, biochemistry, neurology, or any other discipline of science, or even psychiatry, metaphysics, parapsychology and other fanciful flights of religion.

thats why philosophers are so unemployable. their expertise is by definition unprofitable for those who make buy transport and sell real goods and services. if a philospher makes his living by any means other than writing dry poorly received pamphlets and journal articles he becomes an "author" a "sociologist" or a "patient in an insane asylum"

also, if he found a jet airplane in the body of a dog or a horse im pretty sure that would be a significant discovery... he wouldnt be called decartes the philosopher, he would be descartes, the genius who discovered a jet airplane in the colon of a horse and invented shitty airline travel.

I disagree. Science was called natural philosophy until not so long ago. And as Abandon has pointed out, science has its associated philosophy of methodological naturalism. All consequent thought has, by default, a philosophical component. Cogito ergo sum philosophus. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

"philosophy stops being philosophy when the philosopher's focus leaves the humanistic world of philosophy and enters physics, anatomy, biochemistry, neurology, or any other discipline of science, or even psychiatry, metaphysics, parapsychology and other fanciful flights of religion."

lol. metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, kynes.

i bet you're a hit at bircher parties though.

 

[Trolling]

Why don't we just let those crazy fucks blow each other up, seriously not worth trying anymore, they're too dumb and too religious.


No racist.

 

[Harrekin]

I disagree. Science was called natural philosophy until not so long ago. And as Abandon has pointed out, science has its associated philosophy of methodological naturalism. All consequent thought has, by default, a philosophical component. Cogito ergo sum philosophus. cn

I wouldve said philosophy is a precursor to science.

For example; astronomy was a philosophical pursuit until it was "proven".

 

[cannabineer]

I wouldve said philosophy is a precursor to science.

For example; astronomy was a philosophical pursuit until it was "proven".

I think it still is. I prefer the sobriquet "natural philosopher" to "scientist". For too many, a scientist has become a priest of the Current Truth. "Natural philosopher" is pompous at first glance, but the humbler choice when one thinks it through. Jmo. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

"philosophy stops being philosophy when the philosopher's focus leaves the humanistic world of philosophy and enters physics, anatomy, biochemistry, neurology, or any other discipline of science, or even psychiatry, metaphysics, parapsychology and other fanciful flights of religion."

lol. metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, kynes.

i bet you're a hit at bircher parties though.

metaphysics is no part of philosophy any more than biblical scholarship is scholarship.

metaphysics by definition uses the jargon and trappings of physics in a vain attempt to prove the existence of ghosts, psychic powers, the mayan doomsday prophesies and justin bieber's "musical talent"

next youll assert that "crypto-zoLOLogy" is a branch of the biological sciences.

and Coast to Coast AM is a "peer reviewed journal"