and the next generation will be known as the virus boomers — unenlightened
We're gonna have another wave of boomers? :groan: — Evil
so what do you think we're all going to do all day? — unenlightened
I just hope china doesn't get more global influence from this. My job depends on English speaking countries holding the power — Evil
The speed of travel, finance and communication has been increasing for 4000 years. So no, I don't consider the advent of internet revolutionary at all. — Benkei
Rationality's a fraud.
— fishfry
Rationality is a tool, and like all tools it is only well-suited for certain purposes. It can get you from a set of premisses to necessary conclusions, but it cannot stipulate those initial assumptions. That goes for both theoretical and practical rationality--if you want to achieve X, rationality can help you identify means to that end, but it cannot specify X itself; that requires a deliberate choice on your part. — aletheist
But why do good neighbors need a fence in the first place? The whole notion seems contradictory to me. — Echarmion
It is not rationality in general that is problematic, but the distinctly modern dominance of technical rationality, which is now widely treated as if it were the only legitimate form. If you are interested, I wrote three one-page columns about this for a structural engineering magazine several years ago: "Knowledge, Rationality, and Judgment" (here); "The Rationality of Practice" (here); and "Rationality and Judgment Revisited" (here). They all include suggestions for further reading.Lately I'm coming to understand what I take to be this postmodernist point of view. The suspicion of rationality itself. — fishfry
It is not rationality in general that is problematic, but the distinctly modern dominance of technical rationality, which is now widely treated as if it were the only legitimate form. — aletheist
If you are interested, I wrote three one-page columns about this for a structural engineering magazine several years ago: "Knowledge, Rationality, and Judgment" (here); "The Rationality of Practice" (here); and "Rationality and Judgment Revisited" (here). They all include suggestions for further reading. — aletheist
I'm not content to smolder in the face of capitalism. how do we use this fuck you energy in a way that isnt a forum fuck you? I mean this. People are really coming together now. How to use it? — csalisbury
I'm not content to smolder in the face of capitalism. how do we use this fuck you energy in a way that isnt a forum fuck you? I mean this. People are really coming together now. How to use it? — csalisbury
So it goes. I bet many historians will smile when telling this story.Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could bring socialism to the US. Historians will note the irony. — fishfry
You're always asking for personal solutions to transpersonal problems. I don't have any answers for you. I don't have any answers for any particular people, and I am in no position to offer them. Here I just normalize a certain discourse, make it stock standard and create an atmosphere - make the obvious unobvious and the unobvious obvious. You do whatever you want or can. — StreetlightX
So it goes. I bet many historians will smile when telling this story.
Of course, it's going to be marketed only as "socialism for the rich". Remember the half trillion slush fund Trump is going to personally administer? That's the way it's going to be marketed by the opposition. — ssu
My understanding is that Boeing turned the money down, because the string attached was a government stake in the company. It's bad enough for them, I guess, to deal with the FAA without having to deal with Treasury Department. Nationalize the SOBs. — Bitter Crank
It's bailing out the stupid, corrupt, and greedy rich. That's not capitalism. — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.