I accept lots of philosophical propositions that are denied by many able, well-trained philosophers. Am I to believe that in every case in which I believe something many other philosophers deny ... I am right and they are wrong, and that, in every such case, my epistemic circumstances are superior to theirs? Am I to believe that in every such case this is because some neural quirk has provided me with evidence that is inaccessible to them? If I do believe this ... is it the same neutral quirk in each case or a different one? If it is the same one, it begins to look more a case of “my superior cognitive architecture” [but i]f it is a different one in each case –well, that is quite a coincidence, isn’t it? All these evidence-provoking quirks come together in one person, and that person happens to be me. (2010, p. 27) — van Inwagen, P. (2010), “We’re Right. They’re Wrong,” in R. Feldman and T.A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement (Oxford University Press), pp. 10-28.
Recently, I showed that the subjectivist, post modernist, anti-truth position of the left is false, with numerous examples, in an argument peppered with literary and philosophical references, and ran into an ideologically indoctrinated brick wall of direct contradiction. This inability and/or unwillingness to learn plunged me into a sudden and deep depression, for - if humankind cannot learn, cannot correct this mistake, we are doomed. — counterpunch
It's true, they lied. But ultimately, capitalism is necessary to a sustainable future - and the left wing, anti capitalist, carbon tax this, stop that, eat grass and cycle approach won't work. — counterpunch
It's a case for a sustainable and prosperous world. — counterpunch
I cannot make the case to the left - who, I would argue, are using the climate change issue as an anti-capitalist battering ram. They are constructing an argument for eco-communism, overlaid with authoritarian political correctness as a means of control. — counterpunch
I consider myself "on the left", and I don't want authoritarian eco-communism. So I wonder why you'd think all people on the left are the same, or why you think that they are somehow not rational. — Echarmion
The climate catastrophe is now inevitable. — Olivier5
It's gonna start hitting badly by the end of this century only, if we're lucky. What form of 'civilisation' will sustain and survive for centuries ahead in spite of climate change, I don't know. I guess we'll all take a hit, some bigger hit here, some smaller there. But I would hope that societies built on common search for truth and respect for truth stand a better chance of surviving the incoming crises than societies built upon lies. — Olivier5
common search for truth and respect for truth — Olivier5
Have you actively sought to abandon your assumptions and base your arguments in solid realities, like epistemology, evolution and physics, and then see if your philosophical favourites can be sustained in those terms? — counterpunch
are you looking down the wrong end of the telescope - starting with some metaphysical concept, like being, or some moral purpose - like equality, and bending the world around it? — counterpunch
Do you have a tendency to think in terms of superlatives - highest, fastest, biggest, strongest? — counterpunch
Are you unreasonably attracted to nihilistic despair? — counterpunch
All these, and a thousand other things - I've had to force my way past. Have you? — counterpunch
climate catastrophe is not inevitable. It's a matter of the technologies we employ. — counterpunch
My point entirely. Galileo did well BTW. He was wise to live, unlike Bruno. Descartes had his own manuscript almost ready about the superiority of the solar centric system, and he wisely decided to shut up. He did not print it, seeing the risks taken by Galileo.We are technologically advanced, but ideologically, we haven't moved an inch since Galileo was being shown the tools of torture and asked if he might like to reconsider his earlier answer.
political correctness — counterpunch
extinction rebellion — counterpunch
Why do you act in ways that are contrary to human rights like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? — counterpunch
Why do you pursue a "have less-pay more" approach to sustainability? — counterpunch
You may not think you want eco communist authoritarian government and genocide, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. — counterpunch
it was wide open for the Church to embrace Galileo — counterpunch
It begins with massive, base load clean energy from the molten interior of the earth. — counterpunch
It's kinda weird to assume a bunch of things about my opinions after I just asked you why you think everyone on the left is alike, or why you think they are inherently less rational. But in the hopes of getting this conversation somewhere: — Echarmion
Political correctness is useful insofar as it keeps ad-hominem and poisoning of the well at bay. — Echarmion
It makes sense to take care that our language doesn't unduly label and marginalize people who might have important opinions to contribute. — Echarmion
It plays into the whole "culture war" thing, which as far as I am concerned is a distraction from actual problems. — Echarmion
It's a bit of a Truism that having less stuff is more sustainable. — Echarmion
Either you are blisteringly lacking in self awareness, or radically dishonest. Either way - I'm not banging my head against that brick wall. — counterpunch
The irony is that the book that triggered Galileo's second trial -- the Dialogue Concerning the Two Main World Systems -- was written at the request of no other than pope Urban VIII aka Maffeo Barberini, a Florentine humanist and a friend of Galileo (who was from Pise and worked in nearby Florence much). Galileo had stayed out on heliocentrism since his first trial circa 1615. The new pope asked him to present the two systems comparatively in a neutral manner, so Galileo tried to do that but apparently the resulting book was quite slanted in favor of heliocentrism. Maybe Galileo saw his revenge at hand and mocked his past prosecutors a bit too much... — Olivier5
The Jesuits hated it and used it against Urban VIII whom they branded as weak against heretics and Protestants. Geopolitics weren't too good for the Church, thirty years war and all... Urban VII had to repudiate Galileo and agreed to a trial, although he commuted the ultimate prison sentence for his ex friend into house arrest. — Olivier5
You have a plan, huh? Any funders yet? — Olivier5
Recently, I showed that the subjectivist, post modernist, anti-truth position of the left is false, with numerous examples, in an argument peppered with literary and philosophical references, and ran into an ideologically indoctrinated brick wall of direct contradiction. — counterpunch
I have plans. I know what needs to be done and how to do it. But I don't have funds. I've communicated my ideas to a few people who say they're interested in this area, but I get nothing back. — counterpunch
It would require significant investment, but it wouldn't need replacing in 25 years — counterpunch
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.