Comments

  • Social Conservatism
    For example should the press become like the American one, full 85%+ of progressive propaganda?Agustino

    Where did you pull this number from? Freedom, in this case, is determined by the degree to which journalists are free to speak their minds and report the facts as they see them. It may well be that the most popular news outlets are those with a leftist bias, but in a democracy, this is nothing to be surprised about. The majority tends to win. As long as those of opposing views are not being, oh I don't know, murdered for dissenting opinions, then there's not much to be upset about. There is no gun pressed to the head of the average American, forcing them to read Salon and other crappy leftist outlets. So your problem is in fact the electorate, not the media.

    If you go out of the party line of the New Left, you'll be isolated and effectively thrown outAgustino

    Yes, but the key here is that the government doesn't do this. And the person thrown out can then go work for Fox News or Breitbart or something.

    You may disagree with itAgustino

    Yes, I disagree with human rights violations and will continue to do so.

    It's forcing a positive changeAgustino

    I don't see it.
  • Social Conservatism
    For the simple reason that it controls legislation. If government creates legislation which gives me tax-breaks if I'm a small business (say less than 100K revenue) and employ more than 5 people - then more people will open their businesses. This will create a favorable macro-economic environment for small businesses with literarily no negative effect on the economy. Likewise, government legislation will determine the ease I can collaborate with other firms - how easy it is to break a contract and get away with it, whether the bureaucracy requires me to employ a lawyer from the start, and so forth.Agustino

    Agreed, but these are negative interventions (relieving burdens), not positive ones like forcing companies to stay.
  • Social Conservatism
    Interesting insights, but the Russian press is still objectively less free than the Western press.

    Putin is able to get things doneAgustino

    Yes, human rights and international law violating things.
  • Social Conservatism
    Why would you say so?Agustino

    I mean to say that I think he actually has certain principles he holds to, principles I disagree with, but principles all the same. Trump and Hillary do not have any principles; they are pure opportunists.

    which creates a stable macro-economic environmentAgustino

    This is the key assumption I would press you on. Why do you think it has done, does, or is capable of doing this?
  • Social Conservatism
    The Russian media is actually quite a bit more honest than its Western counterparts.Agustino

    About what? The murders committed by Putin's thugs among their own ranks?
  • Social Conservatism
    Imagine how much better the world wold have been today if Gore had won. We will never know of course but I'm certain there would have been no invasion of Iraq. If Trump were to win it literally could mean the end of Western civilization.Wayfarer

    Wow. I saw this quoted in a later comment and had to wipe my eyes a few times. First, the world would have been a better place if Gore had won? The whole world, objectively better, because of one Albert Gore? Really? Second, I agree with the Iraq war, so speak for yourself. Third, if you think Trump winning spells the "literal" end of Western civilization, then I'd be curious to know why and how, because that is perhaps the most wildly exaggerated and absurd claim of the three.
  • Social Conservatism
    We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump.Agustino

    We don't actually, which is why I'm not voting. I greatly regret voting for Obama four years ago, but that was before I drifted more to the right. Given my perspective now, I cannot distinguish who the lesser of two evils is in this election. Thankfully, I am not required to choose.

    Put restrictions on businesses seeking to move their workforce offshore (to Mexico or China). Encourage an entrepreneurial mindset. Place trade restrictions against currency manipulators.Agustino

    This trade isolationism has been tried and failed before, during the '30s. When you do this, you raise the price of all goods and services. Moreover, forcing companies to stay will simply mean the government subsidizing them so they can compete. Bigger, more bureaucratic government is not something I would think someone on the right, such as yourself, would be in favor of.

    He's not a fake lying politician like ObamaAgustino

    Yes he is. Every other sentence he utters contradicts the previous one. As of a couple years ago, he was on the left, supporting people like Hillary at charity events and galas. His pivot to the right on certain issues is purely down to the fact that he's running as a Republican. So he's as fake and as much of a liar as Hillary and Obama. Although, in Obama's case, I think he's a bit more authentic than the former two; it's just he's authentically wrong.
  • Dialogue on the Christian Religion
    That doesn't make any sense. Being can used generically, like the word thing or object. The scholastics, for example, do this. So do Kant and Schopenhauer (e.g. being-in-itself is just another way to phrase thing-in-itself). None of these people are materialists.
  • Social Conservatism
    a venal, self-serving narcissist sorrounded by a bunch of opportunist and unprincipled cronies.Wayfarer

    This describes Hillary quite nicely, though.
  • Dialogue on the Christian Religion
    although in practice, if you speak of 'beings', you're generally referring to humans, are you not?Wayfarer

    "Beings" can be synonymous with "things."
  • Social Conservatism
    Eagleton? Eww.

    He's always reminded me of a modern day left's GK Chesterton. A peevish and pretentious literary hit man who is way too transparent in his attempts to sound witty and clever. That sort of thing should be experimented with on forums like this, not in one's professional writing.
  • Narratives?
    I'm not so sure this point would be so trivial if not for postmodernism.anonymous66

    Meh.

    It simply means that the postmodernist has no recourse to disagree with me or say that I'm wrong if I reject postmodernism, for my dismissal of it, according to them, is conditioned by the discourse which led me, inextricably, into doing just that, and no one discourse is better or more true than any other.
  • Narratives?
    Darth gets it.
  • Social Conservatism
    I want to note that I didn't say that Scruton's arguments were foolish but that for conservatives to defend fox hunting is foolish. Though if I recall the last time I read his essay, I was unimpressed with his arguments for reasons similar to what Whiskey has given. There are other conservative principles, such as the conservation of nature and the notion of natural right as applied to sentient animals, from which one could find Scruton's position repugnant to conservatism.
  • Narratives?
    First things first, who deleted my previous comments? I thought they were quite inoffensive and rather witty myself. Whatever the merits of the latter claim, I did not, more specifically, use foul language, call for someone's murder, or anything of that kind. Whoever deleted them owes me an explanation, at the very least, and I must say I am fairly disappointed in this forum at the moment.

    Your post tells me that you haven't paid much attention to what I have said to you. I was very clear that I didn't have the time to get into all the reasons why I am opposed to postmodernism, so I merely offered a brief precis as to why I have become opposed to it.

    That being said, there is a very simple reason I implied earlier for why I reject postmodernism, which is supplied by postmodernism itself. To wit, if all truth is socially constructed, and there is no objective standard of truth, then I am free to reject postmodernism at will and without reason.

    Thus, in one important sense, postmodernism cannot be "fought." It can only be dismissed. Nothing I say to a postmodernist need ever make any difference to them, since they have rejected the very principles with which we might decide some point of dispute. I'm not interested in shadow boxing and so will stick to fighting real opponents.

    Someone who labels Schopenhauer's metaphysics nonsense, which I have read many people do both in the secondary literature and not, is different from my labeling postmodernism nonsense. In the former case, one applies the label based on having deduced counter-arguments to those one takes Schopenhauer to be presenting. That is to say, one rejects Schopenhauer based on the same rules of the game he himself employs. If someone rejects Schopenhauer thusly, I have absolutely no issue with them.

    Now, my rejecting postmodernism as nonsense is primarily due to the fact that they reject those rules, which in turn enables me to reject it. Once you say that words no longer correspond to reality, that they construct reality, or that nothing is outside the text, etc then we cannot but talk past each other. Such claims, which amount to epistemological and moral relativism, are self-refuting, in that they assume that which they attempt to disprove. But if the person to whom I am speaking still refuses to cede this point, then I'm done and dusted with the whole affair.

    certain ways of looking at the world (our lenses, if you will) can and do cloud judgment and perception. But instead of seeing that as evidence that the concept of truth is incoherent, I see it as a reminder to consider my own biases, and the biases of others, no matter how objective they sound.anonymous66

    A trivial point made and realized by those who aren't postmodernists. Notice also that you were able to make it without tortuous vocabulary. That's my only comment, as the rest of your post appears sensible to me.
  • Narratives?
    You may have noticed that I haven't posted much on the forum lately and that all of my recent posts are rather short in length. If by your question you are telling me, with a straight face, to provide all the reasons why I greatly dislike postmodernism and its maddeningly obscure jargon, then I'm afraid I don't have the time. Nor would I enjoy doing so, since, as I directly implied, I try to avoid thinking or talking about it, unless to playfully make fun of it. I also doubt that you're really very interested in hearing what I have to say, given the sarcastically dismissive tenor of your posts.

    If, on the other hand, you want a short and simplistic answer to your question, then I will say that, quite as one might expect, one finds postmodernism to be nonsense, if, being in possession of moderate intelligence, and after having made an earnest attempt to understand it, no such understanding is forthcoming. One could still be wrong, of course, but it is quite impossible to be certain about very many things. Some ideas are difficult to comprehend due to the inherent complexity and depth of their insight or because the author is an unintentionally poor writer. Other ideas are difficult to comprehend because they are incoherent to begin with or else are trivial ideas given the illusion of complexity through the use of jargon. I find, in my attempts to understand postmodernism, that it consistently presents either of the latter sort of idea.
  • Narratives?
    Oh, I see now. You're currently in the bowls of Derrida, judging by the other thread, and feel more than a little twinged that I've expressed antipathy toward the movement of which he is a part, given that you are likely sympathetic to both him and it in some measure; hence also the increasingly strained attempts at sarcasm evident in your latest posts. In short, I pissed you off, and now you're being a dick.

    Anyone who thinks the prose of Schopenhauer is as obscure, unreadable, and pretentious as Derrida's is not a very honest or serious person. Not that my saying this matters, since if you agree with Derrida, then I can dismiss you without argument due to his avowal of the inauthenticity and unreality of the speaker.
  • Narratives?
    whilstcsalisbury

    Means the same as while. Aren't you British? You should know that.
  • Narratives?
    Conveniently, there can be no agreed upon definition of postmodernism, because that would be to essentialize it, according to postmodernists. There are an infinity of meanings and no true referents, so just go with what feels right to you.

    Avoid people who use nonsensical jargon, are prone to equivocation, and seem inordinately fond of identity politics. Only then will you be able to resist the urge to find the nearest car, pop open the hood, and start chugging sulfuric liquid whilst lighting a match beneath you.
  • Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump
    If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life.Harry Hindu

    Speak for yourself, lecher.
  • Narratives?
    The multiplicity of narratives does not in the least endanger the oneness of truth.

    Postmodernists make me want to gargle battery acid whilst burning alive in a chemical fire. I'm glad you're skeptical of them.
  • Social Conservatism
    Seeing as modern liberalism hasn't all that much in common with classical liberalism, I suppose you could say that I'm, in this day and age, a conservative liberal...Heister Eggcart

    Relevant to the thread and now one of my favorite essays: http://people.virginia.edu/~smd5r/Kolak01.htm
  • Social Conservatism
    is pro fox huntingWhiskeyWhiskers

    That's my main problem with him. Other than this aberration, I think Scruton is an eminently sensible thinker. And a wonderful writer.

    Fox hunting, and hunting in general, needn't be something conservatives ought to feel obliged to support, and in my opinion, they are fools to do so.
  • Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump
    The offended should vote for somebody else--like Hilary or Jill.Bitter Crank

    They ought not vote at all, then.

    If Donald Trump should get elected, then impeachment proceedings should begin immediately after his swearing in ceremony. His impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors relate to his extreme obtuseness, his imbecility, his crooked business dealings, tax avoidance, and general intelligence-insulting utterances.Bitter Crank

    The same could be said of Hillary.
  • Social Conservatism
    I agree with Wayfarer that your view sounds similar to what in Europe would be exemplified by Christian Democratic parties. I've always lamented the lack of such a thing in the US, where the right is, in my view, an apologist for corporatism and the left an apologist for abortion, identity politics, etc. Put another way, thoughtful conservatives are hard to find in the Republican party and Blue Dogs are hard to find in the Democratic party nowadays.
  • Currently Reading
    Interesting. I envy your left brain ability.
  • What is it like to study a degree in Philosophy?
    What bizarre eccentricities are you talking about? Weird clothes and drug use?intrapersona

    I'm speaking mostly about intangibles here. And it's not just philosophy professors, either. Many professors are quite simply very strange, awkward human beings.
  • Currently Reading
    What's your degree, if you don't mind me asking?
  • What is it like to study a degree in Philosophy?
    In my experience, many professional philosophers, that most farcical of oxymorons, are gargantuan egotists. Be prepared to not have your emails read, to engage in passive aggressive conversations, and to put up with a host of downright bizarre eccentricities.
  • Majoring in philosophy, tips, advice from seasoned professionals /undergrad/grad/
    If I may add a point, I would say that whatever you do, don't go into great debt to do it.
  • I want to kill myself even though I'm not depressed.
    FuckQuestion

    *sigh*

    life seems pointless and with no purposeQuestion

    Your crutch is the word "seems" here. Find out what is before you make a decision about what seems. Otherwise you will have made a rash, ill-informed decision.
  • Why the oppressed can be racist
    That your title needs being stated is a sad commentary on today's social and political climate.
  • I hate hackers
    Well gentlemen.

    post-36877-agree-to-disagree-gif-Anchorma-kFLi.gif
  • I hate hackers
    I deliberately excluded that category. Sex isn't necessary in the slightest.
  • I hate hackers
    If you think about it, most human activity outside of eating, drinking, sleeping, defecating, and friendship is a gigantic and unnecessary waste of time.
  • What the heck is Alt-Right?
    freedom has never, until the last 200 years, been understood as the ability to do whatever you wantAgustino

    This reminds of a Ford car company ad I keep being spammed with:



    Every time it comes on I want to stab my ears. The definition of freedom you dispute is now totally ingrained, sadly.
  • What the heck is Alt-Right?
    There's no way that reporter was not a self-identified liberal who's voting for Hillary.
  • Dennett says philosophy today is self-indulgent and irrelevant
    It's ironic he says this, as Wayfarer pointed out, because he's one of the chief exponents of philosophy-as-handmaiden to science and therefore the cause of increasing public opinion (especially among his New Atheist cohort) that philosophy is useless twaddle.