Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 01:47 AM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 12:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That being said, how do you define knowledge?

Justified true belief.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 01:51 AM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(20-01-2014 01:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 12:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That being said, how do you define knowledge?

Justified true belief.

Well that just opens a whole new can of worms.

"How is it justified?"

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
20-01-2014, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 05:26 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 02:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I will have to think on that, but it will be connected to the actual.
My first thought too. The problem is, we don't have objective knowledge of all that is actual, that is why the philosophical position of empiricism is considered to be weaker than rationalism.

I think a good argument is one of my teacher's, that we are naturally connected with the whole of reality. If something is thinkable, then we are capable to understand and verify it. If an idea is incoherent, then it wasn't real to begin with.
And that means us, people of flesh. Our knowledge begin in mind and we can extend our grasp by machines, but we can not say that only that which is measurable by mechanical instruments is real. Machines are not connected to the whole of reality, only to the small part of it which they were designed to measure. If they can't measure something, we begin with an idea again and tweak the machines or build new ones. So I think the argument could be made, that we create knowledge by the way we connect ourselves to some aspect of reality.
I wonder what happens with knowledge as people change. What changes is maybe what do they even consider a knowledge.

(20-01-2014 01:45 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No, Molyneux is not a thinker and neither was Ayn Rand. Molyneux is a cunt just as "Ayn Rand" who was actually Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum was. Rand's Objectivism is just Jewish Kabbalistic nonsense pretending to be philosophy.

The thirty-six inhabitants of "Galt's Gulch" are Rand's version of the Talmud's lamedvovniks, i.e. the thirty-six righteous people in each generation for whose sake--and only for whose sake--the universe is sustained by Yahweh. I urge you to pause and think about just how ethnocentric and exceptionalist that idea is: Yahweh sustains the entire universe merely for the sake of 36 Jews, everyone else is just a "passenger" but other Jews are of course first class passengers.

What is funny about you Luminon is that where there are genuine quasi-conspiracies to subvert European culture and identity you completely miss them and your attention is consumed by imaginary conspiracies.

All that Rand did was secularise Jewish Kabbalistic myth and superstition and retain the numerological mumbo-jumbo so that other Jews can recognise it for what it is. Molyneux is critical of Jews and Judaism but his promotion of Rand's bullshit negates that.
I have literally no idea what are you talking about. I have listened to dozens of hours of Molyneux and never heard any of these things. Rand was Jewish, that much I heard from him. He was critical to Rand, that she didn't put into practice all that she preached and Molyneux is very sensitive to that. He read her books as a teenager and they inspired him, but he mentions her only rarely.

I think Rand was on the rebound from Communists, she became obsessed about private property and based a whole philosophy around it, just to piss them off. Pretty much like Satanists used to make parody versions of Catholic mass, with naked woman instead of an altar and whiskey instead of mass wine.

Yes, Molyneux can be a cunt when he talks about Resource-Based Economy, which is something he genuinely can't comprehend, but in all other areas he's sharp.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(20-01-2014 01:51 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Well that just opens a whole new can of worms.

Indeed it does and I can't be bothered detailing the argument today. But it is a discussion worth having so I'll make a note of the thread.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
20-01-2014, 06:19 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(20-01-2014 05:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I have literally no idea what are you talking about.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't read it my post will make no sense.

Quote:I think Rand was on the rebound from Communists, she became obsessed about private property and based a whole philosophy around it, just to piss them off. Pretty much like Satanists used to make parody versions of Catholic mass, with naked woman instead of an altar and whiskey instead of mass wine.

That is an interesting interpretation. Look also into what I commented on regarding Atlas Shrugged I think you will like it.

Quote:Yes, Molyneux can be a cunt when he talks about Resource-Based Economy, which is something he genuinely can't comprehend, but in all other areas he's sharp.

I don't share your high opinion of him. His stuff about relationships is harmful. He is more of an ideologue than a thinker and I am genuinely surprised that you have anything positive to say about him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 04:20 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 04:42 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(20-01-2014 06:19 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't read it my post will make no sense.
No, I have watched the first part of the movie, but... Well, I couldn't. I like sci-fi, but one where businessmen are the heroes and they don't do rent-seeking (bribing the govt) is more like fantasy. Maybe I should give it another chance, but I don't watch movies much, they're too slow.
Maybe I'll read the Fountainhead, or find some good summary of it.

(20-01-2014 06:19 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is an interesting interpretation. Look also into what I commented on regarding Atlas Shrugged I think you will like it.
...lemme see, I think it's this one. I'll take a look at it.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid395988

(20-01-2014 06:19 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I don't share your high opinion of him. His stuff about relationships is harmful. He is more of an ideologue than a thinker and I am genuinely surprised that you have anything positive to say about him.
Well, you know me. I have a dozen second chances for everyone. If someone's a good guy, it's good to know him. If someone's a dick, I'm glad to feel superior. I just have no use for wishy-washy people. Some people have both, they have lots of stuff to learn from and some stuff that I can delightfully criticize. And in both cases I need to know exactly how superior I am or what exactly I learn, otherwise it's all for nothing. Molyneux is one of these.

So what do you have against him, how did you learn what's wrong with him? Obviously not the same way as me, I understand Resource Based Economy, he doesn't, and he's a dick about it. But you're not into RBE, so how? I think Molyneux is largely salvageable, because if he knew what I know, he'd know that RBE is the most supportive environment. Right now he's forced to go into really convoluted explanations to wrap people around money and market. In any case, you can check my logic, if it jibes.

From what I see, he just pointed out that family members are polite to strangers, but treat each other as pieces of shit. I looked at my family and behold, it was true and it had consequences for which I previously had no explanation whatsoever.
I think treating our loved ones as pieces of shit is harmful, not Molyneux. Of course when we say that aloud, there's the inevitable shitstorm. IMHO, people outside see the shitstorm and think Molyneux caused it.
But that's precisely why we never say anything to our parents, because we know there'd be a shitstorm and bad existential consequences for us, dependent children. And parents grow corrupt, because they have no self-reflection in their power, they can use any force or manipulation to make their "job" easier and nobody tells them anything, least of all the children, who are much weaker, smaller and dependent. The only way to survive and get along is to internalize the feeling, to consider that a right thing to do and to repeat the same practices on another generation. To do any otherwise means for parents to face a huge shit-mountain of guilt (or pain) for acting in an evil way towards innocent and weaker people (children) - and few people can do that. People rather go to war and die if their mother tells them to go, or they would have to realize that their mother is doing wrong and was doing wrong all their life. So this topic is quite a Frank Herbert's can of worms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: