Wondering where you disappeared to pood.
Internet connectivity issues, Steve. Should be resolved shortly. It’s a simple matter of technology, which is derived from science, which is derived from philosophy. As an engineer, you should know that.
But you don’t.
Anyway
What is the point of your little rant? How is it remotely responsive to what I posted the other day?
But let’s disassemble it anyhow.
Thank you for ending week with a good belly laugh.
Hell hath no fury like a philosopher scorned?
1. Your argument is some philosophers have influenced scientific theories, forester philosophy guides science.
No, that is not my argument, Steve. (I assume by “forester” you mean “therefore.”) My argument is that science and philosophy are inextricably intertwined, and I have given you numerous examples of this, not a single one of which you have contravened or even tried to refute.
2. If2 What abut all te scnce tat get doe wiothout anu need or refence to any philopshy?
What about all the science that doesn’t? In fact no science has ever gotten done without philosophy because science is an epistemological endeavor to discover the ontology of the world. Do note that epistemology and ontology are branches of metaphysics — all subsets of philosophy.
P1 There are 100,000 Zogs.
2. I have seen 100 Zogs and they were all green.
C All Zogs are green
Any problem with logic?
Is this a joke?
Yes, Steve, there is a problem with the logic — logic being a branch of philosophy.
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. So the argument is invalid (as opposed to unsound). Can you tell me why? Hint: Hume … a philosopher. Problem of induction, you know. But if you know about the problem of induction, then you are doing philosophy. Oh, irony.
P1 I know of a few cases where a philosopher influenced science.
P2 I know nothing of all that goes o in science.
As to the above, I believe I know more about science than you do, Steve.
Now let’s circle back to the issue.
What did you mean with your rant against ethnicities and cultures different from your own? Perhaps you meant this:
P1 Italians can be discriminatory and insular.
P2 Chinese can be discriminatory and insular
P3 Blacks and Latinos can be discriminatory and insular
P4 blah blah blah yada yada yada etc.
C It’s OK for white males to be discriminatory and insular.
No? Didn’t mean that? Then what did you mean? Why did you even write the post? Notice too that this is a philosophical discussion — and that the above is called an argument, which comes from philosophy. The branch, again, is called logic.
And in the above, we are engaging in a discussion of ethics and morality — which are also branches of philosophy, and not of science, mathematics or engineering.
Isn’t that interesting?
Why spoke the word woke? To provoke? To invoke the hoary old idea that old white men are oppressed? Like you I am an old white man but I have never felt oppressed. Because I never have been. Nor have you.
But many others have. The black slaves and the former slaves who inherited Jim Crow. The native Americans who were slaughtered. The Chinese immigrants who were treated like shit. The women in America who could not vote until 1920. The gays who were diagnosed by the psychotic psychiatric industry as mentally ill as recently as 1969. On and on. Today it is the attack on trans people.
Did you ever have to face any of that, Steve? You or your forebears?
Didn’t think so.
If you feel somehow targeted by woke, maybe you should haul your head out of your fucking ass and comprehend that toxic white masculinity is now being subjected to the same critical scrutiny that it has always cavalierly applied to every other ethnicity and culture, but almost always in a tendentious and condescending way. The drivel of the white man’s burden. Certainly we can critique other cultures. Does that mean that white guys get a pass? What’s good for the goose, etc.
You and I, as white men, are the products of privilege. That doesn’t mean we didn’t earn what we got in life, only that we got a huge head start on the scaffolding of our gender and skin color.
How bout this: How about if we all stop being discriminatory and insular? That means everyone everywhere. But it has to start with the race/gender/culture that is privileged.
Yes, that is a pipe dream. But even so, no individual is absolved of the moral responsibility of renouncing discrimination and insularity. However, that too is a philosophical stance.
As is everything.
Read Schopenhauer. Read Dostoevsky. Read Krishnamurti. Read Christ. Many others.
Or read Hitler. The current horrific president of the United States kept Mein Kampf on his bookshelf. That’s his philosophy.
What’s yours?
Oh, that’s right. You don’t have a philosophy.
But you do.
You just don’t know it.
