Nihilists and skeptics: How do you deal with people?

squarehouse · 2012-05-25T16:30:39.058161+00:00

I'm not pissed off at all.

Muscles_McGeee · 2012-05-25T15:53:16.912490+00:00

You've come across Kant!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies#The_First_Antinomy_.28of_Space_and_Time.29

and more importantly:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/#MatAnt

Foolie · 2012-05-25T15:49:26.637718+00:00

Nukefudge seems to imply that simple is incompatible with philosophical import

No, he said that with some of the finer discussion, rending it this simplistic really takes away the philosophical important. That doesn't imply that it's impossible. He just says that some things can't be simplified, with which I agree.

embraced a sort of elitism whereby if you think a text is too complicated or poorly-written you must just not get it.

Yeah, that's just not true. What sort of acquaintance do you have with modern academic philosophy?

I am saying that we should not make "complicated" or "difficult to understand" a standard.

The point is that if you want to talk productively about some topics (which is the goal, the standard so to speak), then you're going to have to be complicated and difficult to understand.

Foolie · 2012-05-25T14:47:02.680963+00:00

Yes, because you can't have standards of any sort without being elitist for preferring things that meet those standards.

Fucking stupid.

squarehouse · 2012-05-25T14:34:01.958644+00:00

I'm reacting accordingly. You think that there's some problem with other people such that you can't relate to them. You think that your nihilistic and skeptical worldviews are 'more true' than what other folks believe. You think that it's a shame that nobody besides you recognizes the futility in everything and that nothing matters ever and that you can't know anything ever. You think that recognize these 'facts' makes you deep and profound. You think that all of these other 'normal' people are really just avoided the deep and true truths that you've come across by reading stupid shit on the internet.

Well, guess what, you're really fucking wrong about the majority of your fundamental views and you're a douche. That's the problem. The problem isn't that other people don't want to hear your opinions because they're too profound and life-shattering. People don't want to hear your opinions because they're shallow, tired, and uninteresting. If you speak to people about what you really think and they don't like it or you as a result, you have two options

1) find other people - I doubt this will help because you really sound like a douche.

2) stop being a douche - this is your best bet.

Quit being so negative, don't be critical unless you can come up with a better alternative, try to make other people happy more often, etc.

notseanmcbride · 2012-05-25T14:25:27.499744+00:00

Portland police shoot and kill quite often.

What exactly the fuck do you mean by 'quite often'??? I'd say that in the grand scheme of things, Portland police tend not to shoot and kill unarmed black persons, a homeless persons or mentally unstable persons. The vast, vast majority of interactions between these two groups of people does not result in shootings or killings. So if by 'quite often' you mean 'rarely if ever', then I agree.

notseanmcbride · 2012-05-25T14:23:34.028242+00:00

3 so far in 2012, 5 total in 2011.

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/listofshootings.html

You're a fear-mongering idiot.

squarehouse · 2012-05-25T14:17:46.328838+00:00

You're right. Because you're asking a vague and loaded question. You think that you're a deep profound genius, you're not. You are not special.

squarehouse · 2012-05-25T14:14:49.999261+00:00

You sound like a douche.

Ocsis2 · 2012-05-25T14:14:25.235418+00:00

This is a question you could answer by browsing wikipedia for 3 minutes.

papersailboat · 2012-05-25T02:49:17.195356+00:00

Don't make sweeping generalizations when you only have a small sample.

Intro philosophy right there for you.

ragault · 2012-05-25T02:48:49.361599+00:00

It's so unlikely of a scenario that it's not worth considering. You might as well ask "what would morality be like if we were all made of pineapples?"

Gmr_Leon · 2012-05-25T02:48:10.701419+00:00

I'm trying to say that I think you have its inquisitive nature, its reason to help guide the formation of questions and possibly validate/invalidate the question itself, and then some intricate thoughts built off of that with which to frame and comprehend the world, but little else.

Again, you're just factually wrong here. There's much more than mere reasoning that goes on in philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and ethics.

Philosophy has helped put together the methods of thinking that have led to plentiful other fields that have generated many more practical things such as the technology we all use on a rather frequent basis, but it's just that, really, the foundations.

Again, factually false. Game theorists (philosophers) were an intricate part of developing the voting system for the EU. Bioethicists (philosophers) are employed at many hospitals worldwide. Philosophy still continues to make 'tangible' contributions and 'practical' things, you're just not aware of them. You're making a judgment about philosophy without knowing much of what goes on in philosophy. That's your first mistake. You wouldn't say that some other field is useless if you don't know what's going on in it, would you?

papersailboat · 1 day

This is based on the same rationale that the scientific method is.

Not at all. Science is about reproducible results.

The more people who find the same results in exact methods in different locations, the closer to objective Truth that result is likely to be.

No, that's what's called an appeal to popular opinion.

ragault · 1 day

This isn't a philosophical question.

moodib · 1 day

an uncountable infinity

papersailboat · 1 day

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

papersailboat · 1 day

And I look good.

77_65_65_64 · 1 day

Only when confronted with intellectual laziness.

77_65_65_64 · 1 day

Oh man! Let's all analyze what other people say and show how silly it is! It's not so fun when it happens to you, eh pal?

77_65_65_64 · 1 day

Fuck your stupid shallow question.

77_65_65_64 · 1 day

Philosophy is the search of wisdom

WORD'S DON'T MEAN THE SAME THING AS THEIR ETYMOLOGY, GOT THAT, BUNDLE OF STICKS?

calley07 · 1 day

papersailboat · 1 day

why then do you spend so much time responding to everything I say?

I don't, I've spent a maximum of 30s responding to you, you trite idiot. Read the fucking article and go away if you want to learn about truth. I'm not going to spoonfeed you, especially since you're likely to vomit in my face.

Gmr_Leon · 1 day

Are you meaning that science is on the same level in terms of trying to give itself purpose?

Christ, is it that hard to understand the phrase 'justification-wise'? It means that they have the same level of justification.

What assumptions are you thinking of, that it seems I'm not?

Many assumptions concerning how the scientific method works, what counts for or against an explanation, etc.

I am of the impression that reason makes up a large part of it

I don't even know what you mean when you say 'makes up a large part of it'. Are you trying to say that science does more testing than reasoning or something and therefore it's better? Well, guess what? Testing is worthless without reasoning. It's not like the more you test, the more accurate you are or something. You could be running shitty tests.

I tend to think it doesn't go much further to reinforce its reason with much experimental data of any sort.

You're wrong, especially in modern philosophy of mind.

I'm providing my impressions and inquiring about the purpose.

Why do you think this isn't a malformed question to begin with? Why do you think that philosophy has a purpose? What is the purpose of biology? Or chemistry? Or physics?

thepassingofdays

TROPHY CASE

thepassingofdays

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login