Why are you so paranoid?
I never said that I was “afraid of bias”.
[tab]The same example:
A.: “You are white”.
F.: “Why are you afraid of whites?”.[/tab]
Then read 10) again, Zinnat.
Just guess why Nietzsche is named here.
David Hume is not as relavant as it sems.
Bertrand Russel is based on Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege. So one should read Frege - not Russel (or Russel later).
Theodor Seuss Geisel is not as relevant as it seems.
That may be true, Sanjay, but a list of one is rather boring, no?
Who knows Faust, you’re probably an asshole for sharing philosophers for being more irrelevant than they seem, apparently. I think we all ought to be ashamed of you for not writing the “definitive philosophy in 10 easy steps” post. It’s obvious this attempt to become a king philosopher by portraying your 10 easy steps is very threatening to the intellectual abilities of us all, or not. Unfortunately, you only provided a biased account with irrelevant stupid things, because you’re a stupid man with stupid biases and I am so much more superior than you. That’s why you shall be criticized unto stupid idiotic shards, because I am the best.
sour grapes never tasted so salty.
It was funny actually, don’t take it so serious
I have seen his name there. But, in my opinion, he is such a philosopher who is neither meant for the beginners not immatures. That may corrupt their naive minds forever. Thus, starters must have some guidance while reading him.
with love,
sanjay
May be, or you even cannot technically call it a list either because it contains only one entry.
with love,
sanjay
Since you bring it up, bias, as such, is just another word for perspective, or point of view, which is what a good philosopher will argue for. Well, a bad philosopher will do the same. Good philosophers just do it better.
“Objective truth” is a term that makes no sense. “The Truth” makes sense. That doesn’t mean it exists. But the term makes sense. The biggest problem purveyors of The Truth have is in convincing other of how they could know it.
It is also another word for lying.
Now here’s a man who clearly knows The Truth.
So how do you know this Truth, Jimmy?
If one honesty believes in something and pleads for it, it is his POV or bias, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong.
But, if one uses any POV just for wining an argument over the opposite side even realizing that he is wrong, then he is lying.
It is intention that differentiates both types.
You can find both types of people, even at ILP.
With love,
Sanjay
Bias is not another word for lying, though I suppose bias could motivate someone to lie. Also, bias need not be unreasoned. Simply calling a statement biased is not an argument against it. If you think his bias is unreasoned, why not just ask Faust to explain why he thinks what he does? It’s not as easy as dismissing his statements out of hand, but it just might work.
I’m still wondering how “read the Bible” is biased in the first place. “Read one of the (or maybe just “the”) seminal works of Western literature” may show that I am biased toward literacy and education. I can live with that.
Well it is ethnocentric, but then again, most of this board is in the Western Hemisphere. Plus the Western Hemisphere seems to be the hemisphere to be.
Yes, but it is ethnocentric too, when “Y”, who belongs to the non-ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, says that “X”, who belongs to the ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, is ethnocentric. Both do the same: propagating ehnocentrism.
Not necessarily.
Why would “ethnocentrism” disqualify a book from being a work of literature important to philosophy? All philosophy is “ethnocentric”.
Simple enough. Just look to the definitions.
The word refers to the distorting of truth, aka “lying”, although often not intentionally so. But then if one knows that he is bias and does not compensate, then he is knowingly distorting.
Bias does not merely mean that one favors A over B, but rather that one favors A over B such as to distort the truth about A and/or B.
It’s easy Faussy (when you know the right “10 steps”). 
What do you expect when everything is subjective?
What do you expect when everything is about language?