It’s less an excuse and more good advice… there’s a really old saying about pearls before swine, that applies here.
Now on the rare occasion that you encounter someone educated enough that you believe could appreciate the difference between your effort or lack thereof, then by all means, try to have a fruitful conversation. If you’re lucky you’ll walk away having taught, or better yet, learned something of value… but most of the time, this place is best suited to have a higher word count, philosophy themed, twitter battle… like the one you’re engaged in, right now.
The evolution of science and philosophy is a complicated subject I don’t know much about but it is also meaningless in this context because assuming things evolve without changing and assuming you can derive a trajectory based on a things origins is a common logical fallacy. I, speaking as somebody living in the 21st century, know what science is and what philosophy is, right now. What it used to be, what it will be and how and why is a completely different question. Ultimately: is science and philosophy the same? I say it’s a ridiculous proposition and can back it up. Philosophy, as I know it, deals with the questions human race has which the scientific method can’t tackle by it’s design(like what is evil) or the questions the science can’t yet tackle to any satisfactory degree and might never be able to tackle(free will). Or the mix or two. Now…if the Yank baby boomers want to claim talking about evil or such topics is pointless…that is fine by me…changes nothing because people will have these questions and will seek answers to them anyhow. And the morons like the cunts on shitthyself who claim they can answer philosophical questions scientifically can suck me dick…they have no fucking clue what the scientific method actually is and what kind of rigour and processes it requires…they are typical quack charlatans calling on a scientific authority to back their delusions and schemes up
No, you’re right… I really should treat this conversation like that between two respectable academics.
And obviously, yes. on plenty of topics I’m too ignorant to be a worthwhile conversation partner and if anyone decided to write me a doctoral thesis on such a topic and ask my opinion I’d let them know, I’m a swine and they should send that pearl to someone who might at least be able to comprehend it, much less critique it…
You do get the a metaphor, right? Did you just hear swine and get offended or is it just generally offensive to imagine yourself being ignorant?
I mean this metaphor already seemed to send you off into a tailspin… perfect example of a wasted pearl.
Dunno what there is to add to this topic, you’ve helped demonstrate and underline my point in record speed…
I count a total of two back and forths for things to have devolved into dick measuring.
Now I get it. You want to reconfigure our exchange here into just another rendition of Pedro’s Corner. One line – or even one word – at a time answers.
And Stoogery: make it all about me.
Let’s move on…
Again, let’s get back to the part where answers here are anchored to an objective reality embedded in the either/or world or to subjective/subjunctive “personal opinions” that are “anchored” existentially in dasein.
The part where, for those who insist that their own moral and political value judgments do in fact reflect the objective truth, the consequences for those who do not toe their line can be severe. Up to and including “final solutions”.
How can my personal opinion regarding abortion be both a personal opinion and objectivist at the same time. Aside from in your head?
And my approach to those who embrace political prejudices [rooted in dasein] that are the opposite of mine is to acknowledge that their own arguments are no less reasonable than my own. Merely derived from a different set of assumptions in regard to which came first…the rights of the unborn or the rights of the pregnant women.
And then, once again, off the deep end you go in merely asserting things like this…
“…that your approach to opposition is insult and your advocacy is full government imposition. It is established in any given mind, given any set of intellectual positions, such as the one you have, being communism…”
Actually, I’m amazed it took me this long to reduce him down to “answers” like this.
Here’s the thing though…
With others on other threads, he actually is able to sustain rather substantive discussions.
But with me?
Nope.
My guess – and that’s all it is – is that this revolves around the fact that in regard to either religion or politics or morality, he really is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist. And the very last thing this sort will tolerate is even the remote possibility that their own precious Self might instead be but another run-of-the-mill embodiment of “I” derived existentially from dasein.
With others, the objectivist can argue back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. With me, however, the very question of right and wrong itself comes into question.
Better to be wrong about something relating to religion and morality and politics than to be “fractured and fragmented”.
Note to others:
Anyway, is there someone here who would be interested in discussing dasein in regard to the distinction I make in the OP?
you would never dare to argue about dasein with me anyway you old fart do you think i am stoupid
id take your trousers and spank your wrinkled grandpa ass up in front of everybody and show them just how pretentious you are