Recent comments in /f/philosophy

dragonsmilk t1_itwskfg wrote

Reply to comment by Several-Guarantee655 in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

My only issue is that vaccines for contagious diseases are not necessarily a personal or private matter.

What if a new strain of covid made your penis fall off with 20% likelihood. And the chances of spreading it were reduced to 0 if vaccinated. Would you be invested in your neighbors getting the vaccine?

I think there'd be broad political support for everybody getting the vaccine so that we could preserve everyone's penises. Even if mandates be required for the crazy, malicious and/or stupid.

Same idea but with the variables slightly tweaked.

3

kardiogramm t1_itwrzrb wrote

Reply to Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

The problem seems to be that the actions of politicians, other powerful people in business and people in the media have completely derailed the public trust in science and evidence based facts. It seems to be that politicians and those in power do not want truth because they would be shown for what they are so they are happy to create this stew of BS to mask it all. It’s just a really sad state of affairs in this world and some days I feel like John Malkovich

3

VitriolicViolet t1_itwr9fe wrote

Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

you can indeed but what about your neighbour? or someone from Iran?

all you can do is state if you think it is moral, not whether or not it is moral.

is it moral to murder someone trying to kill you? is it moral to kill people to save others? if a nation is trying to commit genocide and wont stop can you wipe them all out?

personally i think modern society is immoral in the extreme due to its worship of the individual, 10s of millions are left to rot at the bottom so the thousands at the top can sit on their asses and bludge off the rest and the ones in the middle have the gall to blame the bottom.

0

gouldilocks123 t1_itwr65a wrote

Reply to Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

There's nothing wrong with conducting your own research and coming to your own conclusions.

But you have to recognize and admit when you don't have the intellectual capacity or accumulated knowledge to conduct meaningful research and come to meaningful conclusions.

Without a background in biochemistry,what good is it going to do to do your own research on the Covid vaccine?

−1

kneedeepco t1_itwqyv2 wrote

Reply to comment by remek in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy

No doubt, I definitely didn't explain it the best as I've made those connections but haven't dove too deep into it yet. I think you explained it very well though!

1

Several-Guarantee655 t1_itwpqs8 wrote

Reply to comment by PortalGunHistory in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

In my mind, there is a difference between those who are overtly and repeatedly speaking out or otherwise being loud in general for years against vaccines(Not just this one vaccine, but the entire concept of vaccines), and those who make very personal decisions about their own health and what they choose to put in their body on a case by case basis in a private manner. The only reason we even know about his situation is that he happens to be a public figure and was no doubt hounded until he spoke on the topic.

I don't recall reading anything about him denying that covid exists. Perhaps i missed it? Beware the straw man.

And to address your third point, there has been some evidence coming to light in the news recently that in fact the vaccines have not been effective at all in stopping transmission of the virus. There has been news and information showing quite the opposite. But I'm not here to have s debate on the efficacy of any vaccine, let alone this one. I'm no expert on the topic. Just relaying some of the data points as i don't accept your statement as an argument without question. Surely there are many asking very tough questions about all of that right now. We'll maybe know more as time goes on.

−1

Kyocus t1_itwp4om wrote

Reply to comment by RyeZuul in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

I think that's reasonable, but would add that the tiniest amount of sensation leads to awareness of self and not self, and to location and relation. pinhole nerve clusters, hearing, or sensation of touch is enough for empiricism.

4

Kyocus t1_itwnfn6 wrote

Reply to comment by NotABotttttttttttttt in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Any group of people willing to be identified as "agnostic" with reference to any ideas they hold sacred are very likely already proficient in epistemology.

I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.

What I am saying is that I empirically have black hair. I have personally measured this and so have many other people who have informally seen me. I may tell you in this thread that I have black hair, and you most likely will accept my claim without further investigation. You don't accept the blackness of my hair because I'm some arbiter of truth. You accept that I have black hair because you have experienced having hair and seeing black hair. You've experienced both ideas empirically. There is no need to scrutinize simple observations which we relate to in reality because many are already shared experiences.

Though we should rely on Logical Positivism to settle disputes about our beliefs, the more consequential or extreme a claim, the more important it is that it be substantiated by empiricism. Conversely, the less consequential and more mundane a claim, the need for empiricism becomes infinitesimal.

5

Interesting_Mood_124 t1_itwm5w1 wrote

Reply to comment by wow-signal in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Well actually no.

The guy who came to speak at my university seminary specifically explained that it’s not dead and ultimately SHOULD replace metaphysics.

−3

wow-signal t1_itwlutv wrote

Reply to comment by Interesting_Mood_124 in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

it's historically significant in the way that alchemy is historically significant, and some influence does live on, especially among a certain generation of scientists who unwittingly absorbed the central ideas from faculty while they were in graduate school, but as john passmore wrote in 1967, "logical positivism is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." by that he meant that the central tenets, most significantly the verification criterion of meaning, had been demonstrated to be false.

8

Kyocus t1_itwkiev wrote

Reply to comment by no_overplay_no_fun in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

I will attempt an answer, though we're nearing the basement bellow all of mathematics and logic, so it's not quite straight forward.
So I said "The number of things we can physically count", this was a gross over simplification. So I'm going to start at what ZFC is, from where it stems recursively.

ZFC is an axiomatization of Number Theory and Set Theory.
Number Theory is a direct abstraction of "Things we can count", so to speak.
Set Theory is the tricky part with reference to empiricism, so lets go deeper into what it's derived from.
Set Theory is the axiomatization of Naive Set Theory.
Naive Set Theory is just rudimentary definitions of the same concepts as Set Theory, described informally in natural language, rather than axiomatically. It is based on Discrete Mathematics.
Aaaannd Discrete Mathematics deals with Countable Sets, which expands into discrete integers, graphs, and logical statements.

The basis of ZFC is

  1. boolean logic: yes/no, existence/non-existence.
  2. discrete integers, i.e. "Things we can count"
  3. graphs, i.e. "Things we can relate to one another in some way"

So I'll append my simplistic claim to something more inclusive of ALL of Mathematics, since what I originally said didn't quite make sense. Even mathematics starts with presuppositions and tautologies stemming from conditions in reality. From countable objects to abstractions of said numbers, relations of objects in reality to the abstracted graphs of hypothetical objects, and finally to what truth can be derived from said relations and the derivative algebra that's generate there of.

All deep systems of thought start with simple observations of reality, and as long as the derivative works there of are accurate and consistent I think that small tether to reality can lead to the sum total of the knowledge of mankind.

edit* added one "s". Also had to reformat because I lost my line-breaks.

9

Interesting_Mood_124 t1_itwkep0 wrote

Reply to comment by wow-signal in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Really?

At my university we literally had a speaker who was an expert on the history of philosophy and he explained why logical positivism exists and is important

1