MacIntyre has really good commentary on the analytic school in his book After Virtue. One flaw is that they are unable to philosophically analyze history he claims

Cool read but I think saying "One ugly bad guy who wants to basically get rid of the bad guys" in reference to Thanos is kind of... weird.

Does that mean that, in the view of the author, the indiscriminately killed people from the snap were bad guys because of Thanos' concept of thinning the heard? like them simply existing and consuming resources made them bad?

Huge difference between removing 'bad people', as mentioned earlier in the article, and removing a random number of people for a perceived greater good.

I am currently writing an essay analysing ways in which scent has been used to control women throughout history. I was wondering if anyone knew any philosophers who wrote about the nature of scent - I know Kant did briefly, will dismissing it as “the most dispensable of the senses.” I haven’t seen scent mentioned elsewhere in any philosophy I’ve read though so I was hoping someone can help me out :)

I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense, and is strangely unrelated to the title headline link?

Thank you. Well said. Though I’d suggest Camus’ position stems from a deeper recognition of power structures. No one ever asks who was in charge and what were they doing before the colonists arrived?

Both Camus and Sartre's perspective on violence and force hold important points to consider in the context of racism and other forms of social oppression.

Ok, he is not evil, he is just dumb af.

The "MAD" Titan in the comics did it to impress Death. Deadpool's gf.

it's the same with all dualities. they're trashed and forced polarisation that binds stuff together that doesn't need each other

If we're only looking at it as analytic philosophy vs. Marxism, I don't see the dominance of the former as a bad thing, since its scope is wider than that of Marxism. Marxist philosophy lives in a very human world of power relations and identity politics. it’s motivated not by increasing wisdom but by a grand ethical goal, and is profoundly indifferent to anything not related to said goal (such as questions of qualia or interpretations of QM). Analytic philosophy abstracts the humanity away, so it’s more low-level and general. Moreover, analytical philosophy allows for self-criticism, while Marxism doesn’t. If Marxist philosophy is valid, it’s possible to derive it from analytical philosophy; the same can’t be said in the other direction.

McCarthysm was horrible, but in itself it’s not a good enough reason to reinstate the dominance of Marxism, kinda like how the persecution of religion in the Soviet bloc is not a good enough reason to reinstate religiousness in Eastern Europe.

Camus is, in this case, a victim of the totalitarian view of "everything is political" that is sadly gaining more and more traction

Well, Scooby Doo can doodoo, but Jimmy Carter is smarter!

I mention that he is evil insofar as his killing is indiscriminate. So I don't say that he isn't evil. I say that his evil is paltry because he thinks he is doing the right thing and is portrayed as a somewhat relatable character, and that the fundament of his evil, killing, is something that good guys do as well.

The villain that I would say was hardly evil was Ego. I don't mention it in the essay, but he is somewhat evil because he doesn't ask people if they want to be fixed. But his evil is also paltry, because he basically just wants to fix people.

But these two just pale in comparison with Darkseid because he is absolutely unrelatable and the portrayal of his slavery is to turn the hero of the series evil.

So they are all three evil. Ego just barely. Thanos moreso. But Darkseid absolutely. And the difference is in the application of libertarianism.

I was expecting comic panels and was disappointed.

It is amazing to see a good chunk of a certain intellectual tradition affirming that, somehow, the enormous amount of cash that trickles down from Fortune 500 corporations to left-wing causes and ideas is not representative of anything, because they are not subverting whetever structure that Marx theorized two centuries ago

Living in a country that is not a part of the Atlantic Imperial Centre (southern Europe), you see clearly that Capital has clearly a side, and that side is not the free-market-provide and the reactionary one.

Thanos is definitely evil. Even if he his vision isn’t evil by your definition(and I’d argue that ending people’s lives against their will is a form of slavery), his journey to amass enough power to achieve his vision was utterly psychopathic. Psychologists consider psychopaths as broken individuals in regards to society, and so they should be considered evil.

What a biased article. Camus was a better man than Sartre. I will die on this hill.

Spot on. This is popular clickbait philosophy.

By coincidence I also wrote an essay mixing philosophy with superheroes. I define good and evil in it. Hate to tell you buddy, it’s real. It’s only man-made in the way the color red is man made. Men made words for something that is there.

Since they posted this, I’m going to post an essay I wrote on supervillains and libertarian freedom. Watch them remove it.

Maybe I’m uninformed, but Elon’s recent nonsense hasn’t really been him acting as a corporation has it? Its mainly been a personal thing.

I doubt Tesla or SpaceX as a corporation would support his recent business decisions.

To the mouse, it's evil. To the cat, it's dinner...🤷‍♂️

It’s hard to not resent the idea that racism is caused by anything other than white people.

Categorically and drastically different than merely new humans. That's the whole point of the post.

This, and also the fact that Camus also worked in the French resistance against nazis