Recent comments in /f/philosophy
luis-mercado t1_j3vzlj5 wrote
Reply to comment by vegoku92 in Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
This is patently untrue and a gross misunderstanding of what culture is, as context.
ThoughtfulPoster t1_j3vw97d wrote
Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
I think there are four or five reasonably-sized sentences worth of insight there, and I would have been delighted to read those four or five sentences. I resent being sent on a scavenger hunt to find that insight scattered across pages and pages of filler and fluff.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j3vvpkx wrote
Reply to Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
Philosophy is about the pursuit of what serves the people and animals best.
What truth are we talking about here? Subjective truth? Moral truth?
vegoku92 t1_j3vuy3e wrote
Reply to Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
I disagree. A lot of philosophy goes beyond culture, like logic and platos forms.
Efficient-Squash5055 t1_j3vqsrk wrote
Reply to Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
No doubt about it. For every philosophy exists an equal and opposite philosophy. I’ve never met an unbiased self described philosopher. Any exposure to philosophic theories inevitably lead to choosing a side, a team, a theory; then good old confirmation bias kicks in, and then a lifetime of debate with all who disagree lol. It’s an exercise of validating belief. True as rain.
IAI_Admin OP t1_j3vo48x wrote
Reply to Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
Janne teller argues that disinterested pursuit is acontradiction in terms – you wouldn’t pursue anything if you didn’t have a motivation. Philosophy, she argues, is the interested pursuit of truth. All humans pursue truth, but they come from particular social perspectives which affects what they are looking for. Barry Smith concurs that the reason why anindividual is doing philosophy cannot, by nature, be disinterested; you have tobe motivated to ask philosophical questions. But he argues that once you get possibleexplanations up and running, then you have to be disinterested and not allow yourown desires to prejudice what answers you arrive at. Silvia Jonas adds thatwhile philosophy strives to arrive at unbiased conclusions, philosophers must acknowledgethat philosophical theories are always established from a particular socialcontext and likely don’t reflect ‘The Truth’. The value of philosophy, Jonasargues, is that it allows us to establish various theories and then adopt acritical stance towards them, allowing us to identify outside motivations wherein other disciplines these biases go unnoticed.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3vaekc wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
No, Thanos is ranked higher than Ego because loss is worse than repair.
Slavery as evil does not regress to moral relativism. Ask anyone. Existence within a reality where one is forced to do what they don’t want to do is objectively worse than a reality where everyone can do what they want to do. Freedom is objectively prefereable for all people, and, if libertarianism is false, and reality is determined by perfection, then it is possible, and the ideal function of the system, and therefore not broken, so it is good.
Correct. Everyone dies. Everyone goes to God. So then say, the destruction of the Amalekites in the book of Samuel, while not fun, is more palatable. It’s a sad and tragic effect of this godless world, but any innocent Amalekites are okay now.
So this is why, to the theist, Thanos just ain’t that bad. Killing just isn’t as bad as enslaving.
Luke and Han killed zillions of Storm Troopers. Leonidas and the Spartans killed zillions of Persians. In the Revolutionary War, the Brits killed tons of Americans. Americans killed tons of Brits. None of this is fun. “Thou shalt not kill.”
But those Storm Troopers, Persians, Brits, and Amalekites are okay now.
durntaur t1_j3v9xv2 wrote
Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that that is "what [I am] saying".
And shoehorning in the concept of the afterlife at this point shifts the argument of defining so-called "true evil" or "true villain[y]" as per your declaration that there is no greater evil than slavery. Again, this regresses to moral relativism, which your treatment eschewed. And it still doesn't absolve Thanos, Ego, or any genocidal figure from reality of their evil; in your treatment you seem to apologize (i.e. defend) Thanos and Ego:
>So we have three villains. One ugly bad guy who basically wants to get rid of bad guys^(1). One charismatic actor representing a beautiful world who wants to fix broken people^(2). And one horrific volcanic rock in humanioid form who turns the purest and most powerful superhero in human history into an enslaved weapon of mass destruction.
Your latest conclusion that Thanos gets ranked higher because there is no afterlife exposes the horrific philosophy that if there is an afterlife then genocide becomes more justifiable. Let God sort them out, amiright?
^(1)Thanos's Snap was indiscriminate, it affected the good and the evil alike.
^(2)Ego wasn't fixing anything. In fact, by your standard he was trying to enslave (and thereby eradicate) all beings across the entire universe via the Expansion.
WrongAspects t1_j3v6nzp wrote
Reply to comment by yungyakitz in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
Thanos removed half of everything though. He also removed half of all animal and plant resources. It was an idiotic concept.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v5pr5 wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
I can’t name the source. Incommunicable personal experience. Disregard it if you want. And it’s not a word for word quote. A different language was used and the concept of hope was understood with more depth than Thanos was referring to. It may have been more of a “I know that you will be remembered” or “the purpose of your destruction is to be remembered.”
But you’re right. I’m sorry, but I cannot source this for you, so feel free to disregard.
durntaur t1_j3v5bdj wrote
Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
What's your source of that quote? What would the context be?
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v51co wrote
Reply to Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
This thread has been closed due to a high number of rule-breaking comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4zoc wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4zlq wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4zi2 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4zcw wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4xay wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3v4wzr wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Rise of the Human-Animal Hybrids: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v4mw6 wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
I don’t take a position on Thanos here. One difference between Thanos and the Messiah is that Thanos is not the representation of an omniscient God. All I say is that Thanos thinks he is helping out, but his snap is portrayed by the filmmakers as being indiscriminate, and therefore mass murder.
Marvel assumes atheism here. It’s an atheistic movie designed to appeal to atheists, and from that perspective Thanos makes a pretty decent bad guy.
But as I mention in the essay, Messiah will come and some people are gonna get killed. But in that context, they’re only going to get killed on this earth. And as for the ultimate fate of all beings, only the truly evil will be gotten rid of. And TBH, I have a theory that the evil ones may leave reality voluntarily. Exercising their free will.
This will happen around the year 3,000. Hence, “I love you 3,000.”
Satan will have three choices.
1 - kneel before the king. 2 - go back into the void. 3 - merge with infinity.
I think he will choose to merge with infinity and be gone.
And, we will remember what he did when he was here, and we will freely choose not to walk in his footsteps.
durntaur t1_j3v4ab6 wrote
Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
Let's clarify positions:
- Your position is that Thanos wasn't indiscriminate.
- u/yungyakitz was arguing that your claim that Thanos only killed bads guys, thus not being indiscriminate, is not supported by the source material. That is, he was indiscriminate with The Snap, "good" and "bad" people were dusted alike.
- My reply is an acknowledgement of agreement with u/yungyakitz, i.e. the supposition that Thanos was not discriminate, as present in your treatment, is wrong. I then elaborate that being indiscriminate (with regard to The Snap) would be critical to Thanos by virtue of his pathology.
I appreciate your most recent clarification of your position, but I stand by the position that The Snap was indiscriminate by necessity.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v2nd1 wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
So what you’re saying is that the perfect state of being is you being in a universe where you are being forced to do what you don’t want to do?
Saying the snap denies you existence assumes the non-existence of the afterlife. So making the snap an act of supreme evil is fundamentally an atheistic position. I would agree that for atheists, Thanos’ ranking as a bad guy goes up a number of notches.
Whats interesting, though, is the concept of the second death. That after we die here, some people will also at some point cease to exist from the afterlife. But the assumption is that those who suffer the second death are truly evil. So, if you suffer the second death, it’s because you freely choose to enslave and cause loss.
The destroyer must be destroyed.
So sure, Satan is going to say that his removal from reality is evil. Darkseid is going to say that his destruction is a bad thing.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v2dhg wrote
Reply to comment by ThoughtfulPoster in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
What would you want said that wasn’t said?
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v28t0 wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
Interesting, as the Messiah said “I hope they remember you” when Satan fell.
baileyjn8 OP t1_j3v22eb wrote
Reply to comment by durntaur in The Effect of Philosophical Libertarianism on Popular Media as Portrayed by Comic Book Villains by baileyjn8
I didn’t say Thanos thought it was indiscriminate. I said it was portrayed as being indiscriminate. I did add your quote of Thanos to the essay, though, to clarify that Thanos certainly thought it was not indiscriminate.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j3vzpj2 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 09, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt
Because biological needs are things nobody can reject and they apply to everyone regardless of their personal preference?
Unless you are not sound of mind, I doubt anyone would deliberately self torture for fun, biological needs always take over in the end.
You can say its the objective foundation of our existence, which means we have an objective reference to build our morality.
It is basically mind independent.