Unbranded; without a registered trademark.

 

World peace? Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, Jesuits. Sheesh.

World peace? Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, Jesuits. Sheesh.

Julian Baggini:

The topic of personal identity is strictly speaking nonexistent. It’s important to recognize that we are not the kind of things that simply popped into existence at birth, continue to exist, the same thing, then die off the cliff edge or go into another realm. We are these very remarkably ordered collections of things. It is because we’re so ordered that we are able to think of ourselves as being singular persons. But there is no singular person there, that means we’re forever changing. 

Julian Baggini:

The topic of personal identity is strictly speaking nonexistent. It’s important to recognize that we are not the kind of things that simply popped into existence at birth, continue to exist, the same thing, then die off the cliff edge or go into another realm. We are these very remarkably ordered collections of things. It is because we’re so ordered that we are able to think of ourselves as being singular persons. But there is no singular person there, that means we’re forever changing. 

The Most Important Legal Philosopher of Our Time Is Dead at 81

“We have an institution that calls some issues from the battleground of power politics to the forum of principle. It holds out the promise that the deepest, most fundamental conflicts between individual and society will once, someplace, finally, become questions of justice. I do not call that religion or prophesy. I call it law.”
 -Ronald Dworkin

The Most Important Legal Philosopher of Our Time Is Dead at 81

“We have an institution that calls some issues from the battleground of power politics to the forum of principle. It holds out the promise that the deepest, most fundamental conflicts between individual and society will once, someplace, finally, become questions of justice. I do not call that religion or prophesy. I call it law.”

 -Ronald Dworkin

TOO MUCH WISDOM.

HEAD HURTZ.

Did you see the one where the mullah tries to jivetalk the whore with some Manichean bullshit?

She jujutsus his Aesop routine and says, “I work by induction, fool.”

nerdshares:

philolzophy:

generic1:

The worst idea about consciousness, ever. Just bedevilingly bad.
You don’t have a body. You are body. Soul is a section in the music store. Don’t believe me?
Prove it.

Whoa whoa whoa… evangelical Christian “philosopher” espouses indefensible dualist view of humanity? With uncomfortable implications for embodied issues like sexuality and gender? Shockerrrrr.
Try this: you are your body AND your soul (enough with the false dilemmas) and they’re probably indistinguishable. Google keyword: panpsychism.
Sorry we’re not all racked with guilt and ashamed of our life like C.S. “Overcompensating” Lewis.
PS lolzing hard at “soul is a section in the music store.”
To quote BMichael: “C.S. Lewis is a baller-status asshole.”
But re: Generic1, “The soul doesn’t exist unless you can prove it”? Um. You hurt Carl Sagan when you make that argument, Generic. Or not, because he’s dead, so who knows?

A parapharase is not a quote, Regina.

pwnd!

nerdshares:

philolzophy:

generic1:

The worst idea about consciousness, ever. Just bedevilingly bad.

You don’t have a body. You are body. Soul is a section in the music store. Don’t believe me?

Prove it.

Whoa whoa whoa… evangelical Christian “philosopher” espouses indefensible dualist view of humanity? With uncomfortable implications for embodied issues like sexuality and gender? Shockerrrrr.

Try this: you are your body AND your soul (enough with the false dilemmas) and they’re probably indistinguishable. Google keyword: panpsychism.

Sorry we’re not all racked with guilt and ashamed of our life like C.S. “Overcompensating” Lewis.

PS lolzing hard at “soul is a section in the music store.”

To quote BMichael: “C.S. Lewis is a baller-status asshole.”

But re: Generic1, “The soul doesn’t exist unless you can prove it”? Um. You hurt Carl Sagan when you make that argument, Generic. Or not, because he’s dead, so who knows?

A parapharase is not a quote, Regina.

pwnd!

The worst idea about consciousness, ever. Just bedevilingly bad.
You don’t have a body. You are body. Soul is a section in the music store. Don’t believe me?
Prove it.

The worst idea about consciousness, ever. Just bedevilingly bad.

You don’t have a body. You are body. Soul is a section in the music store. Don’t believe me?

Prove it.

(via azspot)
You can pick it apart, sure, but it’s a fun way to think of the darker tendencies in American conservatism. Disassemble the Constitution is more apt, I think. Certainly there are some amendments they’re very fond of, not to mention Federalism itself. But the last circle is interesting, if a bit frothy:

Repeal the Enlightenment:
Several groups can be found here. There’s of course the anti-science folks, of a religious, corporate, or confused bent, who ran many agencies under Bush. The most rabid of theocrats push a Counter-Enlightenment agenda. Most dangerous are probably the plutocrats and Randians, pushing for a neo-feudalist system to undo most of the best ideas of America’s founding, and to eliminate all of the progress achieved since then. They’re a spiteful crowd, and don’t believe that everyone is created equal or deserves basic rights. Theirs is a highly regressive agenda. The economic neo-feudalists are a callous, reckless bunch, but the legal neo-feudalists that flourished in the Bush administration are even scarier. They are probably best described by their ruthless and sometimes violent opposition to the reality-based community. It’s not accidental that they borrowed torture techniques from the Spanish Inquisition. It’s not that they don’t know better; it’s that, like O’Brien in 1984 (which they regard as a how-to manual), they just don’t fucking care.

Hm. Food for thought. Which is scarier? The will to power or magical thinking? Randians and theocrats are opposed at the core, but they’re bedfellows in the post-war Republican party. (Thanks, William F. Buckley!) We liberals have our plutocrats too, but Randism, (and to some extent, libertarianism) is all about self-love and can never sustain a relationship to theism, except as a cynical tool. Ultimately though, I’m a lot more scared of theism—one has to respect that kind of track record.
Now who will do one for liberalism?

(via azspot)

You can pick it apart, sure, but it’s a fun way to think of the darker tendencies in American conservatism. Disassemble the Constitution is more apt, I think. Certainly there are some amendments they’re very fond of, not to mention Federalism itself. But the last circle is interesting, if a bit frothy:

Repeal the Enlightenment:

Several groups can be found here. There’s of course the anti-science folks, of a religious, corporate, or confused bent, who ran many agencies under Bush. The most rabid of theocrats push a Counter-Enlightenment agenda. Most dangerous are probably the plutocrats and Randians, pushing for a neo-feudalist system to undo most of the best ideas of America’s founding, and to eliminate all of the progress achieved since then. They’re a spiteful crowd, and don’t believe that everyone is created equal or deserves basic rights. Theirs is a highly regressive agenda. The economic neo-feudalists are a callous, reckless bunch, but the legal neo-feudalists that flourished in the Bush administration are even scarier. They are probably best described by their ruthless and sometimes violent opposition to the reality-based community. It’s not accidental that they borrowed torture techniques from the Spanish Inquisition. It’s not that they don’t know better; it’s that, like O’Brien in 1984 (which they regard as a how-to manual), they just don’t fucking care.

Hm. Food for thought. Which is scarier? The will to power or magical thinking? Randians and theocrats are opposed at the core, but they’re bedfellows in the post-war Republican party. (Thanks, William F. Buckley!) We liberals have our plutocrats too, but Randism, (and to some extent, libertarianism) is all about self-love and can never sustain a relationship to theism, except as a cynical tool. Ultimately though, I’m a lot more scared of theism—one has to respect that kind of track record.

Now who will do one for liberalism?

jonathaneunice:

It’s a central question of moral philosophy. You would not believe the answers some have come up with over the years. Aquinas and Kant did especially weird, convoluted backflips of moral reasoning. Like, “you have no real obligation to save someone from a burning building, even if you can do so, but you have a perfect obligation to tell the truth, even if telling a small lie will save someone’s life.” Compassionless, almost insane conclusions.
I mis-spent my youth taking a philoshophy degree, so I’ll leave you with some of my favorite words, which are exactly applicable here: supererogation and supererogatory. They sound like something you’d want to do in privacy, and from which you’d have to clean up afterwards. But no. It’s philosphy lingo for what the young Spock said in the recent Star Trek movie: “It is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.” I.e., above and beyond the call of duty—more good than you have to be.
So when I talk dirty and say “Oh, baby, post some pictures of you supererogating! Be explicit! Show it all!” you can do so without flinching.

jonathaneunice:

It’s a central question of moral philosophy. You would not believe the answers some have come up with over the years. Aquinas and Kant did especially weird, convoluted backflips of moral reasoning. Like, “you have no real obligation to save someone from a burning building, even if you can do so, but you have a perfect obligation to tell the truth, even if telling a small lie will save someone’s life.” Compassionless, almost insane conclusions.

I mis-spent my youth taking a philoshophy degree, so I’ll leave you with some of my favorite words, which are exactly applicable here: supererogation and supererogatory. They sound like something you’d want to do in privacy, and from which you’d have to clean up afterwards. But no. It’s philosphy lingo for what the young Spock said in the recent Star Trek movie: “It is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.” I.e., above and beyond the call of duty—more good than you have to be.

So when I talk dirty and say “Oh, baby, post some pictures of you supererogating! Be explicit! Show it all!” you can do so without flinching.

I’m posting this as penance for lazily conflating moral absolutism with fundamentalism.
Just so we’re clear. Enjoy the rest of your Thursday, Internet.

I’m posting this as penance for lazily conflating moral absolutism with fundamentalism.

Just so we’re clear. Enjoy the rest of your Thursday, Internet.

(via wolfmank)
Meta:
If you’re an Incompatiblist, keep reading the book. You might enjoy it.
If you’re a Compatibilist, put the book down, walk away. There’s nothing for you here.

(via wolfmank)

Meta:

If you’re an Incompatiblist, keep reading the book. You might enjoy it.

If you’re a Compatibilist, put the book down, walk away. There’s nothing for you here.

This cannot be happening.
This simply cannot be happening.
Alain de Botton cannot be following me DIRECT MESSAGING ME on twitter. You’re not supposed to be able to casually strike up a convo with one of the preeminent intellectuals of your generation. There should be a buffer between you and your idols—degrees of separation.
Some of you don’t know what I’m talking about. To the others: how would you feel if Carl Sagan wrote you a postcard? And it was maybe-kind-of-expected that you reply?
Fuck. Now twitter is ruined. Ruined! I can’t talk about how “that car was a real pussy magnet” because ALAIN is reading. Everything has to be pithy and wise and hey, didn’t we just get rid of that kind of pressure? He has 2000 followers. Let’s hope I get lost in the mass.

This cannot be happening.

This simply cannot be happening.

Alain de Botton cannot be following me DIRECT MESSAGING ME on twitter. You’re not supposed to be able to casually strike up a convo with one of the preeminent intellectuals of your generation. There should be a buffer between you and your idols—degrees of separation.

Some of you don’t know what I’m talking about. To the others: how would you feel if Carl Sagan wrote you a postcard? And it was maybe-kind-of-expected that you reply?

Fuck. Now twitter is ruined. Ruined! I can’t talk about how “that car was a real pussy magnet” because ALAIN is reading. Everything has to be pithy and wise and hey, didn’t we just get rid of that kind of pressure? He has 2000 followers. Let’s hope I get lost in the mass.

Reblog with your philosophy

savagemike:

jlamere:

"Question all objectively."

"Try to maintain objectivity, but don’t deny your reasoning if you cannot from time to time."

I’m your huckleberry.”