Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's not what I was getting at, and it's not even true in any case, but I can't be bothered wasting any more time. Arguing with relativists is pointless, largely because relativism is pointless.

Life is pointless. Deal.

You don't like relativists because it basically makes your entire field useless. It's a shame that the whole world is relative, there is no black and white.

Get a real job.

[Agathon]

Get a real job.

If relativism is true, then in a sense there are no real jobs, so it makes no difference. Hence the implicit idiocy of your accusation.

You don't like relativists because it basically makes your entire field useless.

No. It gives some people who can be bothered something to argue about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny, because relativistism came from philosophers (Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Funny, because relativistism came from philosophers (Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault).

Here we go again...

The problem isn't with philosophers -- which exist in every field -- but with people who think studying philosophy in university makes them a philosopher.

I think that's the third time in this thread alone I've clarified that distinction, but people do not seem to comprehend it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If relativism is true, then in a sense there are no real jobs, so it makes no difference. Hence the implicit idiocy of your accusation.

Sure there is, it's just that my statement is relative to my perspective.

It's not a difficult concept, you know.

And to me, a real job is not one like you're demonstrating here -- pointlessly trying to dismiss arguments purely on academic constructs and philosophical tools than on their merit or ideas.

No. It gives some people who can be bothered something to argue about.

Like old Jewish ladies getting all verklempt over Barbara Streisand's new movie...

[Imran Siddiqui]

people who think studying philosophy in university makes them a philosopher.

Derrida and Foucault studied philosophy in the university though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Derrida and Foucault studied philosophy in the university though.

I have no idea who they are, and I assure you I have not studied them, yet still came up with the concept of relativity.

I didn't even read Nietzsche until first-year uni, and by then it was a constant stream of eye-rolling as well.

The simple concept of everyone's experiences giving them different reasoning and opinions is so basic and fundamental to me that I've never had to learn it from reading a book. Maybe I'm just an incredible genius?..

[Agathon]

Sure there is, it's just that my statement is relative to my perspective.

It's actually quite hilarious how mistaken you are, but it would take me so long to explain to you why, and you probably wouldn't understand anyway, that I can't be bothered doing it.

The pulp fiction version is that relativism in cases like yours is simply childishness or in some cases sociopathy. No-one really believes it, just as no-one really believes in universal scepticism.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's actually quite hilarious how mistaken you are, but it would take me so long to explain to you why, and you probably wouldn't understand anyway, that I can't be bothered doing it.

The pulp fiction version is that relativism in cases like yours is simply childishness or in some cases sociopathy. No-one really believes it, just as no-one really believes in universal scepticism.

This is an example of the kind of trash that my tax dollars are paying you to think up?

This quote of yours here is Exhibit B.

It's no wonder Carly can destroy HP so quickly, if she even had twice the mental capacity as a genius like you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

still came up with the concept of relativity

A simple version of it, perhaps. The problem is coming up with the bases of the theory which lead to the conclusion. Especially back in the 1920s, that was a radical viewpoint and very, very controversial. You have benefited from the society they have created where relativity is an option. And to do so they had to prove it rigorously.

[Asher]

Agathon: There is nothing wrong with being a relativist.

I'm sure you're one of the academics who will argue til you're red in the face against it. You get so wound up and used to all the philosophical constructs like the law of non-contradiction in your arguments that you lose sight of the big picture. That's the main problem, IMO, with modern-day "philosophers" -- they try to break everything down and fit the pieces into tools they were taught in school, then form a conclusion.

It's absolute nonsense, and is nothing more than an adoptive procedure that proves ultimately nothing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IMO, with modern-day "philosophers" -- they try to break everything down and fit the pieces into tools they were taught in school, then form a conclusion.

Isn't that how you are supposed to break down an issue?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Isn't that how you are supposed to break down an issue?

Not when they're broken down out of convenience, rather than necessity.

I don't think that the opinion of where people's morals come from should be subject to the law of non-contradiction, for example. Humans are irrational creatures, their emotions can contradict eachother, their actions can be contradictory, even their opinions can be contradictory.

Yet that's what the majority of Philosophers break it down to. They turn an emotional question into a logical one, then try to argue something that is clearly relative into something that's absolute, to try to prove something.

The end result is worthless pompousness.

[Agathon]

Agathon: There is nothing wrong with being a relativist.

Yeah there is. It's like being a flat earther.

What's happened to you is that you have been caught in the web of everyday assumptions. Sit back and think for a minute about how much Freud, for example, has penetrated into our common vocabulary and way of seeing the world. Watch an episode of Oprah and mark down all the Freudian references, you will be surprised at the number.

Philosophy is responsible for a great deal of these. For example, people just didn't think in the ethical terms we think in now - like our conception of universal human rights for example. Many educated people still conceive of themselves as persons in accordance with Descartes' conception of mind -- even though this is completely at odds with modern science.

Consider for a moment that our very language and the norms which it entails may be misleading us into saying daft things -- because we don't even notice we are making the assumptions.

For example, people talk about "my experience" or "my perception" and assume they are referring to a private object or thing which represents external reality. That's a hefty assumption and one that leads naturally to scepticism and idealism.

But what if we looked more closely about how the language involved is used. Perhaps we wouldn't have to play that game.

THAT is more like contemporary philosophy.

[Agathon]

Yet that's what the majority of Philosophers break it down to. They turn an emotional question into a logical one, then try to argue something that is clearly relative into something that's absolute, to try to prove something.

Funny. Elijah is an emotivist.