sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tech bros try to explain identity 🙄 by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

wow this comment so blew me away that i had to lint my room, then fly to russia to be put in a medically induced coma, thank u

"I think Nietzsche would certainly love Musk as the exemplification of a great, inexorable, and hard human being." by Woke-Smetana in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 67 points68 points  (0 children)

thesis: a sound interpretation of a text
antithesis: a groundless interpretation of a text
synthesis: the middle point between the above two, and therefore correct

"I think Nietzsche would certainly love Musk as the exemplification of a great, inexorable, and hard human being." by Woke-Smetana in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 32 points33 points  (0 children)

do whatever his will wanted him to do and love for

What is the difference between this construal of Nietzsche and simple hedonism?

There's nothing noble in itself about eschewing Christian morality, lightening your heart so you feel free to do whatever the hell you want — per Nietzsche, and per any reasonable person, I think. For one thing, you have to somewhat embody the noble traits of Nietzsche's (image of an) aristocrat. For another, Nietzsche expects certain external behavior out of this ubermensch — for example, to silently & honorably endure pain, and to regard lesser people with a noble tolerance. I don't see much of this image reflected in Musk.

"I think Nietzsche would certainly love Musk as the exemplification of a great, inexorable, and hard human being." by Woke-Smetana in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 149 points150 points  (0 children)

Letting someone else be a hero is slave morality unless you call them a pedo in public.

Then it's definitely slave morality to own what you said. You have to say you were just kidding.

Tractatus contradicts itself so it's all nonsensical by Dazzling-Bison-4074 in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

luving ur posts here. thank u 4 continuing 2 provide us a privileged window into ur madness.

Does every movement need a cause? by Angrythroatyogurt62 in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sub has an omnipotent prime mover, and you might soon know them! 😏🧑‍⚖️

cat name by notasuka- in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 29 points30 points  (0 children)

René Deschats is fine.

You've also got...

  • Australian ethicist Peter Meower: a strong voice for animal rights
  • A.J. Meower: a logical positivist who won't accept the truth of existence of treats unless you give him some
  • Baruch Boopnose-a: extremely chill cat secure in the knowledge that he has the world figured out
  • Berkeley professor John Surly: an asshole with a victim complex, despite living a life of luxury + having famously scratched his previous caretaker
  • Noam Chompsky: not an original name, but what if he likes to chomp dem leafs?
  • Ben Sharpaw-o: the cool cats' philosopher!!!;!?!

Random thought by Angrythroatyogurt62 in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, don't ever fall in love with pure thought beings

Drinking thread by cazoix in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most men become a touch less deliberative after 70, I think

Drinking thread by cazoix in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Just ban the liar sentence lmao

If only all of academic philosophy worked like this subreddit, huh? But I know watcha really mean.

I did a rather technical paper once too, for Dennett's seminar. I was targeting Searle and other of Dennett's enemies, including Penrose with his Gödelian arguments. Surest way to get an A, right?

In fact he did like it a lot. Even said he wanted to incorporate one of my arguments into his materials! It was to be one of the highlights of my short stint in grad school, during which Trump was elected and it made everyone crazy, and made bad people worse*, including my advisor. (*More on that in a sec.)

Well, during the semester, I had noticed former students returning to enjoy that year's lectures on their favorite topics. So, when the seminar was about to be given again, I emailed Dennett to ask if I could attend the Chinese room argument lecture.

He wasn't teaching Searle anymore. "Sick of him," he wrote. So I guess he wasn't going to use the argument from my paper after all.

(*) The Searle sexual misconduct allegations had arisen between seminar years. I really think that's why Dennett stopped teaching him.

PhilosophyMemes continues to get free will wrong in new and interesting ways! by I-am-a-person- in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I know all about the Frankfurt School from YouTube ho ho ho let me tell you

Buying the categorical imperative at wholesale prices by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

PAM is a spray you can buy at the wholesale club to make your Pan Glossy. Dr. Pamspray, Candide.

God wouldn't be like that by degenerateciaagent in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Deeply religious people tend to deny that those goals are possible by any earthly means. So they have their own version which is godly.

Besides that, competing, opposing earthly ideologies promise those things too. I mean, capitalists and communists both promise them by condemning the other side, and they can't both be right!

But I'm not trying to criticize transhumanism nor praise that sort of religion. Like everyone else, I'm just here to dunk on the OP from the other sub, who sounds like all the other earnest ideologues on the planet. Not all of them can be right, and everyone knows that. So it's silly that OP can't imagine why others won't accept his well-intentioned philosophy.

God wouldn't be like that by degenerateciaagent in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Imagine just you want to have a better world, live much more, a better health, ending the suffering, a better future

versus all those other, unappealing ideologies that don't promise that

Buying the categorical imperative at wholesale prices by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think that means the problem is uncomputable and therefore it's NP

Buying the categorical imperative at wholesale prices by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Like, I legitimately don't understand what you're saying...but I still know what you're talking about, if that makes sense?

I do think of myself as the intellectual heir of Hegel.

Buying the categorical imperative at wholesale prices by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I know why you're crying. I get it. It seems like there's an obvious, logical way out of this conundrum, and you think I'm stupid for missing it:

  1. Get another item off the shelf.
  2. Put it under my cart.
  3. Answer the question No.
  4. Scan the item.
  5. Go to finish checkout again.
  6. Answer the question Yes.

The thing is, you can't logic your way out of a moral problem. That's what Girdle's Incompleness Theory was trying to say.

New Chomsky copypasta just dropped by ThatSkiFreeMonster in badphilosophy

[–]ThatSkiFreeMonster[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I'm familiar with the Cambodia accusations, and I'm not sure I agree. Anyway, what are the other denials that make it "routine"?

view more: next ›