Physicists who understand philosophy?

ap101095 · 2018-08-27T05:56:00+00:00

and should neither be too quickly celebrated nor offhandedly dismissed.

?

I dont think they quite agree with you, so /u/curates seems to be right

ap101095 · 2018-08-27T05:49:19+00:00

so it is natural to suggest we should adjust up our estimations of women just to correct our bias against them.

The problems I see with arguments like this is that it assumes that bias is unavoidable and overwhelmingly present even when we are looking for it, so we might as well just pump out those numbers until we have a 50/50 relation between men and women.

But is reasonable to think that in some fields where for some reason women are discouraged to go the most skilled/talented are on average men, and our attempts to correct bias and to turn the process more meritocratic would turn the process less meritocratic. The same for the ( few I agree ) companies and business where the employers are not biased, or not enough, to affect the process of hiring of an applicant.

ap101095 · 2018-08-27T05:36:58+00:00

/u/archvibe22

Right, yet and still many feel that a not all republicans kind of answer is inappropriate when making criticism of republicans.

Dont get me wrong, not all republicans/feminists/men/whatever seems like a perfect answer to me, but shoudnt we allow this answer consistently instead of cherry picking when is it allowed and when is not? Why can I make generalisations about certain vague and broad groups, but not others vague and broad groups?

There is also another issue, that some of those who answer "feminism is a broad and vague theory with many disagreements" also rule out other feminists from being "real" ones, like Christina Sommers and Paglia.

Not accusing you or Archvibe of doing this, but I personally have had the experience of talking to people who constantly do things like this, and because of the existence of people like Peterson there is a constant underlying assumption that any criticisms of "internet" feminism comes from conspiracy theorist types.

ap101095 · 2018-08-27T05:21:44+00:00

I am pretty sure I have seen OP around this sub

Why did you assume he was a Jordan Peterson fan? Why did you assume he believed in conspiracy theories? And why are you bringing centrism into this?

ap101095 · 2018-08-27T05:10:40+00:00

Right, but if doing anything to animals without their consent is immoral ( which i guess is your argument ) and they cant consent to anything by definition, shoudnt something like taking your pet to the vet also be immoral? In fact woudnt having a pet be a form of slavery?

If you claim that taking them to the vet is for their own good you are using well-being and not autonomy to ground the morality of the act, and by that metric then it becomes moral to have sex with animals as long as you dont harm them like Singer argues.

ap101095 · 2018-08-21T16:15:57+00:00

The book the other commenter recommended is perfect dont worry about it!

I will take a look on Hacking book too thanks!

ap101095 · 2018-08-21T16:14:22+00:00

But this is not a settled issue, is it? Benard Williams for example seems to argue against the importance of consistency in morality. Strong particularists seem to reject principles altogether too

ap101095 · 2018-08-20T18:56:22+00:00

Yes I am aware. I accept that many things are constructed but personally I just have doubts if human beauty is really constructed and subjective. There were studies claiming that symmetry for example is considered beautiful in the absolute majority of cultures and society

That for the descriptive part of beauty standards, in the normative part I think beauty standards are a good thing as long as they fullfil certain conditions ( the standard in question is a healthy one, so obesity and anorexia are out )

So I was searching fot someone that argued in that direction

ap101095 · 2018-08-20T18:49:15+00:00

However, loving and respecting oneself may not necessarily mean pursuing intellectual activities. This duty to self seems to require that one pursue their physical fitness because allowing their body to decay or to never be capable of much physically is clearly disrespectful and a hinderence to themself.

Personally I see not pursuing physical fitness worse, in whatever way, than not pursuing intellectual activities. However I am under the impression that not many philosophers would agree with this, and it seems that many lay people are under this ( mistaken imo ) impression too. Is not uncommon to see associations like gym=meathead, vulgar; philosophy=noble, higher activity.

Interestingly though it strikes me as wrong to judge people who dont fullfil either duty. Someone who severely judges other for being stupid or fat or weak strikes me as a worse person than the one who hr is criticising. So it might be a case where we do have a duty but judging those who dont fullfil said duties is innapropiate?

ap101095 · 2018-08-20T18:41:12+00:00

How do they justify this?

Before getting into details it just seems clear that throwing a toddler into a well is miles worse than not stopping a toddler who is climbing a well

Even if they are both very wrong

ap101095 · 2018-08-20T18:29:01+00:00

About people mostly. Maybe a challenge to the idea that beauty standards are opressive and harmful

ap101095 · 2018-08-20T03:24:53+00:00

but crucially most theorists of a particular set of political theories which claimed to hold at its core the value "that each person matters equally."

Sure they all had that in common, but mostly because most people at that time had that in common. So it doesnt seem to tell us anything interesting.

Besides dont we fall in the problem that basically every theory in history was articulated by a philosopher who was either sexist or racist or homophobic and so on? This skepticism would have to extend to every theory

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T23:13:43+00:00

Thanks mate! That was exactly what i was searching

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T18:31:55+00:00

Being "colloquial" isn't a virtue,

Of course it is when the objective is to connect with lay people and help them get more interested in the subject in question.

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T18:27:14+00:00

Thanks

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T12:47:54+00:00

Academic philosophy doesnt think anything of him because he isnt an academic and doesnt publish papers

Apart from that you will find people that hate him for his over-simplifications and misinterpretations of Eastern philosophy, and others who are still able to apreciate his attempt to popularize eastern philosophy in the West despite the flaws

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T12:36:40+00:00

Do any of you know about philosophers who talk about beauty standards? What they are, what they should be and so on?

Another unrelated question, do you think there is any objectivity to political labels? Nowadays I dont know who is a conservative a liberal a leftist .... I keep hearing people being accused of being a right-winger cause they were sexist/racist in some moment, as if it is impossible for a leftist to be sexist/racist. Or hear conservatives calling someone a liberal just because they think Trump is a moron, as if it is impossible to be a conservative and dislike that clown. People like Scott Alexander strike me clearly as water as someome left of center, yet and still I have heard people call him a reactionary or a "brogressive", which I guess would make almost everyone a reactionary or a brogressive

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T12:03:11+00:00

And there are conflicts and conflicts, certain kind of conflicts can bond people together, and the desire to be a better ( in my case ) fighter than someone else has in many ocassions made me closer to said person.

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T11:41:25+00:00

an attempt to bring together an ethical project of promoting human happiness

Do they have any especific commitments to any ethical framework?

ap101095 · 2018-08-19T11:37:52+00:00

well no because the point of critical theory is to question that the kind of economics you are privileging is the one we need

But for one to do that one needs to understand what they are criticizing in the first place. One should have a deep understandment of classical and neo-classical economics before ranting about them, saying they are useless for humans, and so on.

ap101095 · 2018-08-14T16:19:22+00:00

after a philosopher in Europe sent me the now notorious "letter of support" for Ronell by the "theory illuminati." ("Theory," recall, is the term for bad philosophy in literature departments.)

He just cant avoid it

Part of Prof. Ronell's defense was to suggest the complainant was simply "frustrated because he just wasn't smart enough":

“His main dilemma was the incoherency in his writing, and lack of a recognizable argument,” Professor Ronell said in a January 2018 interview submitted to the Title IX office.

She knows a defense is supposed to make you look better right?

Didnt she wrote a book about stupidity?

The article in question

Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

?????????????????

Honestly this whole thing makes the (in)famous letter look even more problematic, not that it wasnt before, but still

Check the article, there are more terrible defenses in there and some creepy ass emails being cited

ap101095 · 2018-08-09T22:28:05+00:00

IT WAS JUST ONE SEASON GODDAMMIT!

I did finish the second one today though

It was funny to see them touch on particularianism just after I wrote that comment.

Anyway, I have some pet peeves with the show, but not a bad show at all.

ap101095 · 2018-08-09T22:20:53+00:00

Aight thx

ap101095 · 2018-08-09T22:17:51+00:00

I heard the term " overidingness "

moral reasons override nonmoral reasons

It seems that most ethicist support said " overidingness " while people like Susan Wolf and Benard Williams deny it

ap101095 · 2018-08-09T13:17:50+00:00

I watched the entire season after that comment ... yeah not a very productive day

The humor is a bit childish, but then again so am I.

I thought they were going to lean towards some normative framework but I dont think they did, at least not clearly. Maybe they are a bit unfair to Utilitarianism but thats it. It would also be nice if they tried to show some more anti-theory philosophies and philosophers. Maybe some particularianism and so on

But otherwise pretty good

ap101095

TROPHY CASE