Alt Text
Show parent replies
kasey is wrong i have to finish and make myself miserable
we're gonna have to unpack antirealism2 a lot more, and i have a feeling we're lumping a lot of distinct views in this one bucket, some of which are more or less defensible
i will note though that at least the gesture of general disaggregation is appreciated, a lot of my complaining so far has been trying to figure out what exactly he's even talking about
i dont really think we landed on anything definitive with the kant discussion, which is kinda unfortunate considering its obviously massive implications
like fair enough, i'd be more offended if you half-assed an attempt to seriously engage with what he was saying in a couple pages and then acted like you defeated him once and for all
which like he kind of did but, shrug. idk i can't be offended anymore
antirealism5 is just more ramblez
ngl i think philosophy of science is hella boring blawg, i don't even wanna be here why am i reading this
just as an aside, the discussion on arrogance is weird, especially considering his prior invocations of the term.
gah now that we're in more moral territory i'm gonna be groaning a lot
it's so funny to hear him argue for epistemic rigor and when it comes to morality, which ostensibly he also cares a great deal about, he just completely gives up on it
authoritarians (like engels [remember engels guys, im super heccin anarkist]) say violence is equivalent to domination, but we wise anarchists say "there are clear differences around the total amount of freedom provided to folks". so yeah. boom.
there are like 12 nested concepts in the phrase you set up for yourself and the best rejoinder you can come up with is "well there's like clearly a difference"