Alt Text
Show parent replies
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"
😭😭😭😭 kill meeeee
"any average person would see informed choice in the world around us as the very definition of freedom - a matter of options, avenues in which to act"
it's also so funny that we keep clinging to ordinary language philosophy
LMFAO WHAT
"it's my opinion that all appeals to sexual psychology are vapid and without general insight"
you weren't kidding when you bashed psychoanalysis earlier lmfao
we keep spitefully quoting adorno/horkheimer but not actually talking about them
i like the start of the "broader scientist moral narratives" section. the inversion is generative and cute, and that's all it's meant to be