Ballistic accuracy finally on par with actionable moment-by-moment news-sourced coverage.
If it quacks like a sociopath, but also ponders its own sociopathy, it's probably just an asshole.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
How does the President intend to overcome Zeno's Paradox to make credible the threat of use of our nuclear missile systems?
This was good writing why did it confuse everyone?
I have wondered that myself.
Like the terms “aesthetic” and “religious”, the term “ethics” in Kierkegaard’s work has more than one meaning. It is used to denote both: (i) a limited existential sphere, or stage, which is superseded by the higher stage of the religious life; and (ii) an aspect of life which is retained even within the religious life. In the first sense “ethics” is synonymous with the Hegelian notion of Sittlichkeit, or customary mores. In this sense “ethics” represents “the universal”, or more accurately the prevailing social norms. These social norms are used as reasons to make sense of, or justify, an action within a community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so that when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is regarded as a tragic hero since his community understands that the sacrifice is required by the gods for the success of the Greek expedition to Troy (Fear and Trembling).https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Eth
Kierkegaard, however, recognizes duties that cannot be justified in terms of social norms. Much of Fear and Trembling turns on the notion that Abraham’s would-be sacrifice of his son Isaac is ineffable in terms of social norms, and requires a “teleological suspension of the ethical”. That is, Abraham recognizes a duty to something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent person and his personal commitment to his beloved son, viz. his duty to obey God’s commands. However, he cannot give an intelligible ethical justification of his act to the community in terms of social norms, but must simply obey the divine command.
But in order to arrive at a position of religious faith, which might entail a “teleological suspension of the ethical”, the individual must first embrace the ethical (in the first sense). In order to raise oneself beyond the merely aesthetic life, which is a life of drifting in imagination, possibility and sensation, one needs to make a commitment. That is, the aesthete needs to choose the ethical, which entails a commitment to communication and decision procedures.
Do impossible thoughts exist or are they only imagined to exist such that we imagine the existence of an impossible thought and think we are thinking about it when we are in point of fact not thinking about it at all?
Exist - Having the boundary condition of non-existence
Agreed, and without expecting to gain anything from it, there is still a matter of "faith" for the atheist. Even without a higher power, you can do things in good faith, for their own merit, or, in bad faith, in order to provide personal gain, like how a still godless atheist may appeal to said higher power simply to hedge his bets. I dunno, not feeling entirely at ease with this first articulation of mine, tear it up.The original trope "There are no atheists in a foxhole" was created to give the impression that under times of extreme stress, all humans will look to a higher power to help them; ergo, atheism can be dismissed as human folly.
The subverted trope of the OP intends to show that using nothing but reasoning from the atheist's belief system, morality and good works do not have to be divinely inspired or derived, but can be concluded simply from the premise that there is no afterlife or higher power; that it's up to the individual, not god.
This is much more succinct than any explanation I would have come up with, thank you.
Perhaps you feel the atheist in the OP is unduly idealized, because the OP is referring to an ideal.
In the same way, when someone talks about being a good Christian, they're not talking about a person, they're talking about the best kind of person a Christian can be.
It's a variation on the FB meme that floats around "why did god make atheists?" with the answer being "to show you that people can be good because they want to be, and not because of god" or something similar.
I originally made that animation the day that RAW died, connecting the dots of his preferred epitaph “Dove Sta Memoria” (Where Memory Lives) as the answer to one of his riddles “where does your fist go…?” Intending the obvious afterlife subtext. It does indeed make me wonder!
It’s not as easy as it used to be to steal time away from IRL, but also the last several months have seemed like a particularly good time to work the long con, rather than short term reactions to the cacophony of the zeitgeist.
I’ve got 3 new books just about ready to go, just need to find a couple of quiet days to polish them off.
To be fair, this is the Open Bar.
Which is, also to be fair, not usually home to the degree of dick-waving I expect to see everywhere else on Peedee.
The dick-waving quotient increases by about 748% any time Thwack decides to grace us with his presence. He's still PeeDee-ing like it's 2006.
What can I say, sometimes elements of times past should return. There is a lot to be said for not taking yourself too seriously, and there are some here that really need to remember that.
No argument there, it's just that experience shows us that the people who tend to self-appoint themselves for that task are usually in that category themselves.
If I had the ability to think impossible thoughts, would a brain that is limited by possibility have the ability to process the discussion of my impossible thought to the point where it could even recognize the impossibility of the thought being discussed?
Please define the bolded.
By defining impossible, would I not be limiting impossibility to that which is merely possible to those without the ability to process impossible thoughts?
It's a bit rich for Italians to complain about immigration.
That said, the Native American motif is a strangely recurrant one in fascist and far-right groups. Hitler pointed to the fate of the Native Americans as one (of many) justifications for his drive to expansion.