Discordian Grin: Old School Discordians.

[hoopla]

From what I hear, the way to get your philosophy stuck into the public consciousness is to write it into a crude fictional form. Wait for a personality cult to form around you, at which point you start an affair with your closest sycophant. For intellectual purposes, of course. And finally... profit.

[Sano]

Well, I didn't say people get rich working on philosophy. But still some do make kinda liveable wages. As in, you know, it is still a thing that gets taught at many universities around the world, and some people do dedicate their entire careers to it.

[LMNO]

And some people dedicate their careers to promoting intelligent design.  Doesn't mean it's something to be proud of.

[Cain]

Actually, nevermind.

[LMNO]

Oh, you know I was only kidding.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love philosophy but I do have a problem in that it comes across sometimes as science. Even the word "Metaphysics" has physics in it but it's not science, it's art. We'd do well to remember that, imho.

[hoopla]

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love philosophy but I do have a problem in that it comes across sometimes as science. Even the word "Metaphysics" has physics in it but it's not science, it's art. We'd do well to remember that, imho.

You have a strong point, but many schools of philosophy base themselves around strong logical arguments.  Logic isn't entirely necessary for a lot of forms of art.  I would argue it isn't exactly art, sort of, but it sure isn't science.

[Sano]

Philosophy definitely isn't science IMO, but isn't exactly art either. But then again there isn't that much agreement on what philosophy is, which of course causes some confusion.

I do wonder what you guys think gets done in philosophy departments.

[hoopla]

I do wonder what you guys think gets done in philosophy departments.

[Sano]

[P3nT4gR4m]

They're quite obviously trying to produce weaponized ethics to use against the terrorists 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

 

Awesome piece TGRR!

I wandered around heavily in the past for awhile, back when it was new to me. Once I got through it though, I didn't see a need to get stuck in it. I still find some of the things I learned from looking at the past useful... but not in a way that should anchor us there.

As for the topic of determinism vs free will... I think the entire question is patently absurd. We can't yet put together a theory that unifies macro and quantum physics... how the hell can we even begin to make statements about macro and quantum behavior?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I feel that it is worth mentioning that LMNO never told us who the fuck pays physicists.

[The Wizard Joseph]

I feel that it is worth mentioning that LMNO never told us who the fuck pays physicists.

Maybe it's best that we not go digging. I mean after the Panama papers and all, isn't there perhaps too much smoke in the air for such a... delicate matter? Hm?


Seriously though your observation was pretty much spot on about the weird idolatry of the "founders."

I was also very intrigued by some of the conversation about overcoming the jargon gap and talking about site structure here @ PD. I pretty much hit a brick wall when I try and explain Discordian terms, much less concepts unique to PD. I usually just bite the bullet and do my best to summarize.

[minuspace]

Enjoyed the piece.  Was thinking about:

For example, I was told that believing in free will means that I believe everyone has to be exactly alike.

I think it's someone reading free will backward.  Starting from the moral/practical conclusion that one must act in accordance to the categorical imperative, to ensure the autonomy of others to do the same (golden rule), they assume that everyone has be exactly alike.  It's not all that endearing.