In my previous article on philosophical basics I stated that most humans inherently base their understanding of the world on a mixture of empiricism and rationalism and that rationalism allows us to acquire and understand knowledge in a way distinct from animals.
A little while ago I had a rather toxic conversation with a primitivist called @insanityisfree, wherein he maintained that in order to be allowed to have a conversation with him about primitivism I am required to have read some of Ted K’s writings. (he later linked me a 33 page pdf that supposedly ‘couldn’t be any smaller’)
All philosophy starts with axioms. The question is which ones are the most basic, the most essential, the most inescapable.
The first axiom appears to be logic. Or perhaps reason. Or perhaps most basically, the law of non-contradiction. There cannot be a round square.
The law of non-contradiction was the basis for the rejection of dogmatic scepticism. You cannot know for certain that nothing can be known for certain. Just as the statement ‘I am a liar’ is inherently meaningless.
There can be no ethics without moral consistency nor without honesty.
Hypocrisy, specifically of a partisan nature gravely damages society as a whole, since it subverts the objective character of morality making it into a weapon instead.
I have done something which I thought I would never do. Something that was beneath me. I visited a con. An anime con. I was confronted with the fact that I am technically a millennial, and how I was reminded that pretty much everyone there basically was as well. Some may technically have been zoomers, …
What is the ideal constitution? No actually, what is the least horrible constitution? The ‘best’ political system is an entirely different subject. Assuming the political system is a constitutional state, what should the constitution be?
In case people question why this article is listed amongst the philosophical articles, even though it analyses and compares an abstract political system, I would remind them that this constituted philosophy for Plato and Aristotle, so I am going to say that it counts as such.
The contradictory nature of dogmatic scepticism (asserting that nothing can be asserted) has already been pointed out across the centuries. If one is simply unsure about everything but not convinced about the uncertainty, inquiry has still far less value then when one is on a quest to find absolute truth. Is sceptical philosophy possible? If no knowledge can be acquired, not inquiry can be successful or unsuccessful, isn’t philosophy pointless? Does it even exist? Pyrrhonism simply keeps al inquiries unresolved. Judgement is suspended. Truth is sought but never obtained with certainty. As such it may be viewed as fruitless philosophy. But dogmatic scepticism actively rejects all inquiry as pointless, rejects truth, and such arguably even wisdom.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. It’s an interesting expression but unfortunately it has often been shown to be incorrect. One can wield immense power yet remain righteous and it turns out you can become corrupted with little power to speak of and I honestly cannot say that absolute power …
One of the most radical and revolutionary propositions in human history is the notion that we’re all somehow equal. That all humans are equal. A proposition both insane and meaningless. How are humans of various levels of intelligence, moral persuasions, virtues and vices all equal? Is a rapist equal to an old lady? We’re not all equally, neither biologically, emotionally, mentally or morally.
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, Christ didn’t preach any gospel of equality, just as how he didn’t call for the redistribution of wealth by state or revolution. In fact, the word equality doesn’t appear once in the New Testament, and while Christ could treat women with great respect, he only chose male apostles to lead his disciples and provide the sacraments. He gave them authority and as such established an undemocratic hierarchy.
Today, most historians reject the myth that the Middle Ages were dominated by a tolerant and progressive Islam on the one hand and a superstitious and violent Catholic Church on the other. The concept of the Dark Ages has been recognised as a myth[1][2][3]. Polemicists such as Robert Spencer have even argued that Islam is …
The destruction of philosophy and science: Al-Ghazali vs Thomas Aquinas Read More »