• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:13
CEST 23:13
KST 06:13
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition32
StarCraft 2
General
Revisiting the game after10 years and wow it's bad The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada herO Talks: Poor Performance at EWC and more...
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st) WardiTV Mondays RSL Offline Finals Dates + Ticket Sales!
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN [ASL20] Semifinal A
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1856 users

Philosophy and Why I Think It Matters - Page 16

Blogs > TheGloob
Post a Reply
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 Next All
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 00:05:43
August 04 2014 00:03 GMT
#301
On August 04 2014 08:28 hypercube wrote:
Over-reliance on logic is actually my main beef with philosophy


I was just telling a philosophy student this last night :D

On August 04 2014 08:21 deathly rat wrote:
It is obviously correct to take the emotion out of ethical debates.


obviously I don't think it's obvious, since I disagree. this is precisely the problem with dawkins and his ilk: they believe that all their positions are obvious, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with them does so because they are incapable of grasping the obvious.

I'm not sure how you would even go about starting to think about the example you provided without thinking about emotions.
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
August 04 2014 00:46 GMT
#302
You can think about emotions, unemotionally.

When I find I spider in the bathroom I feel scared. However I don't feel scared when I'm thinking about how I feel. I'm thinking about an emotional response, unemotionally.

It is this sort of thing that drives Dawkins crazy. People unable to grasp the simple difference between thinking about emotions, and thinking without emotion.
No logo (logo)
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 00:59:46
August 04 2014 00:58 GMT
#303
On August 04 2014 08:21 deathly rat wrote:
I think he certainly is being intentionally provocative, in order to raise awareness of the issues he campaigns for and stimulate discussions such as this one.

As for him "lacking expertise", is it not a classic fault in reasoning to attack the person rather than the ideas he is presenting? You could definitely argue the case for his philosophical expertise, but it's hardly the point is it.

It is obviously correct to take the emotion out of ethical debates. Does the victim of a crime have the right to sentence the perpetrator? Why not?


I'm not attacking Dawkins the person. I pointed out that this is another example among a plurality of examples where Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, let alone makes a coherent argument. Why is it the person saying "respond to the argument, not the person" who is not responding to the arguments?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 01:08:48
August 04 2014 01:08 GMT
#304
On August 04 2014 09:58 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2014 08:21 deathly rat wrote:
I think he certainly is being intentionally provocative, in order to raise awareness of the issues he campaigns for and stimulate discussions such as this one.

As for him "lacking expertise", is it not a classic fault in reasoning to attack the person rather than the ideas he is presenting? You could definitely argue the case for his philosophical expertise, but it's hardly the point is it.

It is obviously correct to take the emotion out of ethical debates. Does the victim of a crime have the right to sentence the perpetrator? Why not?


I'm not attacking Dawkins the person. I pointed out that this is another example among a plurality of examples where Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, let alone makes a coherent argument. Why is it the person saying "respond to the argument, not the person" who is not responding to the arguments?


If you have read the article on his website that was previously linked, you can't possibly say it's not a "coherent argument".

Again, whether he is expert or not has no relevance to the quality of the arguments he is presenting.

What argument do you think I have not been responding to? It sounds to me like you're just saying "no, you, it's you. That thing you said, that's you..."


No logo (logo)
hypercube
Profile Joined April 2010
Hungary2735 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 01:47:53
August 04 2014 01:32 GMT
#305
On August 04 2014 09:46 deathly rat wrote:
You can think about emotions, unemotionally.


Irrelevant (and also often untrue). The point is that emotion underlies certain kinds of reasoning, including moral reasoning. If you consciously try to ignore your emotional response to moral problems the quality of your reasoning will suffer.

Of course this doesn't matter for the kind of "moral dilemmas" that are often discussed. These are not actual scenarios but caricatures. Toy problems that lack sufficient detail to teach us much useful about the real world.

edit: So just as most of the world realized that philosophy might not be the best way to understand the nature of reality, maybe it's time to accept that the same is true for morality or how we should act towards one another.
"Sending people in rockets to other planets is a waste of money better spent on sending rockets into people on this planet."
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
August 04 2014 01:33 GMT
#306
On August 04 2014 09:46 deathly rat wrote:
You can think about emotions, unemotionally.

When I find I spider in the bathroom I feel scared. However I don't feel scared when I'm thinking about how I feel. I'm thinking about an emotional response, unemotionally.

It is this sort of thing that drives Dawkins crazy. People unable to grasp the simple difference between thinking about emotions, and thinking without emotion.


Can you? I'm not sure I agree. The sort of thing that drives me crazy is people who insist that things are more simple than they are, and that anyone who disagrees is simply unable to grasp the simplicity.

It's far from obvious to me that one could think in an adequate way about emotions without feeling emotions. I don't even know how to explain what an emotion is, logically... I think you have to feel them.
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
August 04 2014 01:57 GMT
#307
On August 04 2014 10:33 bookwyrm wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2014 09:46 deathly rat wrote:
You can think about emotions, unemotionally.

When I find I spider in the bathroom I feel scared. However I don't feel scared when I'm thinking about how I feel. I'm thinking about an emotional response, unemotionally.

It is this sort of thing that drives Dawkins crazy. People unable to grasp the simple difference between thinking about emotions, and thinking without emotion.


Can you? I'm not sure I agree. The sort of thing that drives me crazy is people who insist that things are more simple than they are, and that anyone who disagrees is simply unable to grasp the simplicity.

It's far from obvious to me that one could think in an adequate way about emotions without feeling emotions. I don't even know how to explain what an emotion is, logically... I think you have to feel them.


So you reject people trying to think objectively and rationally about emotional and ethical issues?

Your contention is then that since it is impossible to remove emotion from our decisions they must be included. Thus the feelings of victims of crime must be considered when sentencing. 2 victims have the same crime perpetrated against them, but the punishments are different due to the feelings of the victims?

You must then believe that because some people might be offended by a discussion, that discussion can't be had. I don't like Richard Dawkins saying that one kind of rape is worse than another, so I'm going to personally attack him, threaten him, and try to derail any kind of purposeful discussion, because I don't like his opinion.

What kind of rational thinking or philosophy is it that doesn't try to be objective? (the definition of objectivity including thought without personal emotion).

If you're going to bring the discussion down to "everything is subjective", and "can you believe what you see?" then I concede the argument and you can disappear back into the philosophical quagmire where nothing is true and but everything is right.
No logo (logo)
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 02:09:49
August 04 2014 02:08 GMT
#308
On August 04 2014 10:57 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2014 10:33 bookwyrm wrote:
On August 04 2014 09:46 deathly rat wrote:
You can think about emotions, unemotionally.

When I find I spider in the bathroom I feel scared. However I don't feel scared when I'm thinking about how I feel. I'm thinking about an emotional response, unemotionally.

It is this sort of thing that drives Dawkins crazy. People unable to grasp the simple difference between thinking about emotions, and thinking without emotion.


Can you? I'm not sure I agree. The sort of thing that drives me crazy is people who insist that things are more simple than they are, and that anyone who disagrees is simply unable to grasp the simplicity.

It's far from obvious to me that one could think in an adequate way about emotions without feeling emotions. I don't even know how to explain what an emotion is, logically... I think you have to feel them.


So you reject people trying to think objectively and rationally about emotional and ethical issues?


I reject the claim that one can adequately treat those issues solely from an "objective and rational" standpoint. My claim is that it's insufficient, not that it's wrong.

I'm not going to get into the details of your example because I have no interest in arguing with young males on gaming message boards about rape.


What kind of rational thinking or philosophy is it that doesn't try to be objective? (the definition of objectivity including thought without personal emotion).


I don't know... a better kind? A more useful kind? A truer kind? A more honest kind?


If you're going to bring the discussion down to "everything is subjective", and "can you believe what you see?" then I concede the argument and you can disappear back into the philosophical quagmire where nothing is true and but everything is right.


no, I'm quite hostile to views of that type
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 02:55:29
August 04 2014 02:52 GMT
#309
On August 04 2014 10:08 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2014 09:58 IgnE wrote:
On August 04 2014 08:21 deathly rat wrote:
I think he certainly is being intentionally provocative, in order to raise awareness of the issues he campaigns for and stimulate discussions such as this one.

As for him "lacking expertise", is it not a classic fault in reasoning to attack the person rather than the ideas he is presenting? You could definitely argue the case for his philosophical expertise, but it's hardly the point is it.

It is obviously correct to take the emotion out of ethical debates. Does the victim of a crime have the right to sentence the perpetrator? Why not?


I'm not attacking Dawkins the person. I pointed out that this is another example among a plurality of examples where Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, let alone makes a coherent argument. Why is it the person saying "respond to the argument, not the person" who is not responding to the arguments?


If you have read the article on his website that was previously linked, you can't possibly say it's not a "coherent argument".

Again, whether he is expert or not has no relevance to the quality of the arguments he is presenting.

What argument do you think I have not been responding to? It sounds to me like you're just saying "no, you, it's you. That thing you said, that's you..."




I said:

I think the point is that while it is not impossible to evaluate the moral harm or approbation of one rape in comparison to another, every rape is highly fact-specific (context dependent, consequences, intentions). Dawkins tweets are offensive because they imply some false category analysis.


That argument has nothing to do with his lack of expertise. You just didn't read it apparently.

Dawkins's argument is not a coherent one:

“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

‘“Being raped by a stranger is bad. Being raped by a formerly trusted friend is worse.” If you think that hypothetical quotation is an endorsement of rape by strangers, go away and learn how to think.’


Those two statements suggest that this top-down category analysis of rape sub-types is inherently inconsistent, because cross-rape moral tabulations are limited to case-by-case analysis and perhaps do not even subscribe to a quantitative accounting. He's just posting provocative, practically meaningless propositions and defends it by retreating to his blog and claiming that he's seeking to root out "taboo" and subjecting complex moral questions to infantile "rational" analysis.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
son1dow
Profile Joined May 2009
Lithuania322 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 06:08:01
August 04 2014 06:07 GMT
#310
Didn't the reddit post I linked two pages ago explain this, and then you did too IgnE? I feel like deathly rat doesn't want to understand sadly. Because it's really not something so uncomprehensible you can fail to understand so many times.
Play more Quake.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
August 04 2014 07:58 GMT
#311
I don't know why, but for some reason his first tweets are saying that just because one thing worse than another, it doesn't mean that one is good and one is bad.

He used a provocative example, which I think detracted away from the original point he was trying to make. Since everyone is concerned with if one kind of rape can be fairly defined as worse than another. What Dawkins wants to say is they are both bad, even if you say one is worse than another.

People tell Dawkins he has no right to comment on such things, and anyway it is beyond the realms of decency to do so. So then he writes the article on his website defending his example, saying that people involved in philosophical discussions should be able to talk about whatever they want, and give extreme examples if they wish to.

I think the worst you can fairly accuse him of is choosing a bad example to illustrate his point.
No logo (logo)
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 08:07:51
August 04 2014 08:07 GMT
#312
edit: nvm
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
August 04 2014 12:53 GMT
#313
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/08/limits-of-rationalism-.html
Imo a good blog post on that Dawkins story. His reaction to the outrage is more telling than the fiirst tweet in itself imo.
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-04 15:36:21
August 04 2014 15:33 GMT
#314
On August 04 2014 21:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/08/limits-of-rationalism-.html
Imo a good blog post on that Dawkins story. His reaction to the outrage is more telling than the fiirst tweet in itself imo.


That article is hilariously bad. He thinks Dawkins is motivated by disgust of the effects of religion, when actually it is well known that he is motivated by the pursuit of truth and promoting a secular civilisation.

The rest of the argument is also drivel. There are perfectly good reasons why moral judgments should not be made on the basis of emotions, as I have already stated.

Then the article finishes by putting words into Dawkins' mouth to come to the conclusion that what he really wants is for everyone to be like him. Nonsense.
No logo (logo)
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
August 04 2014 15:42 GMT
#315
On August 05 2014 00:33 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2014 21:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/08/limits-of-rationalism-.html
Imo a good blog post on that Dawkins story. His reaction to the outrage is more telling than the fiirst tweet in itself imo.


That article is hilariously bad. He thinks Dawkins is motivated by disgust of the effects of religion, when actually it is well known that he is motivated by the pursuit of truth and promoting a secular civilisation.

The rest of the argument is also drivel. There are perfectly good reasons why moral judgments should not be made on the basis of emotions, as I have already stated.

Then the article finishes by putting words into Dawkins' mouth to come to the conclusion that what he really wants is for everyone to be like him. Nonsense.

It's though being a fanboy, you're lucky to be on a site where this is perfectly understandable.
You havent shown anything btw.
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
TheGloob
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
97 Posts
August 04 2014 17:49 GMT
#316
I was gone for the weekend. This is still going. You guys are legendary hahahaha
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-05 19:30:26
August 05 2014 19:26 GMT
#317
The over-reliance on pure logic is a bigger problem with Anglo-analytics and math fetishists like Badiou and other structuralists though. That's when you get the weird ontologies that think everything can be understood with nothing but mathematical rigour, which doesn't end up making either much sense or being very useful in both the natural sciences and "humanistic" sciences. I would venture to say that a greater degree of Western philosophy has become skeptical of the over-reliance on pure logic over the past century, not just in Continental Europe but also among the Anglos (especially in the recent decades).

That being said, nowadays I think NA humanities and social science students would do better if their curriculum necessitated some logic classes.
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-05 19:31:49
August 05 2014 19:31 GMT
#318
Haha, I don't think Badiou thinks that everything can be understood with nothing but mathematical rigor. He might have written some books about set theory, but his philosophy is irrationalist at its core (the subject is constituted by its fidelity to a truth-event, but the determination of what is or is not a truth-event is a leap of faith because it's formally undecidable).

On August 06 2014 04:26 koreasilver wrote:
That being said, nowadays I think NA humanities and social science students would do better if their curriculum necessitated some logic classes.


I'll drink to that. Then I could talk about math without everyone going glassy-eyed and calling me a platonist
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
CosmicSpiral
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States15275 Posts
August 05 2014 19:33 GMT
#319
Are you people still arguing about this?
WriterWovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
August 06 2014 00:29 GMT
#320
On August 06 2014 04:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Are you people still arguing about this?


I don't know. What do you think?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
IPSL
19:00
Ro24 Group D
Sziky vs Havi
Artosis vs Klauso
Airneanach123
Liquipedia
Safe House 2
17:00
Playoffs
TriGGeR vs Cham
Astrea vs TBD
ZombieGrub695
TKL 218
CosmosSc2 64
EnkiAlexander 47
3DClanTV 33
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ZombieGrub695
TKL 218
PiGStarcraft106
ProTech85
JuggernautJason82
CosmosSc2 64
Railgan 39
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 961
Barracks 237
Mong 64
NaDa 31
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K511
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu490
Khaldor455
Other Games
Grubby2697
ScreaM1746
fl0m1394
Pyrionflax214
ToD22
Maynarde10
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3680
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Adnapsc2 20
• musti20045 20
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 30
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• Ler63
League of Legends
• Doublelift1198
Other Games
• imaqtpie2322
• Shiphtur189
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
12h 47m
Monday Night Weeklies
18h 47m
WardiTV Invitational
1d 13h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 17h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Online Event
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.