Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 am Well, that's kinda redundant when there are ways of storing energy.
Sure. Which do you figure is the most thermodynamically efficient storage medium? There will be an energy cost of storage, that occurs when energy is translated from one form to another. My favoured technology is hydrogen - but then, what I'm proposing will have energy and sea water in close proximity; so electrolysis makes sense. Australia is huge, and the interior is dry as a bone. It may be bathed in sunshine, so you can produce energy with a heliostat - but how do you store it, and distribute it to where it's needed?
attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 am Fuck carbon capture beyond forestation and the like.
Strident view - succinctly expressed, but why? Having the energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc - things that simply can't be done with fossil fuels, or with wind and solar, is precisely the point of developing magma energy technology.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 amInvestment is being pulled from coal mining - BHP are heading in the direction of Nickel and Lithium for the electric switch. Electrolysis for Hydrogen - via heliostat generated electricity is Oz future...and yeah the sooner we stop sending coal off to Asia the better.

In my view, climate change is a global problem, and needs to be addressed as such. It's pointless to solve climate change in the US, the UK, and/or Oz - alone. There are 3 billion people in Asia, dependent on fossil fuels - who are not content to remain poor. China is developing economically. India is building a middle class - and good luck to them. But it's got to be sustainable development based on clean energy, or whatever we do in the developed world will make no difference at all. We need a globally adequate approach, and we need to do more than merely avoid creating some GHG emissions. We need excess energy to spend to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc; so as to mitigate and adapt to climate change already set to occur, These are hugely energy intensive processes - which require base load power wind and solar cannot realistically produce.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by jayjacobus »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:45 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 am Well, that's kinda redundant when there are ways of storing energy.
Sure. Which do you figure is the most thermodynamically efficient storage medium? There will be an energy cost of storage, that occurs when energy is translated from one form to another. My favoured technology is hydrogen - but then, what I'm proposing will have energy and sea water in close proximity; so electrolysis makes sense. Australia is huge, and the interior is dry as a bone. It may be bathed in sunshine, so you can produce energy with a heliostat - but how do you store it, and distribute it to where it's needed?
attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 am Fuck carbon capture beyond forestation and the like.
Strident view - succinctly expressed, but why? Having the energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc - things that simply can't be done with fossil fuels, or with wind and solar, is precisely the point of developing magma energy technology.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:09 amInvestment is being pulled from coal mining - BHP are heading in the direction of Nickel and Lithium for the electric switch. Electrolysis for Hydrogen - via heliostat generated electricity is Oz future...and yeah the sooner we stop sending coal off to Asia the better.

In my view, climate change is a global problem, and needs to be addressed as such. It's pointless to solve climate change in the US, the UK, and/or Oz - alone. There are 3 billion people in Asia, dependent on fossil fuels - who are not content to remain poor. China is developing economically. India is building a middle class - and good luck to them. But it's got to be sustainable development based on clean energy, or whatever we do in the developed world will make no difference at all. We need a globally adequate approach, and we need to do more than merely avoid creating some GHG emissions. We need excess energy to spend to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc; so as to mitigate and adapt to climate change already set to occur, These are hugely energy intensive processes - which require base load power wind and solar cannot realistically produce.
Scientists have not proven that CO2 in the atmosphere heats the globe.

CO2 in a room does not heat the room.

EMF in a room will heat the room. EMF in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and manmade EMF has increased significantly in the last 50 years or more.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:38 pm Scientists have not proven that CO2 in the atmosphere heats the globe. CO2 in a room does not heat the room. EMF in a room will heat the room. EMF in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and manmade EMF has increased significantly in the last 50 years or more.
I'm not interested in debating whether climate change is real, nor debating what causes it. Those conversations have been had; and the consensus says greenhouse gas emissions. This thread is about solving climate change - and I'd ask that you either accept the overwhelming consensus that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, and remain on topic, or otherwise start a thread of your own about what really causes climate change. Thanks.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Solving Climate Change.

"It's called solarpunk. The term, coined in 2008, refers to an art movement which broadly envisions how the future might look if we lived in harmony with nature in a sustainable and egalitarian world. "Solarpunk is really the only solution to the existential corner of climate disaster we have backed ourselves into as a species," says Michelle Tulumello, a solarpunk art teacher in New York state. "If we wish to survive and keep some of the things we care about on the earth with us, it involves a necessary fundamental alteration in our world view where we change our outlook completely from competitive to cooperative."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57761297

This story appeared on the BBC news website, and is a prime example of the kind of thing I would like to debate; the assumption - ubiquitous to the environmental movement, that addressing climate change implies equality of poverty. I don't believe that's technologically necessary, nor is it philosophically correct, and furthermore, it wouldn't work!

Philosophically speaking, the root cause of climate change is not capitalism. This is a mistaken assumption inherent to a left wing dominated narrative on the environment, dating back to the 1960's. The real root cause of climate change is a religious disdain for science as truth - dating back to Galileo's 1634 trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Western philosophy; written in service to the existing power structures, obliged the powers that be - by undermining, ignoring and/or invoking scientific nightmares - to emphasise the spiritual, to the neglect of the mundane, such that the ideological architecture of society was maintained - unreformed in relation to science as truth, and was free to use science as a tool, in service to ideological ends, without regard to science as an understanding of reality.

Technologically speaking, there's a virtually limitless amount of high grade, base load clean energy in the interior of the earth. Assuming we can harness that massive source of energy - and in my inexpert opinion, it does seem feasible - we could use that energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, and in this way account for the externalities of capitalism, internalising them with magma energy developed as a global good, rather than internalise those externalities to the real economy - and instituting policies to supress demand that will surely fall most heavily on those least well off. Instead, and in fact, given a virtually limitless amount of clean energy to spend on supply side measures - capitalism can be sustained, and climate change addressed without the need for authoritarian government imposing poverty for ever after.

Unfortunately, we ignored science as truth - and assume we are right to do so, such that it's not surprising that the left felt free to filter all their observations through the lens of anti-capitalist ideology, particularly when - back in the 1960's, communism was still a thing. Since the 1990's, communism is not a thing. Communism failed as a form of political economy, and yet the left wing dominated environmental movement remains determined that the only, and the rightful answer to the unreasonable success of capitalism is to dismantle it, in favour of a system of political economy that's a proven failure. I strongly disagree.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by jayjacobus »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:12 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:38 pm Scientists have not proven that CO2 in the atmosphere heats the globe. CO2 in a room does not heat the room. EMF in a room will heat the room. EMF in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere and manmade EMF has increased significantly in the last 50 years or more.
I'm not interested in debating whether climate change is real, nor debating what causes it. Those conversations have been had; and the consensus says greenhouse gas emissions. This thread is about solving climate change - and I'd ask that you either accept the overwhelming consensus that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, and remain on topic, or otherwise start a thread of your own about what really causes climate change. Thanks.
The consensus thinks the emperor has new clothes.

You think they are right, don't you?
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Walker »

Vitruvius wrote:This thread is about solving climate change
A solution requires a problem.

The climate is not a problem.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:36 pm The consensus thinks the emperor has new clothes.
You think they are right, don't you?
You do realise that's a story, right? It's as fictional as your purported disbelief in the science of climate change. Protest the sincerity of your disbelief and you are either an idiot - who's low grade opinions are not worth responding to - or you're an asshole being an asshole on purpose. I suspect the latter!
Walker wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:59 pm A solution requires a problem.The climate is not a problem.
Here, I suspect the former!
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by jayjacobus »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:54 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:36 pm The consensus thinks the emperor has new clothes.
You think they are right, don't you?
You do realise that's a story, right? It's as fictional as your purported disbelief in the science of climate change. Protest the sincerity of your disbelief and you are either an idiot - who's low grade opinions are not worth responding to - or you're an asshole being an asshole on purpose. I suspect the latter!
Walker wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:59 pm A solution requires a problem.The climate is not a problem.
Here, I suspect the former!
A jerk is a contemptibly obnoxious person. GFY
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:57 pm A jerk is a contemptibly obnoxious person. GFY
If you know that, why are you being a jerk by crapping on my thread?
Last edited by Vitruvius on Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by jayjacobus »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:24 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:57 pm A jerk is a contemptibly obnoxious person. GFY
If you know that, why are you being a jerk by shitting on my thread? Fuck off.
I merely defined jerk. Does that offend you?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Solving Climate Change.

"It's called solarpunk. The term, coined in 2008, refers to an art movement which broadly envisions how the future might look if we lived in harmony with nature in a sustainable and egalitarian world. "Solarpunk is really the only solution to the existential corner of climate disaster we have backed ourselves into as a species," says Michelle Tulumello, a solarpunk art teacher in New York state. "If we wish to survive and keep some of the things we care about on the earth with us, it involves a necessary fundamental alteration in our world view where we change our outlook completely from competitive to cooperative."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57761297

This story appeared on the BBC news website, and is a prime example of the kind of thing I would like to debate; the assumption - ubiquitous to the environmental movement, that addressing climate change implies equality of poverty. I don't believe that's technologically necessary, nor is it philosophically correct, and furthermore, it wouldn't work!

Philosophically speaking, the root cause of climate change is not capitalism. This is a mistaken assumption inherent to a left wing dominated narrative on the environment, dating back to the 1960's. The real root cause of climate change is a religious disdain for science as truth - dating back to Galileo's 1634 trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Western philosophy; written in service to the existing power structures, obliged the powers that be - by undermining, ignoring and/or invoking scientific nightmares - to emphasise the spiritual, to the neglect of the mundane, such that the ideological architecture of society was maintained - unreformed in relation to science as truth, and was free to use science as a tool, in service to ideological ends, without regard to science as an understanding of reality.

Technologically speaking, there's a virtually limitless amount of high grade, base load clean energy in the interior of the earth. Assuming we can harness that massive source of energy - and in my inexpert opinion, it does seem feasible - we could use that energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, and in this way account for the externalities of capitalism, internalising them with magma energy developed as a global good, rather than internalise those externalities to the real economy - and instituting policies to supress demand that will surely fall most heavily on those least well off. Instead, and in fact, given a virtually limitless amount of clean energy to spend on supply side measures - capitalism can be sustained, and climate change addressed without the need for authoritarian government imposing poverty for ever after.

Unfortunately, we ignored science as truth - and assume we are right to do so, such that it's not surprising that the left felt free to filter all their observations through the lens of anti-capitalist ideology, particularly when - back in the 1960's, communism was still a thing. Since the 1990's, communism is not a thing. Communism failed as a form of political economy, and yet the left wing dominated environmental movement remains determined that the only, and the rightful answer to the unreasonable success of capitalism is to dismantle it, in favour of a system of political economy that's a proven failure. I strongly disagree.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:28 pm This story appeared on the BBC news website, and is a prime example of the kind of thing I would like to debate; the assumption - ubiquitous to the environmental movement, that addressing climate change implies equality of poverty. I don't believe that's technologically necessary, nor is it philosophically correct, and furthermore, it wouldn't work!
Start a new thread about that and leave out the sci-fi volcano shit and perhaps you can have that debate. Predicate it on the implausible technomancy and you won't because it raises so many questions you can't answer.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:28 pm Philosophically speaking, the root cause of climate change is not capitalism. This is a mistaken assumption inherent to a left wing dominated narrative on the environment, dating back to the 1960's. The real root cause of climate change is a religious disdain for science as truth - dating back to Galileo's 1634 trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Western philosophy; written in service to the existing power structures, obliged the powers that be - by undermining, ignoring and/or invoking scientific nightmares - to emphasise the spiritual, to the neglect of the mundane, such that the ideological architecture of society was maintained - unreformed in relation to science as truth, and was free to use science as a tool, in service to ideological ends, without regard to science as an understanding of reality.
There's an alt-right crowd on this site who love to go on about THE SCARY LEFT, but they are climate change denialists almost to a man so not your audience. Everyone else finds those rants irritating and shapeless.

The history of philosophy story you spin might work on some guy in the pub, but there's lots of people who actually read philosophy here, so you might want to stick to what you can justify. If you use the mantra "science as truth" again, I will be tempted to set Age on you to ask exactly what that really means.

There's a strong case to be made that most green parties are packed with old school tankie socialists, and there's more than a hint that many among them are mainly interested in the climate fight as an accelerationist maneuver to bring about a workers paradise and the end of history rather than being dedicated to that actual cause. You don't need a hyperbolic screed to do that argument, and it undermines your case to resort to such.

A normal complaint about western philosophy is diametrically opposed to what you wrote, many thing that it explicitly rejects the sublime to concentrate on the mundane, and that it spent much of the 20th century foolishly imitating the methods of science.

But conversations about this stuff cannot be encumbered with the geological baggage of this dismal thread.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:02 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:01 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:17 pm When the Sun don't shine - the energy could be stored in vast lithium battery arrays... In fact - there is a US energy firm actually using salt as a way to store HEAT, so the salt in fact could be useful aftera all - I haven't got the Co. name handy but the local govt are shoving wads of cash up their arse somewhere near Port Augusta trial plant.
If the fresh water produced is not of a capacity to be feasible for towns to use, well, grow yer bloody cotton or woteva!! - currently the river Murray is being drained in these times of drought for cotton production.

Things need to change, things need to adapt, and there is plenty of arid land north of me that is very flat and low close to sea level.
Molten salt energy storage is a thing, seems to be a pretty good thing at that. No idea if they are cool with getting the salt from seawater, bit fishy.
..yes, my point was not so much about '"the getting the salt from seawater." - it pretty much is more of a waste product - nice on chips though.

Point being, clean ELECTRICITY & FRESH WATER - we could have fields of arid land turned into viable (DROUGHT RESISTANT) farmland.

Thoughts?
You can, but it's usually more efficient to seek relative advantage by making use of what you have rather than to invest heavily into having stuff that other people get for free. You've got an area of land that is great for making electricity from sunshine because there's not a lot of rain clouds. I'm not sure I get the reasoning for growing such a thirsty crop as cotton there, it wastes the benefits of all that dirt cheap sparky stuff that should be useful for some other purpose.

If you're producing 10kg of salf for every kilogram of cotton somebody with normal rainflow is producing the cotton for a much lower unit cost than you are.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 am Start a new thread about that and leave out the sci-fi volcano shit and perhaps you can have that debate. Predicate it on the implausible technomancy and you won't because it raises so many questions you can't answer.
Thanks for the advice. May I suggest, reciprocally - that you show why it's impossible to harness heat energy from the molten interior of the earth? I have asked several times that you justify your unreasonable scepticism, but nothing but badly written rhetoric so far!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 am There's an alt-right crowd on this site who love to go on about THE SCARY LEFT, but they are climate change denialists almost to a man so not your audience. Everyone else finds those rants irritating and shapeless.
If it had been a story about how there's no such thing as climate change, your comments might have been relevant. But it's a story about how the left are still calling for equality of poverty to save the world - long after the failure of communism, and have not even considered overcoming limits to growth through the application of technology.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amThe history of philosophy story you spin might work on some guy in the pub, but there's lots of people who actually read philosophy here, so you might want to stick to what you can justify. If you use the mantra "science as truth" again, I will be tempted to set Age on you to ask exactly what that really means.
More snide rhetoric. If you think I'm wrong, we can get into it, but could you first justify your claim that harnessing the heat energy of the earth is impossible. That is what you said, and I've been waiting to learn why it's impossible. My reading of the history of philosophy may be unconventional - but I think you'll find I'm right, just as - I think you'll find it's possible to harness the heat energy of magma.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 am There's a strong case to be made that most green parties are packed with old school tankie socialists, and there's more than a hint that many among them are mainly interested in the climate fight as an accelerationist maneuver to bring about a workers paradise and the end of history rather than being dedicated to that actual cause. You don't need a hyperbolic screed to do that argument, and it undermines your case to resort to such.
I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic screed. Just because you don't understand an argument, doesn't mean it's a bad argument. It means you are too stupid to understand why it's necessary to look into all these strands, to understand the social, political, economic, ideological, technological log jam - that is the climate crisis. Left wing anti-capitalists are just a part of it. Right wing climate change deniers are another. You've got a real shitty attitude for someone with no reading comprehension whatsoever!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 am A normal complaint about western philosophy is diametrically opposed to what you wrote, many thing that it explicitly rejects the sublime to concentrate on the mundane, and that it spent much of the 20th century foolishly imitating the methods of science.
Whoever these mystery 'normal' people are they're wrong. Thanks for another utterly useless post, filled with direct contradiction, and greasy condescension, in which there's nothing interesting or worth elaborating on. You wasted your own time, and mine!
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:28 pm This story appeared on the BBC news website, and is a prime example of the kind of thing I would like to debate; the assumption - ubiquitous to the environmental movement, that addressing climate change implies equality of poverty. I don't believe that's technologically necessary, nor is it philosophically correct, and furthermore, it wouldn't work!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amStart a new thread about that and leave out the sci-fi volcano shit and perhaps you can have that debate. Predicate it on the implausible technomancy and you won't because it raises so many questions you can't answer.
I cannot provide blueprints for the technology necessary to harness base load clean energy from magma, that's true. We've established that. I can say, having looked at various materials, it seems technologically feasible to drill through very hot rock, and pump water through to produce massive amounts of clean electricity. I do not understand your assertions that this is in some way a fantastical idea. If it is science fiction - could you identify the fiction part. Is the earth not a big ball of molten rock? Can we not drill miles into the earth's crust?

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:28 pm Philosophically speaking, the root cause of climate change is not capitalism. This is a mistaken assumption inherent to a left wing dominated narrative on the environment, dating back to the 1960's. The real root cause of climate change is a religious disdain for science as truth - dating back to Galileo's 1634 trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Western philosophy; written in service to the existing power structures, obliged the powers that be - by undermining, ignoring and/or invoking scientific nightmares - to emphasise the spiritual, to the neglect of the mundane, such that the ideological architecture of society was maintained - unreformed in relation to science as truth, and was free to use science as a tool, in service to ideological ends, without regard to science as an understanding of reality.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amThere's an alt-right crowd on this site who love to go on about THE SCARY LEFT, but they are climate change denialists almost to a man so not your audience. Everyone else finds those rants irritating and shapeless.
Ask yourself what the world would be today, had the Church welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and science had been pursued and valued as the word of God, integrated into politics and economics, with technology developed and applied as proof of God's favour. Politics would be poised between the ought and the is - knowing what's true, and then doing what's right in terms of what's true.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amThe history of philosophy story you spin might work on some guy in the pub, but there's lots of people who actually read philosophy here, so you might want to stick to what you can justify. If you use the mantra "science as truth" again, I will be tempted to set Age on you to ask exactly what that really means.
...instead, the Church put Galileo on trial, charged with heresy. His contemporary, Descartes - immediately withdrew a work on physics from publication, and instead wrote 'Meditations on First Philosophy' - which uses a sceptical methodology to arrive at the subjectivist certainty 'Cogito ergo sum.' Today, subjectivism is every bit as ubiquitous as the assumption that addressing climate change implies equality of poverty, but scientifically, which is to say objectively speaking, that's not true. I can walk you through the history of philosophy - between Descartes' and modern day post modernism if you like. But I don't know how much you'll understand if you're going 'no, no, no, no, no, no!' - all the time!

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amThere's a strong case to be made that most green parties are packed with old school tankie socialists, and there's more than a hint that many among them are mainly interested in the climate fight as an accelerationist maneuver to bring about a workers paradise and the end of history rather than being dedicated to that actual cause. You don't need a hyperbolic screed to do that argument, and it undermines your case to resort to such.
I'm a philosopher, and this is a philosophy forum. If high falutin' ideas ain't your thing, you're in the wrong place. May I suggest twitter. I think you'd like it. The word limit would suit your attention span.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amA normal complaint about western philosophy is diametrically opposed to what you wrote, many thing that it explicitly rejects the sublime to concentrate on the mundane, and that it spent much of the 20th century foolishly imitating the methods of science.
Western philosophy writes its own press releases.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:15 amBut conversations about this stuff cannot be encumbered with the geological baggage of this dismal thread.
I'm not terrifically surprised that you don't see how any of this fits together. You haven't sought to understand, but only to contradict at every juncture. You haven't granted me the basic respect of assuming that I'm saying what I'm saying for, what I believe are goods reasons. There's no 'could you explain what you mean by that?' in your vocabulary. It's attack dog tactics, and greasy condescension from start to finish, and I think that's because you're a cowardly know nothing, who's little certainty is shaken by unconventional thinking.
Last edited by Vitruvius on Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply