"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[-1-]

You get uncovered for who you are without any trouble too quickly, Logic. I suggest, if you want to avoid a constant cat-and-mouse chase game, is for you to auto-generate 10,000,000 IDs on this website, and then use them in random sequence, never repeating a username. Nobody can catch you then.

[Immanuel Can]

I know indoctrination when I see it.

Yeah, you might think so. And some cases are clear enough...but they're pretty easy. Glassy-eyed cult followers chanting in a circle, while high on LSD...yeah, easy: that's indoctrination. Hitler youth...indoctrination...easy.

But many instances are not so easy. If you read the literature on this, you'll find that out.

Like this question: if you teach someone what you sincerely believe is the truth, but don't supply adequate reasons for them to believe it, are you indoctrinating? Or, if you teach people a lie, but give them good reasons to believe it, are you indoctrinating? Or if you don't know that you are telling people something that isn't true, are you indoctrinating? What if what you tell them IS the truth, but the reason they come to believe it is because of your authority or your manner...are you indoctrinating? What about advertising...is it indoctrination?

It's not nearly so clear cut as you seem to imagine. In point of fact, indoctrination is most dangerous when the person doing it believes herself incapable of indoctrinating.

[Skepdick]

You are made a fool when the other party simply refuses to do the homework you assigned to them. Anyone can do that, but nobody does other than you, because you are a fool.

So when you choose to remain ignorant that makes me the fool? I don't think that's how it works...

Wasn't it you who blamed your lecturers for failing to educate you you at one point, rather than acknowledging a failure on your part to keep up with the times? Yep. I am sure it was you

It is not a generally valid and accepted argument to do what you do.

Good thing I am not here to argue. I am here to demonstrate the failure of philosophy. Indeed - I am fairly committed to my anti-philosophy.

Only you do it, and you do it because you've always been doing this sort of bullshit, and you can't get away from your practice.

Why would I want to get away from my practice when your theories don't work in practice?

In fact you are so set in your erroneous and bullshit ways, that in fewer than 30 posts you have repeated your entire arsenal of stupid argumenting, thereby leaving your footprint of Logic all over the place, unmistakably and very recognizably.

So I've left my "unmistakeable" footprint on one of my numerous accounts? I guess that's an N-1 failure rate to detect the "unmistakeable" on your behalf then... Keep hunting!

[-1-]

Logic, you are clutching at straws, and babbling. Why don't you quit. Just get lost.

[Skepdick]

Why don't you quit. Just get lost.

Then who would keep reminding you of the sterility and inadequacy of the philosophical religion in 2019?

[-1-]

Why don't you quit. Just get lost.

Then who would keep reminding you of the sterility and inadequacy of the philosophical religion in 2019?

Why do we need to get reminded of it? And keep on getting reminded of it? You an alarm clock, or something?

[Skepdick]

Why do we need to get reminded of it? And keep on getting reminded of it? You an alarm clock, or something?

Call me a sociologist. Plus my professional interest lies in large scale systems, and in particular - systemic failures.

Philosophy seems like a perfect specimen. Moral philosophy in particular.

[surreptitious57]

The question that concerns us now is : Has there indeed been objective moral progress in the world ?

The way a moral relativist would dismiss all of your on point criticism is simply thus : all the examples
you have provided merely signify moral change but is that really progress ?

Explain your reasons for not wanting to live at any other time in human history

[Skepdick]

Explain your reasons for not wanting to live at any other time in human history

I suspect that's where a moral relativist would dodge the question...

Me - I want to live in the future. I wish I was born at least 100 years later.

[Dubious]

I wish I was born at least 100 years later.

You mean when you can get a sun tan indoors?

[-1-]

I wish I was born at least 100 years later.

That's my precise same wish, too. That way your path and mine would never cross. What a wonderful, wonderful world it would be!

[-1-]

I wish I was born at least 100 years later.

You mean when you can get a sun tan indoors?

Plus, you can order spontaneous self-decapitulation on the phone in that future nirvana. Twenty minutes or less, otherwise it's free.

[Arising_uk]

Good thing I am not here to argue. I am here to demonstrate the failure of philosophy. Indeed - I am fairly committed to my anti-philosophy. ...

But this is philosophising and hence Philosophy?

[Skepdick]

Good thing I am not here to argue. I am here to demonstrate the failure of philosophy. Indeed - I am fairly committed to my anti-philosophy. ...

But this is philosophising and hence Philosophy?

Still waiting for an answer to the question: what is philosophy/philosophising?
What is it for? What does it do? How does it fit in the broader context of humanity?

it seems to me 'Philosophy' suffers from its very own identity crisis.

Least we trip over the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

[Arising_uk]

Still waiting for an answer to the question: what is philosophy/philosophising? ...

Well for me it's the analysis of ideas through reason and logic and any critique that might arise but then I was taught in the old British Analytic tradition with a personal heretical choice to also study some continental philosophers.

What is it for? What does it do? How does it fit in the broader context of humanity?

What's it for? Hmmm...well it's been 'for' many things over the centuries but I think I'll stick with the basic that it's for reason and thinking logically and critically about ideas and beliefs. What does it do? It helps one think about one's beliefs logically and critically. How does it fit in the broader context of humanity? Well I would have to ask what this "broader context of humanity" is first? But one of it's aspects is the analysis of ideas back to their basics and as such many in different fields turn or become Philosophers of their subject when faced with inherent contradictions within their field.

it seems to me 'Philosophy' suffers from its very own identity crisis.

Well it's always had the question 'What use are you? Etc" But I don't think it has an identity crisis just that it's not considered very highly anymore as it definitely doesn't seem to be economically quantifiable.

Least we trip over the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

As you say, it's very difficult to pin down what a Philosopher is or does but my take is that in general to be a Philosopher is to have or be in the process of constructing a philosophy and for me that is to have a metaphysic, an epistemology, an ethic and associated morals, an ontology and a politics. You could also add a phil of mind and that all should hang together logically.