Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 Newer→ Last
-
a series of contingent truths in constant negotiation with one another
Likes
-
Aristotle probably likes too. The Golden Mean.
-
A CRITIQUE OF THE POLARITY IN EDMUND HUSSERL’S INTERSUBJECTIVITY THEORY.
Within the confines of science, this mentality is acceptable and it is indeed the procedure of science, whose essential goal is to prove whether a given situation is true or false. But when such impositional, absolutist and logocentric attitudes are carried into the realm of intercultural relations, it is bound to generate bitterness and rancour.
This was in my mind many pages back, but now seems as good a time as any to drop it.
-
Must read me some Husserl. It seems highly likely I've been influenced by him far more than I've ever known.
-
Must read me some Husserl. It seems highly likely I've been influenced by him far more than I've ever known.
Yes, sometimes it takes a while for the paths of yore to dredge themselves from the depths of memory. Stage two Existentialism and Phenomenology. Who knew it would come in handy? For what, one might ask? Exactly.
-
Who knew it would come in handy?
And is guessing right really knowledge? Absolutists probably think so.
-
absolute truth= 'Avatar' is just a bit of fun.
-
And is guessing right really knowledge?
Elaboration, if you don't mind.
-
'Avatar' is just a bit of fun
And we're back, baby! I've been timing how long it would take to get back to Avatar.
-
And we're back, baby! I've been timing how long it would take to get back to Avatar.
The denouement? Or is this the afterword?
-
See, philosophy is just a plot to make Avatar seem more appealing
-
Elaboration, if you don't mind.
The classic definition of knowledge requires that the point be true and believed, but also justified . So guessing doesn't fit. If someone guessed that Existentialism would be useful to you, did they really know?
I've been timing how long it would take to get back to Avatar.
Did you make a guess in advance too?
-
The classic definition of knowledge requires that the point be true and believed, but also justified . So guessing doesn't fit. If someone guessed that Existentialism would be useful to you, did they really know?
Singing in the rain,
I'm just singing in the rain,
what a glorious feeling... -
Singing in the rain,
I'm just singing in the rain,
what a glorious feeling...aaah the soundtrack to A Clockwork Orange
Imagine Avatar by Stanley Kubrick... -
Just to be clear, I was referencing Gene Kelly, as per Danielle's comment on page 4. Call it a re-cap.
Wonder how baby and co are doing?
And no, my imagination is not capable of A Stanley Kubrick Avatar. It's not even 4pm yet.
-
Wonder how baby and co are doing?
Danielle and the baby are back home today.
Carry on.
-
Danielle and the baby are back home today.
Phew. We seem to be on the brink of an established gender bias, at least on this thread. Thank god (choose one, I'm not fussed) for Hilary, or our intersubjectivity would be the least of our worries.
I'm guessing we're only a page or two away from copyright.
[Puts on invisibility cloak, which is now a plausible reality. Who knew?]
-
Do you think James Cameron has been reading "Wallywood"?
Let's just call it out. Let's have a public discussion. That's what movies are supposed to do, you know. You can have a mindless entertainment film that doesn't affect anybody. I wasn't interested in that.
-
What is ultimately rational or reasonable about an argument that can never end, never be resolved, never come to any conclusion, never come up with any new points? It's actually more reasonable to accept the subjective nature of the subject matter, and move on.
In the wider sense of discourse humans are engaged in over issues such a morals, values, ethics, expertise, judgement, power, authority, freedom etc? That seems a simplistic summary of the situation. I think it very rational to continue the argument - continue the discussion. In particlular, I don’t see how we could ever know that no new points will come up. In terms of a specific argument at a given time, then yes people do sometimes reach an impasse (or what seems one at the time) and ‘agree to disagree’, but that happens all the time (well, maybe not on this thread). But it doesn’t seem to me you need to be a subjectivist to do that. (Even Libertarians – ‘Objectivists’ with a capital ‘O’ – have points they agree to disagree over. Well, so I’ve read.)
[Puts on invisibility cloak, which is now a plausible reality. Who knew?]
Yeah, I was pleased to see that too. About bloody time. If they can just get the Teleportors working properly, much of the requisite technology will be in place for The Plan.
Don’t worry. When I rule the world, I’ll ban all absolutism.
-
Absolutely!
-
Steve, I think there's nothing absolutely wrong with continuing a discussion until doomsday. But there's also nothing wrong with pointing out it's going nowhere.
-
Don’t worry. When I rule the world, I’ll ban all absolutism.
It's Friday, so sue me...
-
The Wellington Airport Company has backed down
Suggestions for something else are invited... -
Farrar is suggesting a giant weta - Facebook group here. Sounds much betterer, to me.
-
Ooo, I love weta! They are wonderful insects. And it'd be in keeping with the Hive - locals could explain the weta is actually our god, but is too large to fit in the building that houses Her minions...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.