Comments for BIEHLOSOPHY

Comment on Thinking about Thinking: It Takes Two by JB

JB — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:50:13 +0000

I want to emphasize the ‘viewed’ in your question: we are, or can become irrational so long as we are, or can become so viewed. The ‘standard of rationality,’ such that it is, strikes me as entirely internal, something deployable by (and imposed on) only those who already satisfy canonical rational capacities. To put the point in extreme terms (too extreme?), the thought is that any (real world) case of reasoning that we would judge as irrational is necessarily a case of reasoning that we neither would nor could find irrational if it were to become our own, occurrent reasoning.

Comment on Thinking about Thinking: It Takes Two by samirchopra1

samirchopra1 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:38 +0000

But we could be viewed as irrational creatures, right? (so that irrational is something we are or can become) Those that engage in precisely the kinds of “dismissals” you allude to above?

Comment on Post-Materialism on the March by JB

JB — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:30:45 +0000

Thanks for the tips; I’ll check them out.

Comment on When Good Arguments Go Bad: The Credentialed Society – By Michael Walsh – The Corner – National Review Online by Watch New Movie

Watch New Movie — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:09:16 +0000

Awesome post keep up the good work

I would suggest you the SEO all in one tool works like a charm and fully optimizes your site

Comment on Post-Materialism on the March by Mohammad Ghalibaf Khorasani

Mohammad Ghalibaf Khorasani — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:31:51 +0000

this theory follows the same theories of Ronald Inglehart on Culture shift, and Paul Rey on Cultural Creatives. based on these theories social movements like Wall street are based on this Culture shift, which post-materialism is one of its attitudes.

Comment on On Love by Stevie

Stevie — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:04:38 +0000

I could watch Schindler’s List and still be happy after rdeinag this.

Comment on Sport Murphy, “Sing Me To Sleep” [Live in Sport's backyard] – YouTube by JB

JB — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:51:14 +0000

Better than the Dink?

Sport’s the goods, Tom. You should check out some of his other stuff on youtube, or I’ll burn an album or two for ya.

Comment on Sport Murphy, “Sing Me To Sleep” [Live in Sport's backyard] – YouTube by Tom

Tom — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:50:13 +0000

Very cool. And better than Engelbert Humperdink.

Comment on The (Im)Possibility of Rationality by JB

JB — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:56:21 +0000

Pretty much agreed. The ‘right way’ to form intentions and fix beliefs, in light of the available information, is certainly ‘socially determined’ – what’s the alternative? Societal norms, epistemic, moral, or other, are the product of the interplay between individuals and the groups of individuals to which each is required, by the prevailing circumstances, to respond. And most of us would say the student is being irrational, which really doesn’t amount to much more than claiming that if we were her we’d arrive at a different belief (i.e., I’m going to fail’; ‘It would be best if I drop the course’). Of course, if we were her, we’d arrive at the very belief she did and would likewise be put off by our student-hating professors who believe otherwise.

As for paperweights and proper functions, these, too, are much a matter of what you can get away with and what is allowed. Whether it is a paper weight, a coffee maker, a urinal or art is, as you say (and as I said in the original post), a matter of expectations. Such expectations are often entrenched and widely shared, but they are also endlessly open to challenge and occasionally change.

Comment on The (Im)Possibility of Rationality by DS

DS — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:02:51 +0000

Thinking is a process, sure, as is rationalizing. But it does’t follow from this that rationality is a process, or that is is process-oriented. I want to say that someone is irrational just in case she fails to evaluate and act on the available evidence in the right way. And I want to say that what counts as the right way is socially determined in some fairly deep fashion (it’s not just about doing as the Romans do when it Rome, but about following accepted epistemic norms). I have in mind here something like Rorty’s ethnocentrism. Go back to the broken coffee-pot example– I say it is broken and you cheeily place some papers under it and remark ‘it’s not broken at all; it makes a great paperweight!’ I get to say that you’re wrong– it may make a great paperweight but it is still broken because it’s not performing its proper function. And if you question me on why we should assume that making coffee is its proper function, well- I get to punch you in the nose. Because it is a *coffee maker* and there are certain things it is expected to do, about which there is a tremendously high degree of intersubjective agreement, etc. I want to say the same thing, more or less, about the deluded student.