talkpolitics | Today in 'Libertarians are Dumb' News

Entry tags:

poll

Today in 'Libertarians are Dumb' News

Rep. Paul Casts Sole ‘No’ Vote on Oil Spill Subpoena Power

When the House agreed to give subpoena powers to President Barack Obama’s newly formed oil-spill commission, 420 members voted for the plan and only one voted against it: Texas Republican Ron Paul.

A spokeswoman for Paul declined to elaborate on the congressman’s vote.

Paul’s son, Rand Paul, a Republican running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, came under fire last month for supporting BP. In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he said Obama was “un-American” for criticizing the oil company, and said attacks on BP were part of the “blame game,” where tragedy is “always someone else’s fault.”

What is the rationale for this? I suspect it's something along these lines "Accountability of private companies isn't in the constitution. They should be free to do whatever damage they want - the founding fathers would have wanted it that way." Which would be consistent - and patently wrong, bad, stupid.

Today's poll:
[Poll #1583304]

Newsflash: General McFly(err, McChrystal) was just fired, which is what happens when one combines incompetence with public insubordination.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"philosophy is a western-centric institution"

what what what??

That's like saying music is western-centric. That's just crazy-talk.
You aren't stupid; why would you say such a stupid thing?

If I happen to be wrong about this, I welcome a correction in my view.

Also, is non institutionalized philosophy unworthy of discussion?

"That's like saying music is western-centric."

Is it?

"That's just crazy-talk."

It doesn't seem to be.

"You aren't stupid."

Thanks.

"why would you say such a stupid thing?"

Because it seems to be true.

"If I happen to be wrong about this, I welcome a correction in my view."

This is always a good policy.

"Also, is non institutionalized philosophy unworthy of discussion?"

What's non institutionalized philosophy?

Why would Zhuangzi not be a philosopher?

Is this a rhetorical question? I mean, I guess he would not be a philosopher if he didn't qualify for the condition of one being a philosopher which we have already discussed, this being just what it means for that to be such a condition.

but he clearly *does* have that

He was writing in response to Kongzi; he was certainly part of a dialogue of ideas and was/is being discussed in academic circles. Are you unaware of this or are you merely being difficult?

"but he clearly *does* [meet the condition of one being a philosopher which we have already discussed]"

Well there you go then.

so you were just being difficult. gotcha.

No, I wasn't. If you're going to continue in this vein, there's no point in us continuing in discussion.

Fair; I'm sorry.
I should have instead assumed you just don't know about Zhuangzi--no reason for me to assume you were trying to be difficult; apologies.

Ok, can you share some info with me so that I might understand why it seems to you that philosophy is a western-centric institution?

Well let's use the hypothetico-deductive method to obtain knowledge on this issue. If philosophy is western-centric what would we expect to find in the contents of the most widely read treatments of philosophy's history, such as Russell's? Conversely, what would we expect to find if it were not western-centric?

Now, what do we in fact find?

What conclusions do we then draw?

"the contents of the most widely read treatments of philosophy's history, such as Russell's? "

Well, Russell is biased as he is a westerner, as is your/my reading of philosophy.

If we ask a student in China about philosophy we might get different results; but it's nonsensical to say that philosophy isn't going on in the east. It's been going on for 2500+ years

"Well, Russell is biased as he is a westerner..."

Westerners can't provide valid comments on the subject of philosophy?

I didn't say that.
I said he was biased.

Do you deny that there has been a long history of philosophy being done in China? Since at least the time of Confucius?

"I didn't say that.
I said he was biased."

Ok. Let's try another source for our experiment then. How about Hegel's history of philosophy? It's been very influential.

"Do you deny that there has been a long history of philosophy being done in China? Since at least the time of Confucius?"

I don't know.

You should look into that before making sweeping generalizations about how western or eastern philosophy qua philosophy is.

And as for Hegel, you went from one Westerner to another. so...yeah. Still biased.
Now, clearly a Chinese person would be biased too--but to rely upon a westerner who suggests philosophy is primarily a western idea....I don't trust it, given that, unlike you I *do* know if philosophy has been done in China [and other places that aren't western] for quite some time.

It's a pity you make a generalization about philosophy without knowing if it's been done in China.

"And as for Hegel, you went from one Westerner to another. so...yeah. Still biased."

Westerners can't provide valid comments on the subject of philosophy?

"You should look into that before making sweeping generalizations about how western or eastern philosophy qua philosophy is."

Why's that?

Because otherwise you are talking about something without knowing what you are talking about.

If there has been a long history of philosophy in China and you are simply unaware of that, then you may easily make untrue statements about philosophy qua philosophy being a Western thing.

That is why.

I mean--if you want to only talk about western philosophy that is fine, but admit that it is what you are talking about and do not attempt to say it is the only philosophy out there until you looked around for another sort.

"Because otherwise you are talking about something without knowing what you are talking about."

But I seem to know about what I am talking about, so evidently you are wrong here.

Appearances may be deceiving.

And you just said you don't know if there has been a long history of philosophy in China for ~2500 years.
How do you square that with seeming to know what you are talking about?

e.g. Wouldn't knowing about Zhuangzi be important in regards to what we are talking about?

"Appearances may be deceiving."

They may be, but we don't conclude that they are without a reason showing this to be so, and no such reason has been shown here.

"And you just said you don't know if there has been a long history of philosophy in China for ~2500 years.
How do you square that with seeming to know what you are talking about?"

By observing that I satisfactorily responded to your question for some info with me so that you might understand why it seems to me that philosophy is a western-centric institution.

Sure, you have provided two Western philosophers talking about the history of philosophy. But are they the only sources?

I look at philosophy as a practice that humans do; why would only some humans do this when philosophy deals with base questions which we are all faced with? That's my view anyway.

If Russell or Hegel ignores Zhuangzi or Kongzi or Xunzi does that make Philosophy qua Philosophy western-centric, or does it make Hegel/Russell western-centric? [Or "Story of Philosophy--also western-centric, but written by a westerner too]

Your sources are western-centric and you don't know about eastern sources, so no wonder you think as you do.

"But are they the only sources?"

No. For example, there's also Heidegger's metaphysics and history of being. It's been pretty influential too.

"If Russell or Hegel ignores Zhuangzi or Kongzi or Xunzi does that make Philosophy qua Philosophy western-centric, or does it make Hegel/Russell western-centric?"

If it turns out that comparable sources do not ignore them, then it makes them western-centric. If it turns out that comparable sources produce similar results, then it makes philosophy western-centric. It turns out that comparable sources produce similar results. Then philosophy is western-centric.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Today in 'Libertarians are Dumb' News

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words

Re: Two words