3 ms·
It's always easier to believe your opposition is ontologically evil -- that way you never have to address your own epistemological emptiness. Of course, the fac
by EarlKing 4y ago
It's always easier to believe your opposition is ontologically evil -- that way you never have to address your own epistemological emptiness. Of course, the fact that it's blatantly obvious that far too many "people" on the net are behaving indistinguishably from chatbots doesn't help matters.
- adolph 4y ago> ontologically evil Like they come up with really terrible classification categories? > epistemological emptiness Does this mean one does not have a theory of knowledge or that one thinks that knowledge does not exist? https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/u1675o/hey_philosophymemes_please_explain_what/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/u1675o/hey... https://www.quora.com/Are-emptiness-and-nothing-better-as-ontological-or-epistemological-constructs https://www.quora.com/Are-emptiness-and-nothing-better-as-on...
- EarlKing 4y ago> Like they come up with really terrible classification categories? Rather they just declare their opposition evil by nature so they don't have to analyze their behavior any further, and anything done to them is, in their eyes, morally justified. It is, in other words, dehumanizing. > Does this mean one does not have a theory of knowledge or that one thinks that knowledge does not exist? It means that they have no formal theory of knowledge and simply accept whatever is conventionally wise to them (or, more specifically, whatever fits their unacknowledged class interest).