3 ms·

Having an extensive knowledge of fake stories from a variety of countries means you have an extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. Foreign religions deserv

Having an extensive knowledge of fake stories from a variety of countries means you have an extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions. How absolutely silly the things they believe are. You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. If you want to discuss the topic outside the realm of ignorance, you discuss it from a philosophical lens. Also, the idea that you propose, that merely knowing useless things makes you learned or an intellectual, isn't just silly, it's disgusting.

sophacles 3y ago
I think you are confusing what I was saying with something else. It's general knowledge that the concept of a soul is a common the world over. There have been quite a few philosphers that have delved deeply into the topic, many of them foundational to philosphy and deeply impactful on science. > You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. You mean like Kant or maybe Descartes? I think you suspect I'm trying to argue for some religion or another or even just a general pro-religion stance. I'm not - I'm merely pointing out your statement showed ignorant dismissal of a concept that's pretty big and has an impact on most cultures. Asking the question "does an elephant have a soul?" does not imply a religious treatise - souls are conceptually what sets humans apart from animals (in many, many traditions) and asking the question "does $x have a soul?" is often asking (as in this case) "Are humans really that special?". Presumably the authors in this articl are expting their audience be any one of several billion people from places where that metaphor is a cultural trope that everyone knows. > Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless anyhow -- human AI has stomped every one of those bounds, why not nature's AI? Sounds like you might have some thoughts on "Are humans really that special?". If you want to be taken seriously, knowing about the multiple viewpoints, and being able to refute those actual points is helpful. If you want to come across as a buffoon and jerk, then just make sweeping statements against a strawman, and show ignorance of the concept you're discussing. > Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions I don't know what foreign or domestic religion is. An awful lot of religions are practiced in many countries, so I don't follow what you're saying there. As for derision of religion... nah. Seems like a lot of futile effort. Why put everyone (on all sides) in a bad mood all the time by picking fights over it when no one's beliefs (or lack thereof) will change because some insults were hurled around?

sophacles 3y ago

I think you are confusing what I was saying with something else. It's general knowledge that the concept of a soul is a common the world over. There have been quite a few philosphers that have delved deeply into the topic, many of them foundational to philosphy and deeply impactful on science. > You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. You mean like Kant or maybe Descartes? I think you suspect I'm trying to argue for some religion or another or even just a general pro-religion stance. I'm not - I'm merely pointing out your statement showed ignorant dismissal of a concept that's pretty big and has an impact on most cultures. Asking the question "does an elephant have a soul?" does not imply a religious treatise - souls are conceptually what sets humans apart from animals (in many, many traditions) and asking the question "does $x have a soul?" is often asking (as in this case) "Are humans really that special?". Presumably the authors in this articl are expting their audience be any one of several billion people from places where that metaphor is a cultural trope that everyone knows. > Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless anyhow -- human AI has stomped every one of those bounds, why not nature's AI? Sounds like you might have some thoughts on "Are humans really that special?". If you want to be taken seriously, knowing about the multiple viewpoints, and being able to refute those actual points is helpful. If you want to come across as a buffoon and jerk, then just make sweeping statements against a strawman, and show ignorance of the concept you're discussing. > Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions I don't know what foreign or domestic religion is. An awful lot of religions are practiced in many countries, so I don't follow what you're saying there. As for derision of religion... nah. Seems like a lot of futile effort. Why put everyone (on all sides) in a bad mood all the time by picking fights over it when no one's beliefs (or lack thereof) will change because some insults were hurled around?