geye1234

13 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   The Inquisition killed fewer people per year than the State of Texas. About 5 minutes' research will establish that.
2. 152.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   I've wondered the same.
3. 153.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   Hundreds of comments, and this is the first one that mentions perhaps the primary root cause of the situation.
4. 154.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   I think this conversation has reached its end. The requisite goodwill appears to be lacking. We'll agree to disagree: you leave me with my Aristotelianism, and I'll leave you with what I think is your stated position that your t
5. 155.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   Great comment. Liberalism (in the broadest possible sense of the word) sets itself up as a dogma-free, 'neutral' worldview, when in fact it is teeming with dogma and substantive ideas about what is good and evil.
6. 156.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   > Far from adding any specificity to what you mean by likeness, your Dec. 12 post [1] continues to avoid doing so. Very good. My "theory", if you must call it that, is Aristotelian moderate realism. A full discussion of what I
7. 157.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   Well I'll get back properly as soon as I can, tomorrow I hope, but premise 6 of your 7-point sequence is false (or, if you prefer, we don't agree on it). Indeed, it seems question-begging, but this is so obvious that I assume you
8. 158.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   Ok, thanks for this latest reply. I thought your 7-point jest syllogism was a sarcastic response to my two most recent comments (made 2-3 days ago) so I didn't bother adding to what I'd already said; so if I seem to have ignored h
9. 159.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   ... continued from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42389025 You confuse imperfect definition with complete indefinition. If Bob says that he will meet Bill at the "foot of the mountain", that provides meaning
10. 160.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Thanks again for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I'm responding only to the first comment here, though I have read the others and I don't think they would alter what I write here. I will get to the other two asa
11. 161.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Ha, thanks! Ok, 1-2 days more. Fortunately, important though these discussions may be, at least they are not urgent.
12. 162.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Thanks for taking the time to write such a long reply. It will take me a while to read it properly, give me 2-3 days.
13. 163.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Sure, no problem
14. 164.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    > You can only see their behavior, which is identical whether they are the same consciousness or a different one from the one it was yesterday. The first clause of the sentence is true, but the second is not. You never directly see a th
15. 165.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Very briefly, it's not my 'intuition' that a thought must be like reality for it to be about reality. It's a claim I hold to be grounded in reason. My reasoning may be right or wrong, but either way, it's not an int
16. 166.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Thanks for the response. I will return to what I meant by 'complex' in a minute. But nothing in your response undermines my point, which is that similarity between thought and object-of-thought is made impossible by materialism. I
17. 167.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    > You seem to be engaging in difficult philosophical concepts and jumping over important steps (like rigorous definitions or showing why something “must be”). Yeah, sorry, I bashed that out too quickly. I'll try to slow down a bit,
18. 168.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    >> It's inevitably going to be a mere copy of you. You don't get to experience any of it. > You can make the same argument for 'you before you went to sleep' and 'you after you woke up'. The only real
19. 169.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    I don't believe in a soul in the sense of a "ghost in a machine", since it introduces so many problems. Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that there is an immaterial component to thought, and therefore to our existence, for
20. 170.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    As a thought experiment: - Is it possible that you are mistaken about some -- any -- moral issue which is almost universally held by the culture at large? - If so, would it be reasonable to conclude from this that you're wicked and stu
21. 171.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    > It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. No. They are comparable, and both moral evils, but are different species of action. But suppose I said yes, the
22. 172.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Whether I'm right, or am an absolute drooling nutcase, for thinking interest-taking (on a full-recourse loan) is immoral is beside the point. The point is that it would be idiotic of me to think somebody defending the practice was stup
23. 173.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Great response.
24. 174.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    What makes you so sure? Slavery was universal across the human race, or practically so, until well into the second millennium AD. Nobody seriously questioned it. A bit like interest-taking now, which is why I brought it up as an example. Bo
25. 175.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Couple of points: - I think taking interest on a (full-recourse) loan is a form of fraud. Or rather, it is to fraud what robbery is to larceny. I also think it produces, in practice, ownership in a share of a person, such that it can be use
26. 176.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Oh yeah definitely, and Averroes and the other medieval Islamic scholars as well. Absolute intellectual giants.
27. 177.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    > if I'm not patient, friendly, magnanimous, courageous, charitable, ambitious, truthful, etc, am I really an inferior or less worthy person? Not in your essence. All people are equal in their essence. But it's better to be a p
28. 178.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    This is not (really) true. Well there's an element of truth in it, but only an element. European philosophy was not really Aristotelian until the re-arrival of his work in the 12C, so it's hardly fair to 'blame' him for
29. 179.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Agree with the example, but philosophical disagreement will undoubtedly come on some matters, like almost anything that's debated in politics today. Example: on private vs government healthcare. What is the good that we are seeking?
30. 180.▲
    by geye1234 2y ago

    Thanks. I don't think this resolves the problem though, since whether or not the practical consequences of a belief are considered desirable will depend on one's philosophy, ie what one considers to be true. ISTM that perception o