"Machiavelli was the Stephen Colbert of the Renaissance."
6 Books Everyone (Including Your English Teacher) Got Wrong | Cracked.com
The philosophers strike back, politely. Read the intro.
"Machiavelli was the Stephen Colbert of the Renaissance."
6 Books Everyone (Including Your English Teacher) Got Wrong | Cracked.com
That graph on Obama’s minimal spending? Yeah. It survived an attempt to discredit it.
"The conservative campaign against gay rights is equally impossible to justify, in terms of America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights. Unable to come up with any Lockean liberal reason why citizens of a democratic republic should be discriminated against, on the basis of their sexual orientations, conservatives are forced to cite the Bible or thousands of years of tradition. The whole point of the American Founding, however, was to establish a regime that was not based, like the pre-modern monarchies of Europe, on revealed religion or ancient custom."
Why do conservatives hate freedom? - Gay Rights - Salon.com
So … all these people who popped up claiming to be “libertarian” and waving signs about John Galt … they’re voting Democrat, right?
"Republicans are determined to protect millionaires and defense contractors, no matter the costs to the country."
The Human Cost of Ideology - NYTimes.com
There’s really no other way to look at this.
"Are today’s Nobel laureate economists merely modern versions of the “shadow-guessers” of Plato’s allegory of the cave?"
OK, private-enterprise libertarians — ready to bail out your underfunded government?
Remember the term “Renaissance Man”? You know, the idea that educated people should be educated in multiple subjects and look for ways in which they’re complementary? You’d have people like Da Vinci who could actually come up with brilliant technological concepts … and draw them in exquisite detail.
Now the scientists, many of whom graduated from college after seeking out the easiest possible classes to get their humanities requirements out of the way (oh yes, it works both ways), have turned into the bullies of the ivory tower.
Just check the recent kerfuffle over race and academia because African Americans are apparently turning away from STEM (science, technology, engineering and math — and economists try to include themselves under that umbrella as well), all of which was predicated on the notion that humanities and social sciences couldn’t be more fulfilling. They’re just easier! That notion is brilliantly refuted here, and I’ve gotten my dander up about economists’ arrogance in the past. And see the comments on the race/STEM/economics case here for more “economics rules, English drools” nonsense.
Now we have this dispute of philosophy of science, in which scientists have no need for your philosophy, Horatio.
Allow me to retort with a scene from Real Genius. Start around the 1:50 mark if you’re in a hurry.
Real Genius also has a terrific philosophical quote: “In the immortal words of Socrates: I drank what?” But let’s add an actual Socratic quote: “An unexamined life is not worth living.”
That’s something you don’t learn in gym class.
"I think non-philosophers are attracted to utilitarianism because they don’t attach to it the same baggage that philosophers do."
Why Not Utilitarianism? | Bleeding Heart Libertarians
I probably rambled a bit, but I’m pleased that I’m tied for the most “likes” in this conversation at BHL. Not that utilitarianism is about pride or anything.
There’s a follow-up post, but it’s a little bogged down in terminology.
BHL’s Matt Zwolinski tackles utilitarianism. And it’s a good read. I simply suggest in the comments that the forest is better than the trees.
"Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing."
