Anodos

The confused embarrassment and performative self-castigations some ppl must go through when, having been generally indoctrinated again the West since youth, are now faced with the incorrigible awareness of where the bulk of their literacy and civilized tendencies come from.

@Tweetophon @alexpriou They may need to ease into this different paradigm. I recommend: a.co/d/0eTXuBWZ

@alexpriou Sick and tired of all the focus on Homer's epics, tbh. A lady got kidnapped, guy has a tough time getting home, I get it. But when a young man gets kidnapped by maidens & force-fed the nature of reality? Crickets. No blockbuster movie remake of Parmenides' epic. 😤

The only thing I want to see less than Nolan's Odyssey is more tweets on Nolan's Odyssey.

@philliplede Ultimately, I’m saying what—as far as I can tell—Crowder himself acknowledges: the thought-experiment alone is inherently limited on the one hand, bc reality is reality ..(okay) ; and YET, sometimes hypotheticals can counter-intuitively serve a deeper acquaintance w/ the real.

Politics concerns actuality. In one sense this question is too specific (concerning a hypothetical), and in another sense not specific enough. It’s not clear whether Crowder is asking whether Nick would support a candidate who would categorize Iran as an adversary or one who would back aggressive military intervention against Iran for the purpose of degrading or toppling the regime. The former candidate in might think intervention insufficient to topple Iran’s regime. One the first point, it is weirdly specific in a bizarre, particular sense (this is not to say that all specificities are weird or uncalled for). Iran might not seek nuclear weapons if Israel did not exist to possess them, and so the existence of Israel is actually relevant in this regard.

This was a weirdly-specific question posed by Crowder. Crowder asked Fuentes whether he would support an “America First” presidential candidate who would back war in Iran in the hypothetical that Israel didn’t exist. We live in the actual world, where Israel does exist, and is the sole beneficiary of a costly war with Iran, and so the question is moot.

@philliplede ….physics, biology (etc), though these are each limited in scope, they are “pure actuality” sciences—and yet their working method positively appraises *the hypothetical* as an indispensable engine for progress in knowledge (if not the “secret sauce” itself; cf. Popper)!

@philliplede Look: no one doubts that the hard sciences “concern actuality” and arguably do so *more* than the science of politics (insofar as the latter must always be partly concerned with what people *imagine* is true and not merely/strictly the absolute truth). And yet…/

@philliplede False—even if only on the assumption that what you post haphazardly on X is not a perfect reflection of what a polished essay from you might look like. But you actually have a verbal knack even on X so stop with with this self pitying and self castigating bullshit.

I am a bad writer… obfuscatory and roundabout.

@philliplede I’ll put it another way (and without meaning to imply that I think Crowder’s rhetorical point settles the issue—which I do not think). Crowder is asking whether “America First” must mean, absolutely speaking, “Any-Intervention-In-Iran Last.” That’s a legitimate question.

@philliplede I disagree. The whole point of a thought-experiment is precisely to be “weirdly specific” so as to isolate & clarify certain variables. The legitimacy of Crowder’s point hangs not on whether Israel actually exists, but on whether other things that exist are being properly weighed

@Athens_Stranger “Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good, and hence it has been beautifully said that the good is that at which all things aim.” (trans. by Joe Sachs) A beautiful statement about what is beautifully said.

In my first seminar on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in grad school, the professor walked in on the first day, read the opening sentence, and then said: “Ok, now we will spend the rest of the semester attempting to understand what that means” He was a truly amazing professor

@doordashbliccy Hey check dms

>brain scans reveal >alternative highly effective neural strategies >traditional deficit-based models god I hate science so fucking much lmao

@No5mallf3at Not opposed but decisively different; one is not resolvable into the other. I suspect *Kant* would have to state the matter as “opposed”; whereas, of course, Hegel’s perspective allows for a great deal of mediation…

You have an incredibly shallow understanding of these thinkers if you think their philosophy is opposed.

@NoemaMag @carlorovelli This is nothing but sophistic cope. It’s like saying the interlocutor has “daddy problems” instead of dealing with the argument. You don’t need any prior metaphysical belief in “souls” to recognize a hard problem of consciousness—just experience and deductive reasoning.

“A fierce debate is raging around the slippery notion of consciousness. It retraces a trotted pattern of cultural resistance: We humans are often scared by anything that may disturb our image of ourselves.” — @carlorovelli noemamag.com/there-is-no-ha…

@philliplede Indeed I assent to it. But I’m lost as to where this fits into similies, metaphors, offense, or anything I’ve said in asking you about these?!

@Anad0s God becomes man.

The simile is an offense against metaphor.

@philliplede Who said as much that you deny it?

@Anad0s God does not become like man.

@philliplede Well, if that is all that can be said of it then one rightly wonders whether it has all the significance of the offense of the “misgendered” in contrast to the weighty offense at the paradox of the Suffering God!

@Anad0s Justified or not, it is always an offense.

@philliplede Why?

The originalists must read Gadamer.

@JayDyer If one would enter into faith in the beginning of their argument then they should have to *follow through* in faith to the conclusion it. Otherwise, their wretched conclusions prove nothing but their own wretchedness while they pitifully involve God in the abuse of thought.

@JayDyer If the author finds it entirely legitimate to assume/assert things like the necessary extension of the Church’s evangelical mission to aliens, then there’s NO coherence in also assuming God would create a real scenario both impossible and incompatible with His very nature.

Look Heres Arthur c Clarke and NASA and brookings institute admitting the alien psy op is to destroy xianity

@JayDyer The faith that would grant the universal extension of divine love to all that might receive it is not the same disposition that could earnestly think that God has created a comsmic situation so tragically incoherent that God must either be denied to be good or to exist at all.