The #philosophy Review 12.6.2016

avatar

philosophy_review_198c50.md.png
The #philosophy Review is a survey of posts in #philosophy. Learn more here!
Meta-analysis seems to be the theme today, with a lot of thinking about thinking. Speaking of meta-analysis, some thoughts about the philosophy review so far:

TL;DR: Thanks for the support! How can the #philosophy-review be more effective at supporting #philosophy authors?
I have been thrilled by the amount of support the review itself has been getting and I hope it’s helping drive discussion to great #philosophy posts on steemit. I have also learned a lot about the ebb and flow of attention for steemit posts. There are many factors outside of quality that affect upvotes and the likelihood of catching a whale’s attention. Many of these factors seem arbitrary. I’m looking for ideas on how to offset the arbitrary and drive attention (and steem) to high quality philosophy. Post your thoughts in the comments!

Selections for 12.6.2016:

How to have a soul and an afterlife without magic
@baerdric
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@baerdric/how-to-have-a-soul-and-an-afterlife-without-magic
Can you have an afterlife without God and without a spiritual plane? @baerdric argues that if the latest scientific theories about space-time are correct, our perception of time as a forward moving arrow is an illusion. Check out the post to see what this could mean for your life after "death".

Sophism exemplified: The case of "The factual feminist"
@orenshani7
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@orenshani7/sophism-examplified-the-case-of-the-factual-feminist
Gender politics is a fertile ground for debate today, however this article is not about the ugliness that plagues most discussions around the topic. @orenshani7 discusses the "Factual Feminist" not to dispute her, but to hold up the argument style to examination.

Utilitarianism - a logic based morality
@stevescoins
https://steemit.com/utilitarianism/@stevescoins/utilitarianism-a-logic-based-morality
This is a great introduction to utilitarianism. @stevecoins uses @alexbenjalbert 's In Defense of Meat article as an example of using utilitarianism against Peter Singer's arguments. Agree or disagree, it is worth reading to compare opposing utilitarian stances.

philosophy curation philosophy-review
0
0
0.000
12 comments
avatar

sorry but @orenshani cant back up a singe claim in his post and is doing exactly what he is talking about.
Dodging of points and playing word games all the while drawing your attention away from every point that has been destroyed he is making. he then ignores the point and jumps to his next point that has nothing to do with the original argument.
circular logic based in nothing to confuse the stupid. i guess it has worked considering you think his argument was based in anything.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Thanks for the feedback. I followed up on the original article discussion, but want to get more into editorial perspective here. I'm interested in promoting posts that make an interesting claim, attempt to back up that claim, and show potential for discussion. Based in the amount of back and forth on that thread, @orenshani7 is successful in those respects.

If I've made a mistake and included a post so low in quality it should not have been mentioned at all, I definitely want to be called out on it. Also, if I missed a post from today that is higher quality (using criteria above ) that should have been included, let me know about that as well.

Either way, I appreciate you taking time to voice your opinion.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Sorry if Im coming off as an asshole as i am aware i often do that when not trying to. I have been having a long back and forth with the person so i guess that does qualify. i responded back to you on the other post and im tnking i should have responded back on this post as the response seems more fitting on this form. It was more me attacking the philosophy then e fact that he is playing games to avoid backing up his claims.
im going to copy and paste it in another reply to this post so as it might start up the conversation on this thread.
xD
Do you only look for posts that use the philosophy tag? i have troubles with the 5 tag rule and never know what to use.
lol
ps
sry bout the lack of care on the text. I nee coffee and a shower, spent to much time on last response.
cheers and steem on.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I'll be happy to keep the discussion going on here. Generally i don't think we disagree about the existence of facts, but since you elaborated i have some thoughts ; ) I'll reply above.

No worries about coming on strong, better that you care so much about dialectic that it gets heated than no discussion at all.

As far as the selection pool, i do limit to posts tagged as philosophy. I am certain there are relevant pieces that were not tagged as such, but just getting to the bottom of this channel is tough enough at times. An imperfect but necessary filter.

That said, feel free to call my attention to posts that need consideration. Maybe I should start a steemit chat to gather suggestions for future posts.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I would like to address the obvious and familiar question: "is the relativity of truth itself relative?" This seemingly quick refutation suggests that if the relativist position itself is nonrelative, then it is false. But this does not refute the relativist position. Rather, it suggests that it is unstable. And "unstable" does not necessarily mean impossible.

First, I would like to present a few definitions for Truth.

A verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

  1. actuality or actual existence.
  2. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
  3. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

I would first like to contend that relativism and the truth are not compatible. It is universally accepted that the sky is blue, the sun is bright, and 1+1=2. These are objective truths that are not a matter of opinion.

I will give a simple analogy to demonstrate my point:
Tom: 1+1=2
Jack: No, 1+1=3
David: It is both 2 and 3.
My opponent is making a claim that is the equivalent of David's. And since 1+1 obviously equals 2. My opponent's resolution is negated.

There are laws in this world that are indisputable. Gravity exists, you can empirically experience it. It is indisputable that it exists. You can make the claim that it is some magical glue that is making us stick to earth, but the truth is absolute, gravity exists. We are all bound by it, it is not a matter of opinion.

The wavelength of blue is not subjective to MY interpretation of wavelength. It is what is universally agreed upon to label the characteristics and wavelength of blue. The color blue is blue. I can claim that blue is red, but that does not change the fact that blue is, in fact, blue. The lower case of A is a. You can claim that the lower case of A is b, but in fact, the lower case of A is a. That is objective truth.

If Josh has 1 apple, and I give him another one, he has two apples. Again, you can claim that Josh has 8 apples, but the fact of the matter is Josh has 2 apples. The number of apples Josh has is not relative. He has 2 apples. Not 3 or 4, but 2.

P1: Josh has 1 apple
P2: I give Josh another apple
P3: Josh has 2 apples.
:: Therefore josh has 2 apples. Not 3 or 4. The number of apples Josh has is not relative, it is a fact.

::Objective Accuracy::
P1: On 9/11, two planes hit the twin towers.
P2: There is an article on 9/11 that claims two planes crashed the twin towers.
P3: The article was accurate.
:: Therefore, the claim two planes hit the twin towers, is both accurate and true.

::Relative Accuracy::
P1: On 9/11, two planes hit the twin towers.
P2: There is an article on 9/11 that claims Godzilla destroyed the twin towers.
P3: The article was inaccurate.
:: Therefore, the claim that Godzilla destroyed the twin towers is both inaccurate and false.

"An example to help make my point: it is an objective truth that light is a wave, but it is also an objective truth that light is a particle. Whether it operates as a wave or a particle is relative to an observer's frame of reference [4]."

Hint: Light is both a wave and a particle. It is an objective and absolute truth.
The observer's frame of reference does not negate the fact that light is indeed a wave and a particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

"A final example: it is an objective truth that you are involved in this debate with me. But a hundred years ago, this would not have been objectively true because, in all probability, you and I would not have been born yet. As such, this truth is relative to the particular place in time that an observer occupies."

This argument is utter nonsense. What does it matter if this debate was not an objective truth 100 years ago? Just because 1,000 years ago people thought the earth was flat, does not mean that the truth that the earth is spherical is not an absolute truth.

In conclusion, my opponent is arguing that because people can be ignorant of the truth, it must be relative. This is nonsense. You can say gravity is nonexistent and that the law of gravitation is an opinion, but the fact and truth is that gravity exists and is absolute. Opinions are relative. Truth, laws, and facts are not.

As my opponent is instigator claiming that the truth is relative, the burden of proof lies with him, but we see how he cant dispute one single thing only dances around the subject in his games.

:/

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Oscar Wilde said that imitation is the most sincere kind of flattery. I would say that resentment, coming from certain people, is a close second.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I would say praise is second but to each heir own.
:D

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I think praise is usually not very sincere.

But let's not start another argument.

0
0
0.000
Reply