Maybe Philosophy, Maybe Madness, Or Maybe just the Meme Quotes....

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

Libertarianism as a Programmatically Incoherent Social Philosophy | Epoché Magazine (epochemagazine.org)

[Guard Dog]

I guess I’m a dummy.

[Raithe]

Boo to the Boo-Hurrahs: how four Oxford women transformed philosophy - Prospect Magazine

In April 1945, a newsreel film entitled German Atrocities appeared in British cinemas. Having been spared graphic images during most of the war, this was, for most British civilians, their first encounter with the horrors of the concentration camps. After watching footage of emaciated bodies and piled-up corpses, the 24-year-old Philippa Foot told her mentor, the philosopher Donald MacKinnon: “Nothing is ever going to be the same again.” These were acts, Foot felt, that were undeniably evil, and if philosophy was unable to identify them as such, then there was a major problem with philosophy.

And there was indeed a problem. The moral philosophy taught at Oxford in the 1930s and 1940s pictured the world as value free. According to the influential AJ Ayer, all ethical statements, since they can never be empirically tested, are meaningless.

Foot had studied at Oxford with three other remarkable women: Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe and Mary Midgley, each of whom was to devote themselves to arguing with the Oxford tradition, be it through novels, academic papers, books or radio broadcasts.

Benjamin Lipscomb’s new group biography, The Women Are Up to Something, is a fascinating exploration of their life and thought. They each tackled moral philosophy in ways as distinct as their backgrounds and beliefs. Bringing together Murdoch, “a bohemian novelist and spiritual seeker,” Anscombe, “a zealous Catholic convert and mother of seven,” Foot, “an atheistic daughter of privilege,” and Midgley, “a stay-at-home mother who finally wrote the first of her 16 books in her 50s” (59 to be precise), Lipscomb paints a vivid portrait not only of them as people, but also a moment in British philosophy too often told through the male line.

*****

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Malcador]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:36 AM, Guard Dog said:

I guess I’m a dummy.

Sounds like something emo-types tell themselves to feel superior, to be honest.

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

For the consideration:

 

[Hurlshort]

Huh. None of that really checks out for me. I mean, historically human societies have always kind of had a coming of age where you are considered an adult and expected to leave the nest. 18 is pretty late compared to some cultures. I'm sure banks appreciate the opportunity to cash in on a new generation with credit cards and bills, but I don't think they are driving the narrative. Sharing a household with people is hard and I'd say it is pretty natural for young people to want to create their own space and older people want to simplify. 

I'm going to be 50 when my kids are hitting the adult years. There is no real inheritance. I'll help them as long as I can though, and my wife and I have set aside enough to not be a burden. But we are taking care of my mother-in-law. Technically she could probably get by on social security and medicare, so that part rings somewhat true. Still kind of sounds like a very specific example of someone who is estranged from their kids rather than a typical scenario.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Hurlsnot

[Hurlshort]

double post

Edited December 3, 2021 by Hurlsnot

[Keyrock]

I haven't done one of these in a long time and I think last time it was in a different thread (this one didn't exist yet) but here's another Half-baked Musing of a Truck Driver:

There Is No Such Thing As Random.

It is literally impossible for a computer to generate a random number. Every "random" number generted by a so called random number generator is based on a seed determined by something, such as the number of milliseconds (or whatever the smallest unit of time the computer can handle) since powering up.

Similarly, humans also cannot generate a number (or name or anything else) truly randomly. We may not know it consciously, but any time we select something "at random" it's always based on something: A memory, the color of the wall in the room you are currently in, a smell in the air, etc.

I'll take this to its logical end and say that nothing in the universe is truly random. Even quantum physics with particle/wave duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are not examples of true randomness. The reason these things seem random is because we don't have (nor could we process with our current brain and technological computational power) all the information. If we had ALL the information of every bit of everything in the universe since its beginning (assuming "beginning" is even a concept that can be applied to the universe) and the computational power to process it then we could perfectly give not only the position and velocity of any and all particles, but also perfectly predict its future motions. I guess this makes me a subscriber to a hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics.

[Gorth]

Tl;dr; there is no true randomness, just things that are too complex to predict.

[rjshae]

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that there are no local hidden variables in quantum mechanics. As far as we have been able to demonstrate, it is utterly and completely random. If you can prove otherwise, the physics community would be very interested.

Bell’s Theorem

[InsaneCommander]

The Nobel Foundation would also have something for you.

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

 

[rjshae]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Raithe]