thedoc wrote:A couple of episodes of Star Trek come to mind.
One in Next generation, an official wanted to disassemble Data so they could build more of him and send them places too dangerous for normal humans, his defense was that it would amount to slavery.
The other is from one of the movies, where someone offered to remove all personal pain through a Vulcan mind meld. Kirk refused, saying that his pain was what made him feel alive.
Yeah Star Trek did some pretty deep stuff, I must admit, very accessible to us laymen, probably why it kept you watching, it would always make you think.
Vis a vis, the thread in general and general threads (possibly should start a thread about that, but since they just charge in and talk shit at you there's probably little or no point). Hence I think most philosophers not Philosophers (see previous definitions of this) on this forum are far too busy being clever about having read philosophy to actually do something that meant they for once were not an expert on it or even something to just dive in on a subject for the sake of fun. I've noticed this, you post: I think Nietzsche was x, and you get a million and one opinions from a million and one people who have read Nietzsche. You post think about this film and it's implications, and it's not just films either, just about anything outside of their comfort zone is ignored by the weeblists, you get nothing from the usual suspects, their silence is always deafening on posts they can't answer because they know nothing about it; course it might be they haven't seen the film, but I doubt it, it's just they haven't read how to think about it by someone, and so have no idea how to tackle any issues. In fact you think about, or post any thread about anything the average philosopher hasn't read somewhere or at sometime about you get nothing.
It's like they are drones, just regurgitating better men than themselves, actual Philosophers who did something new, learned to see in colour. Gattica of course covers that. How can you get anything new from a dead text? It's like talking to a brick wall, a dead text isn't going to reply, it isn't going to disagree with your opinions. Meh I made that point already but it bears repeating, some people are just coasting. Philosophy to them it seems is just a game of who can repeat others thoughts like it matters, these days anything new is growing few and far between because they're all stuck in the past. This is not the game you should be playing. Probably explains why you are sitting on a forum trying to make it into a boot camp for the closed minded book worm, texts from the past only should apply, forward thinking is not our thing.
Now that's a critic of the so called philosophers on here, try using so called philosophy to argue that is not all you do? Because I don't think you can unless you know the course material first or Gatticca for dumbies, or in fact any subject where it's not all spoon fed to you how you should think.
Prove me wrong, I would like that.
Now to say that means I would link it to the same sort of insular thinking that goes on in Gattica, there's a sort of in crowd thing, an alpha mentality going on. It's I think to philosophies detriment. I wouldn't worry too much the usual philosopher on this forum switched off the moment they read film. There's about as much chance of them reading this as there is them thinking for themselves.
