Philosophy Now Forum

The most recent PNow includes an article by an alleged philosopher beginning with this:

HOW TO THINK

Critical Reasoning

Marianne Talbot tells us how to use the ultimate in transferrable skills.

My mug is sitting to my right doing nothing. This is because it believes it is at the centre of the universe, and its desire to be at the centre of the universe is stronger than any of its other desires.

I expect you’ll reject this explanation of the behaviour of my mug. Why, you might ask, should we ever think the mug is acting for reasons?

If I wrote this idiotic crap in a post, I'd be jumped upon by the silliest people on this forum, and nailed by those who actually have functional minds. All five of them.

As a simple exercise in philosophical logic, let's analyze Ms. Talbot's introduction.

"Her mug is sitting... "

That's her introduction to the oncoming bullshit barrage. "Sitting" is an active choice made by a sentient being. I'm sitting on my ass in front of a computer as the result of an intelligent choice. (Maybe not so intelligent as I'd like, but nonetheless a deliberate choice.) If I had a dog, it might be sitting nearby as the result of an instinctive desire to be near its alpha-male-- still its choice.

Coffee mugs do not sit. They might be placed on a horizontal surface by the person drinking from them.

Notice how quickly the philosopher tricks the normal little mind, sucking it into the notion that a coffee mug has choice, by a snarky manipulation of language.

She follows with this: "Why, you might ask, should we ever think the mug is acting for reasons?"

What forms of philosophical horseshit produce the notion that a mug (I'd at first thought it a coffee mug, but am thinking that a mug full of cheap rum is more likely) is, by remaining parked on a nitwit's desk, "acting?"

That's how crappy philosophers work, manipulating language. Do you need more? How about,

"I expect you’ll reject this explanation of the behaviour of my mug.

No, Ms. T. I reject the notion that your mug exhibits behavior.

With these intellectually dishonest introductions, Ms. Talbot moves on to another level of intellectual horseshit, with,

"This is because it believes it is at the centre of the universe, and its desire to be at the centre of the universe is stronger than any of its other desires."

With a few strokes of her nubile fingers, Ms. T. has transformed her mug of cheap rum into a conscious entity with beliefs and desires.

As far as I could stand to read, this version of PNow addressed the issue of why there are few female philosophers. By publishing Ms. Talbot's nonsense, they've pretty much explained why.

I wonder how many blow jobs it took to get this philosophical nonsense into a "magazine" that pretends to be about honest philosophy?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote: "I expect you’ll reject this explanation of the behaviour of my mug.

No, Ms. T. I reject the notion that your mug exhibits behavior.

But you must admit that she is correct that anyone with at least 2 active brain cells to rub together, will reject her explanation. Will you admit to actually paying for a magazine that has that article in it?

When you think on it the coffee mug is a creation of thought and exits in the mind of the beholder. The coffee cup cant think for its self but then again its in your mind.

Greylorn the fact that she's female tells me everything. This post of her's obviously has to be some kind of sarcastic joke, a mockery of some kind. She is mocking people who believe we make "choices" and act for reasons.

People don't make "choices", the only "reasons" they do is because their brain tells their body to do things.

Like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkC42i7q6Q


As for the philosophy now magazine, they censored an article called "Alien invasion is no argument for animal rights." Being one with righteous sense and decency (unlike most humans) I am for animal rights. But philosophy now wishes to censor the article for only people who have an account there. What kind of philosopher believes in censorship?

Okay, GE, you have completely missed the point of Talbot's parable, and in so doing, demonstrated your mysogynistic weakness of intellect, I think.

I am sure that if you weren't so anxious to find fault with women philosophers, you'd have been able to see past the absurdity of Talbot's mug and instead recognise it for a deliberate reductio ad absurdum demonstration of the value and application of critical reasoning.

With a few strokes of her nubile fingers, Ms. T. has transformed her mug of cheap rum into a conscious entity with beliefs and desires.
No, but she has revealed you to have a real problem with women, critical thinking, and your own arrogance.


Bonus lol—"nubile"

And as the article continues she points out the absurdity of her opening comments.

thedoc wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: "I expect you’ll reject this explanation of the behaviour of my mug.

No, Ms. T. I reject the notion that your mug exhibits behavior.

But you must admit that she is correct that anyone with at least 2 active brain cells to rub together, will reject her explanation. Will you admit to actually paying for a magazine that has that article in it?

Doc,

Only if I needed to. Luckily my prescription ran out, as I was not finding the Phil.Now content very interesting. Disappointing, as I had great expectations for it. I found that article as a PNow home page freebie.

Greylorn

I agree with Greylon. She sets up a big, stupid strawman; meaning she's being so simplistic that anyone with a brain is offended at being thought of as her 'audience.'

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Greylorn the fact that she's female tells me everything. This post of her's obviously has to be some kind of sarcastic joke, a mockery of some kind. She is mocking people who believe we make "choices" and act for reasons.

People don't make "choices", the only "reasons" they do is because their brain tells their body to do things.

Like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkC42i7q6Q

Trix,

I doubt that she is clever enough to be sarcastic.

You are correct about brains. Those humans with a moderately active beon connected to brain can make choices. This is possible because beon is a non-created entropy reverser and can override the brain's choices. Demonstrated by Wilder Penfield during open-skull surgery, 1947.

Viewing the youtube item, beon found no new information, but brain found plenty of psychobabble that it already knows. We agreed to abort the viewing early.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: As for the philosophy now magazine, they censored an article called "Alien invasion is no argument for animal rights." Being one with righteous sense and decency (unlike most humans) I am for animal rights. But philosophy now wishes to censor the article for only people who have an account there. What kind of philosopher believes in censorship?

P.Now is a business, not a government funded bullshit operation. It has the right to control the material it publishes, to censor and reject freely. It must do so if it expects to stay in business. Notice that Mr. Lewis has chosen not to censor this thread, although it is critical of his magazine.

Personally, I'd hoped for a somewhat edgier magazine, instead of the bland and irrelevant content that is probably what keeps bland and irrelevant philosophers on their subscription list.
Greylorn

thedoc wrote:And as the article continues she points out the absurdity of her opening comments.

Doc,

Since experience has taught me that when a paper, article, or book begins with nonsense, it invariably ends with garbage and wastes my time, I read no further than the stuff on which I commented.

I can easily write an article that begins with stupid assertions, then inform any residual readers later on that I actually knew better. So what? Is that the only point of the article?

I don't see any indication from comments posted in her defense that she eventually says anything interesting. Does she?

Greylorn

mickthinks wrote:Okay, GE, you have completely missed the point of Talbot's parable, and in so doing, demonstrated your mysogynistic weakness of intellect, I think.

I am sure that if you weren't so anxious to find fault with women philosophers, you'd have been able to see past the absurdity of Talbot's mug and instead recognise it for a deliberate reductio ad absurdum demonstration of the value and application of critical reasoning.

With a few strokes of her nubile fingers, Ms. T. has transformed her mug of cheap rum into a conscious entity with beliefs and desires.
No, but she has revealed you to have a real problem with women, critical thinking, and your own arrogance.

Bonus lol—"nubile"

Mick,

I hope that your defense of an irrelevant female earned you a free roll in the hay with your current squeeze. If moving Talbot's trash up to the level of "parable" plus your probably customary ass kissing didn't get the job done, nothing will.

If you read any of my posts elsewhere, you'd know that I criticize freely, irrespective of apparent sex, if any. However I do adjust my style according to sex and personality of the person I'm addressing.

I'm more likely to favor a female philosopher, because we have so few of them. This place reminds me of engineering school. One female student in one class, in four years-- and she dropped the class after two weeks.

Ms. Talbot has not revealed a damn thing to me, but here you are, another pussy-whipped dipshit trying to analyze someone you do not and will never know. I don't need a jerk pointing out my foibles without my invitation, because I know them.

Of course I have problems with women. I'm a guy; it comes with the sexual territory. I love dancing and conversing with them, but know better than to bring one home.

The only problem I have with critical thinking is finding any examples of it.

Of course I'm arrogant-- at least about the things I'm good at. Do you imagine that a complete stranger giving me an unrequested personality analysis so that he can suck up to some female, is somehow not arrogant?

But fair is fair. Here's your free personality analysis, courtesy of Greylorn...

Of course I'm arrogant-- at least about the things I'm good at.
And also the things you aren't good at, it seems, such as philosophising, critical thinking, reading, not letting your emotions cloud your judgement ...

Ms. Talbot has not revealed a damn thing to me ...
Of course she hasn't! That's because you are, clearly, too angry that a woman presumes to know as much as you do about rational thought to pay attention to what she's saying. It's to the rest of us that her piece has revealed your, frankly staggering, over-estimation of yourself and your abilities.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Only if I needed to. Luckily my prescription ran out...

Ah yes, I thought that might be the problem.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Greylorn the fact that she's female tells me everything. This post of her's obviously has to be some kind of sarcastic joke, a mockery of some kind. She is mocking people who believe we make "choices" and act for reasons.

People don't make "choices", the only "reasons" they do is because their brain tells their body to do things.

Like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkC42i7q6Q

Trix,

I doubt that she is clever enough to be sarcastic.

You are correct about brains. Those humans with a moderately active beon connected to brain can make choices. This is possible because beon is a non-created entropy reverser and can override the brain's choices. Demonstrated by Wilder Penfield during open-skull surgery, 1947.

Viewing the youtube item, beon found no new information, but brain found plenty of psychobabble that it already knows. We agreed to abort the viewing early.

That's fine, it's a video meant for the ignorant, or the not so ignorant to reassure them that yes, they are sane, and the world truly is a planet of the apes.

As for beon, I wonder if your beon is actually an alien spirit. Regardless, neither beon nor gods can make "choices", the very idea of choice is impossible in every regard.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Of course I have problems with women. I'm a guy; it comes with the sexual territory. I love dancing and conversing with them, but know better than to bring one home.

So if you don't bring her home, where do you do it? The garage?

You know, I've been thinking. Most of the conversations we have, on the philosophy forum, are far more interesting than the articles featured on Philosophy Now. What a strange little primitive tradition, to withhold information from the public. What I meant by censor is they withhold information to non-subscribers as part of their business model. Not offering free information is a primitive relic.

You know, it's akin to a bunch of hipsters sitting down at the cafe, arguing at each other about trivial issues. The arguing could be forgiven, if the content wasn't so trite and run of the mill.

What a strange tradition, to only share limited information and withhold other information simply because it has no discerned monetary value. They don't spread our information because they don't consider us part of their inner circle or business model. How primitive. Would it be the end of the world if they just, I don't know, shared a couple of our quality posts in their magazine?

No, it wouldn't. It would only be the end of petty traditions.