This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 301302303 304305 ... 502
9061
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:50:15 PM »
19, as of this past October.
Huh, that surprises me. You have a more sort of sophisticated-in-the-sense-of-being-over-21 look.
9062
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:45:54 PM »
well, you're not younger than me, so
i'm gonna kill myself
I turn 18 on February 5th, so I'm not that far behind.
9063
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:43:51 PM »
Or have you got a birthday coming soon?
MAAAAYYYBEEEEEE
9064
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:43:32 PM »
Only basing it on looks?
Pretty much. I wouldn't say any younger than 20, and no older than 22.
9065
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:42:57 PM »
well, you're not younger than me, so
9066
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:40:59 PM »
Kind of defeats the purpose if some of us have said our ages or if it's listed in our profiles.
Well, that's your own fault for being a whore with your information.
9067
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:40:39 PM »
9068
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:40:08 PM »
I'll start with Icy, at 20.
What makes you say 20?
For fuck's sake you look 20, I don't know. Are you or not?
9069
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:37:06 PM »
And hopefully they'll be able to confirm or deny it. A few of you know how old I am, so stay out >.>
I'll start with Icy, at 20.
9070
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:29:09 PM »
cus countries like greece, italy, and romania
Yeah. . . No. It's the European Central Bank's fault.
9071
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:19:06 PM »
Then take it as a minor and major in something that will actually be of benefit
Or you could just stop being arrogant by way of thinking you can judge the "benefit" something will have to somebody, short of neurocognitive scanning.
9072
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:18:04 PM »
What are the biggest threats to economic growth?
Poor monetary policy. Structural problems, like restrictive legislation. Demographic changes like an aging population and a low intake of immigrants.
9073
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:14:42 PM »
Why do people actually pay for philosophy classes?
Because they enjoy philosophy, perhaps?
9074
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:08:14 PM »
Why is the EU economy doing so bad?
Tight monetary policy, effectively. The European Central Bank is on the strings of the German Bundesbank, which is essentially deathly afraid of inflation even at the possibility of deflation. The money supply hasn't been allowed to expand in order to accommodate economic growth.
9075
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:06:49 PM »
Does the economy need inflation for the whole system to work? Or is inflation just nice to have? It's a lot better if it does. Inflation is the thing which "greases the wheels". For instance, if you run into a time of economic hardship and you need to cut back, you'll more than likely fire people over cutting their wages. Wages, for behavioural reasons, are very sticky and difficult to cut in value. If you have, say 2pc inflation with 2pc wage growth, it's much easier to cut it down to 1pc wage growth as opposed to making a 1pc cut with no inflation at all. What are the pros and cons of having a gold-backed currency and why do you support not having a gold standard?
The gold standard can induce long-term price stability, with high inflation and hyperinflation being both rare and almost impossible respectfully. Any inflation that occurs will normally be due to supply-side issues--for instance, you'll have the same amount of money chasing less goods. However, the unequal distribution of gold throughout the world makes it more advantageous for the biggest gold-producing countries. Also, because the amount of gold is finite, it acts as a cap on economic growth--the money supply should increase as the value of the economy does. Not to mention, it makes an economy more susceptible to deflationary shocks.
9076
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:58:56 PM »
Why do people revere asshats like Plato when they were wrong about everything, save for maybe feminism?
Old = gold, apparently.
9077
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:58:35 PM »
What does 21st century philosophy consist of?
Not my area of specialty, really, but so far it seems to have consisted mostly of debates around science and religion, with people like (philosopher and neuroscientist) Sam Harris making arguments for a secular science of morality. And then there's Noam Chomsky, who you probably wouldn't recognise as a philosopher. Other than that you have the retarded school of postmodernism. The biggest thing, probably, is the ever present divide between analytical and continental philosophy.
9078
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:52:13 PM »
Is this an acceptable understanding of the Federal Reserve? The Fed prints money in order for private banks to loan and make investments. Not exactly. It's all very convoluted, but essentially the federal reserve controls inter-bank interest rates for the trading of federal funds (feel free to question any of the variables mentioned there). When it comes to printing money, they do it primarily to stabilise the price-level, and keep inflation at 2pc. I also have a couple other questions: if the Fed merely loans out the money, doesn't that mean they eventually get all that money back? And if they do, what exactly do they do with all that wealth? I do know that the Fed makes a profit, but I'm not entirely sure how that's done. To my knowledge, however, they either use it for self-financing or turn it over to the American government. Isn't the Fed technically redistributing wealth as they print money? They decrease the value of the dollar but print more of them for themselves to own. Well, the Fed isn't making itself richer, as it were. But it does decrease the value of the currency if it's profligate in its printing.
9079
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:10:35 PM »
Some good questions from that other forum I use. Reading your previous discussion, how do you get over the 'is -ought gap' (logically deducing moral values from facts)? The distinction between facts and values really is a non-starter. Values must necessarily reduce to facts in some way, and values must necessarily presuppose factual inquiry. You can see this happening all throughout the history of philosophy, I've noticed. From Nietzschean Perspectivism, to R.M. Hare's idea of the "blik", to Sam Harris's ethical naturalism and to Karl Poppers judgement that all human observations are necessarily conjectural. Do you believe in the self? Relating to the question; if every cell in my body is replaced over a stretch of a few years and then (hypothetically) those former cells appeared again in their former form which would be me? The one replaced by cells, the reappearing ones, both or neither? I'm very much a Humean on this. Part of my problem with pretty much all religions (as well as philosophy's like Platonism and--to a lesser extent--Aristotelianism) is that they assume some sort of substance/noumenon/thing-in-itself in which the essential properties of a thing inhere, and are yet distinct from the thing-in-itself. This is just positing a non-empirical foundation to everything (this includes the ideas of a soul, or some transcendent self) whereas bundle theory makes much more sense in that the empirical togetherness of some properties engender a kind-of "perceived substance". I think the perceived substance of the "self" is defined as much by its macroscopic physical continuity as it is by its collection of subjective data. Can we prove the external world exists? I'm actually one with Hume on this, in that a belief in the external world cannot be justified rationally. I am, insofar as it matters, still a realist though. A sceptic, but a realist nonetheless. There are just some things that we must necessarily presuppose to be true (again, values and conjectures, as above) in order to begin any sort of inquiry. We must, for instance, presuppose that we're seeing a proper representation of the world to do anything and then value physicalism and empiricism to embark upon any truth-claims which then correlate with this representation.
9080
« on: January 07, 2015, 01:46:42 PM »
Why does this thread keep getting locked and unlocked?
Take a closer look at my OP, Max, and then at the Serious feed.
9081
« on: January 07, 2015, 01:05:56 PM »
Colonialism is dead and should remain so, but to deny it had quite clear benefits is to be ignorant of history.
Although, I'll concede Indochina was probably shit. . . I mean, it was owned by the French, so it was probably shit.
9082
« on: January 07, 2015, 12:18:21 PM »
Yes, Lenin was the most socially and economically consequential.
9083
« on: January 07, 2015, 11:35:10 AM »
Well I don't have some grand showstopper of a post, I just thought this might be interesting to continue, in a more serious tone.
I get that a lot of you see all religion as fairy tales, but there's no reason not to have a good talk about what those tales mean, how they affect us, and whether there's any value in them.
As usual, I'm not here to convert anyone, but if you're going to criticize a religion, at least make sure you've got some of the basic premises down.
Maybe nobody will reply and this thread will be dead by tonight. If not, that's great. The Facebook joke above is a good starting point, since the tree the knowledge of good and evil is an interesting topic. Yes, we are continuing this discussion here since Kiyo doesn't want her thread to continue. This was Turkey's last post on the topic (I'm still waiting for my explanation of bodily resurrection, by the way), and I'm sure it will engender some interesting discussion. So, we all pretty much know the story about Adam and Eve and Satan and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What's your take on it?
9084
« on: January 07, 2015, 11:06:27 AM »
Can monopolies be either inherently good or bad for the market?
Nothing is inherently good or bad. If a monopoly were to keep prices at as low levels as possible, then I suppose that would be good since they're disallowing competition through a legitimate practice. There's just no guarantee that they'll do or continue to do that.
Is such a scenario likely to occur in an unrestricted market though?
No, not unless you have a "natural monopoly". Although I've seen very little evidence for their existence in any significant capacity; most monopolies evolve by lobbying the government and having regulations passed for their field of commerce which restricts new entrants or gives them some kind of benefit. Competition--especially free trade--are the best safeguards against monopoly.
9085
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:59:55 AM »
But I thought the Nazi application of the übermensch was regarded as wrong.
It is. The idea of the "higher man" is supposed to be one of especial individualism, not something which can collectively (by race) or institutionally (by government) be established.
9086
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:56:49 AM »
What's the philosophy for not giving a shit and enjoying life? Hedonism?
If I had to label it I'd probably say a sort of solipsistic hedonism. But, essentially, yeah.
9087
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:56:10 AM »
How do the ramblings of a syphilitic old German guy affect my daily life?
You'd know if you were. . .  Das Ubermensch.
9088
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:55:04 AM »
Can monopolies be either inherently good or bad for the market?
Nothing is inherently good or bad. If a monopoly were to keep prices at as low levels as possible, then I suppose that would be good since they're disallowing competition through a legitimate practice. There's just no guarantee that they'll do or continue to do that.
9089
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:45:25 AM »
Better had said Catherine or Peter the Great
Did you even read the fucking question properly?
9090
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:43:27 AM »
There is such a thing as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. I didn't make a claim as to which decision would be 'correct' (I'm backing subjectivity after all) since its not difficult to see things from both sides in a lot of hypothetical situations. Or for both sides to each have good enough points (or bad enough points) to have it be a toss up. You can debate about the moral legitimacy of an action all you like--and we must--but that simply doesn't draw the logical conclusion that you ought to negate the existence of moral facts. Morality necessarily relates to human well-being. Let's say a society decides slavery is fine, and that system results in a more efficient society and their eventual rise to power. For them it is fine, but by our moral standards it would be horrific. Whether their morals prevail over ours is purely up to who comes out on top. Right or wrong there is merely a matter of perspective, and might would inevitably make right (for either side). I agree that ethics works on a "might makes right" system descriptively. That doesn't entail any sort of correctness, however.
Pages: 1 ... 301302303 304305 ... 502
|
Show Posts