Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Existential comics punches scientism in the face, writes articulate blog post why.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    I attended a Richard Dawkins lecture where he maintained that we shouldn't ask the question of 'Why?' in science.
    He said it was a loaded question.
    I found it odd that a 'free thinker' would define questions that should not be asked.
    I surely agree with you on that one. I cannot help getting the feeling that many of those guys are more obsessed with "finding answers" than "asking questions". Which very often lead to answers that are not really satisfying.

    And, perhaps not a very essential but funny point, I cannot help laughing at the fact that Dawkins in all his atheism sounds so much like a sunday school teacher teaching the kids: "You shall not be afraid to die... I am telling you that the atoms of which you are made..."
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Charles View Post
      I surely agree with you on that one. I cannot help getting the feeling that many of those guys are more obsessed with "finding answers" than "asking questions". Which very often lead to answers that are not really satisfying.

      And, perhaps not a very essential but funny point, I cannot help laughing at the fact that Dawkins in all his atheism sounds so much like a sunday school teacher teaching the kids: "You shall not be afraid to die... I am telling you that the atoms of which you are made..."
      My impression is that these guys are the last vestiges of modernism.
      I'm not a philosopher so this is stuff I piece together here and there.
      Take it for what it is worth (not much).

      That is why the comic amused me - the selection of the targets suggests to me that the author isn't aware of where the battle is being fought.
      Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
        The Philosophy Force Five vs the Scientismists



        Sorry, not sorry, NDGT, Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al.
        I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball. I like that the author is targeting scientism, but the comic itself is not at all funny or witty or anything that would make it "comic". It just comes off forced and preachy, which is precisely what you wouldn't want in this sort of format. When a comic has a paragraph long speech bubble in every panel, you know you're going to run into trouble. The artwork wasn't the absolute worse I've ever seen, so I suppose it's got that going for it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball. I like that the author is targeting scientism, but the comic itself is not at all funny or witty or anything that would make it "comic". It just comes off forced and preachy, which is precisely what you wouldn't want in this sort of format. When a comic has a paragraph long speech bubble in every panel, you know you're going to run into trouble. The artwork wasn't the absolute worse I've ever seen, so I suppose it's got that going for it.
          Not all of the comics are intended to be humorous. This is one of those.

          Even those which are intended to be humorous tend to be very oblique about it, imo.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Charles View Post
            Where did all this come from?
            Yep, why does something exist instead of absolutely nothing. Never seen a scientist - or a philosopher for that matter - answer that question. If science is to examine reality, it must exist beforehand. I find it hard to see exactly how one could go back to the ultimate reason for anything to exist using that method. But I would like to have an explanation if anyone knows.
            There is no answer to this question. There's no explanation to be had.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
              I attended a Richard Dawkins lecture where he maintained that we shouldn't ask the question of 'Why?' in science.
              He said it was a loaded question.
              I found it odd that a 'free thinker' would define questions that should not be asked.
              The key part is 'in science'. Why is a loaded question. It brings with it the concept of purpose and reasons. Purpose isn't a thing science can speak on, even were it determinable.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                I've now read that and it was good for a laugh.

                So the new atheists are promoting anti-feminist views which are labeled here as 'conservative'?
                That is pretty funny - I suspect the new atheists are tired of watching government via victimology.
                It has nothing to do with conservatism.
                It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  Not all of the comics are intended to be humorous. This is one of those.

                  Even those which are intended to be humorous tend to be very oblique about it, imo.
                  Sure, not all comics are intended to be humorous, but how most of the panels are drawn in this one I don't think it's a leap to think the author intended it to be humorous. The humor here may have been intended to be oblique, but it's still not funny.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
                    No, this is false, the author is annoyed because the author can't push his vision of societal change (and goes on an extended diatribe about it after the comic).
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball. I like that the author is targeting scientism, but the comic itself is not at all funny or witty or anything that would make it "comic". It just comes off forced and preachy, which is precisely what you wouldn't want in this sort of format. When a comic has a paragraph long speech bubble in every panel, you know you're going to run into trouble. The artwork wasn't the absolute worse I've ever seen, so I suppose it's got that going for it.
                      If I were to rate comics as comic, I wouldn't put Existential Comics at the top of my list. The art-work is not as great as others for sure.

                      I enjoy them though, because its intrinsically funny to see people discuss serious ideas while calling on Captain Metaphysics, or watching Neitzsche literally announce the death of God as a news caster, or see Marx get upset at thoroughly classist board game.
                      Last edited by Jin-roh; 06-23-2017, 05:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
                        I think it's both as an apologia for feminism and a middle finger to scientism. The former is the subplot. I sometimes wonder if it's possible to be a woman in philosophy and not be or at least not be perceived to be a feminist. I personally have never met a woman who is into philosophy and not also a feminist, with only one exception because she drank some religious-right kool-aid at some point after she got married.

                        Scientism is 'conservative' in the sense that it's fundamentalist, modernist, and unapologetically euro-centric. Now that I think about it, I'm curious what the racial make-up of the new atheist fan club is. Dawkins and Harris do have a reputation for sexism, and that quote from Harris really does sound like the exact same idea I would hear from someone like Thomas Jefferson in the 1700s.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                          The key part is 'in science'. Why is a loaded question. It brings with it the concept of purpose and reasons. Purpose isn't a thing science can speak on, even were it determinable.
                          This isn't true.
                          The question of 'why' is asked all of the time.

                          Most of those 'why' questions have answers on the physical realm (why do birds build nests?) but even if a question doesn't have an answer it should be asked anyways and a small 'unknown' put in as the answer. The blanket declaration of no 'why' is science seems heavy handed - just because that question irritates Dawkins doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. He has no problem asking 'why' when attacking religion. He's just a really bad philosopher.
                          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
                            Did Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
                            I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.
                            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball.
                              Wait... I vaguely remember the screwball thread, but I don't know what "anti-screwball" is.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                                Did Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
                                I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.
                                Opposing feminism usually means denying or affirm some set of values, and since that is itself an evaluation of some kind...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X