The Land of Plenty

[speed]

exhibit A: in which you offer up an "evaluation" of me based on some halfwit author. (note the date to understand who started what they cannot accept)

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3968194&postcount=12



I am merely returning the gesture in kind, with an emphasis on your lacking analysis

At least you admit you have made no real argument.

I admit I know nothing; you on the otherhand seem to know everything, yet cannot offer any of your omniscience to me or any of us mere foolish mortals.


Now about the science aphorism of mine, which we have yet to really address. Of course, it is not a perfectly true comment. But it does contain as much truth as falsity; and to me it may be a totally truthful comment. One cannot apply aristotelian logic to everything, or really to anything for that matter, especially in the matter of any utterance of language. Your attempt to prove that my comment was false by pointing out your wifes role in science--and thus by the entirety of my thread is false as if a is wrong, then everything else must be wrong, and b the opposite as in your delightful comments must be right--is the sign of poor logic and an easily impressionable mind.

Now why did I make such a comment? Because I thik it is obvious since Science has assumed the mantle of the world, that it has brought much environmental ruin. Really without the aid of scientific knowledge and reasoning, would we have ozone depletion, smog, toxic chemicals, other hazardous chemicals in our food and homes, etc, etc, etc. And about the economic comment, yes I am making the same argument as no less than Karl Marx in his Grundrisse. Essentially as technology and science improves, and makes many forms of labor obsolete, the economy will collapse. Now this is a bit of a reach--and way in the future-- but in the last 20 years a great many good paying jobs have been elimanated due to technological advance.

This brings me to my thesis: thus, although science has made our lives more comfortable, has created better jobs, and so on, why are we Americans who have drank from the trough of scientific advance for so long, still so psychologically and spirtually miserable?

 

[speed]

As for your contempt of Cioran. I dont get it. He basically is affirming humorless "scientifically" minded persons like yourself have won. He confirms the defeat of the romantic; the lover of words and God; the philosopher; all that was created not observed by man. In essence he jokes he knows nothing, he never will know anything, and thus why even fucking bother?

He is a modern Pyrrho:

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant. The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Hence our attitude to things (the third question), ought to be complete suspense of judgment. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions.

 

[Iridium]

This simply means that we cannot know anything based solely on the instruments inherent in us. Let's take the obvious example of color. An apple may seem red to me, but green to a color-blind man. Who is right? Well, if we're trying to state fact, neither of us, really - the only way to truly know anything about the color of the apple is to study the wavelengths of light that its skin reflects and absorbs. Using the proper technique, we would both eventually agree that the color of the apple is represented by a wavelength of ~670nm.

 

[Krilons Resa]

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant. The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Hence our attitude to things (the third question), ought to be complete suspense of judgment. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions.

Indeed. I guess you could call me a modern day Pyrrhonist. Hence my constant state of suspense between every-fucking-thing. It is both liberating, yet dreadful, at the same time.