RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 6, 2012 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2012 at 11:27 am by Tempus.)
(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote:(June 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Tempus Wrote:
Look, if you read my post I admitted myself that I cant build a car but it doesn't take a car mechanic to drive one and know it is not run on pixy dust. You quoted her, all I was saying is that if you are going to quote her then I am just as qualified.
People's qualifications don't affect the validity of their points, on this we agree. Why even bring it up? Attempting to cut someone down by asserting they're not qualified, or that you're equally (or more) qualified than them doesn't bolster your argument.
(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: She had an idea, just like Marx had an idea. The mistake both of them made is that they both postulated a simple solution for a complex society and no society is as simple as one word or one label solutions. Not to mention conditions constantly change so what might work at a certain point may not be a good idea at another point. That was the other thing both of them missed.
Her simplistic idea of "selfishness" was utopian just like always sharing is utopian. People's motivations are a range, not an absolute.
As above: irrelevant. It seems you're presenting a form of ignoratio elenchi since this still isn't addressing the content of my initial quotation. You said we don't need philosophy. I responded - perhaps too obliquely - by countering that you do philosophy whether you realise it or not and that it is better you be cognisant of it rather than ignorant. Epistemology, logic, ethics, etc fall under philosophy. Would you say we don't need epistemology, logic, ethics?
ETA: Cthulhu paraphrased the quotation nicely also.
