Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[là bạn điên]

I have a BA and MA in Philosophy.

I also did a years' research with published work in a journal. I am acknowledged in a recent book on Kant. I am a teacher and lecturer. Let's not compare dicks mate.

Of course you are

I don't find atheists' ethics 'quite well developed', I find them cherry picked from various sources that don't necessarily fit together well. In fact, I don't find there to be a credible atheist 'way of thinking' and that's the reason for the discussion: because I feel there should be if what atheists say always already has socialised consequences (and nobody has contradicted me on this so far). This is the main reason I find atheists to be philosophically lacking. As I have mentioned, the symptom of this is the belief that we can build our lives around simple descriptive truths about the physical universe and forget the complexity of human need. I'm glad you would stop at telling someone about to die that there is nothing waiting for them, but I wonder where you do draw the line.

This is just a stream of consciousness. there is no argument here.


if you are actually educated in philosophy then make your arguments into proper ones -premise conclusions etc If you don;t Ill know you are just making it up Unless of course you were into that Continental drivel where you can make everything up as you go along.

My worry is that in order to know where to 'draw the line' at insisting on [quote]cosmological accuracy (i.e. this is a universe without a God or any purposiveness, no anthropomorphism), one has to know very well the person to whom one is talking. Without knowing what effect brutish (there's that word again!) truth-facepalmery (a new term for you) has on people, it seems childish to insist on undeveloped perspectives. That is, to me. And I say this not to insist that you agree but in the hope that you can understand it.

I really don;t understand you at all