Its a classic and sterteotypye, and it shows how much i was right about his MO. He wont bother to defend his own position, thus he is attacking (what he thinks is) the opponents´position. Too bad that this position is "science works", so he only has one strawman which is scientism and something that makes everyone laugh him out of the room: "You cant prove science works".
Trying to shoehorn in "extremely useful" into the conversation. Its his *get out of jail free* card for sticking to science himself while talking it down in the same instance. Intellectual coward, as i said.
Real philosophers wouldnt stoop down that low. Real philosopers dont hide behind such cheap defenses. Real philosophers own the philosophy they subscribe to and they admit to the assumprtions, prerequisites and possible flaws of it. Belaqua is only here to stroke his ego, and philosophy is the tool he is using.
Still, all of this is not the point. The original point was Rahns post to which Belaqua replied a few pages ago by basically agreeing with Rahn, but turned the conversation into a pseudo philosophical wankfest.
Trying to shoehorn in "extremely useful" into the conversation. Its his *get out of jail free* card for sticking to science himself while talking it down in the same instance. Intellectual coward, as i said.
Real philosophers wouldnt stoop down that low. Real philosopers dont hide behind such cheap defenses. Real philosophers own the philosophy they subscribe to and they admit to the assumprtions, prerequisites and possible flaws of it. Belaqua is only here to stroke his ego, and philosophy is the tool he is using.
Still, all of this is not the point. The original point was Rahns post to which Belaqua replied a few pages ago by basically agreeing with Rahn, but turned the conversation into a pseudo philosophical wankfest.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse