You are very clever. I suspect your parents might say, 'too clever'. However, your finger is on the pulse (as weak and feeble as it remains) of humanity today. How about this addition to the list of 'new age' fallacies, Neglecting the Question(s): Neglecting (or conveniently forgetting) the truth that every proposition presupposes a question, or the meaning of every statement requires recourse to the question that precedes it. For example, when someone says, 'Human beings have a fundamental right to healthcare, warm meals, access to digital media, suffrage (the list could go on)'. We only need to ask, 'What is a right?' From here I reckon the fallacy will be beckoned, unwittingly.
"... that can't shake a predilection for philosophy" -- as some character said in the movie "Independence Day", nobody is perfect ... 😉🙂
Though I can sympathize -- in both cases. And with "weak and feeble pulse (of humanity)". Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in my recent post on the philosophy of biology, particularly as it bears on "THE" question that has puzzled philosophers, philanderers, and politicians -- from time immemorial -- i.e., "What is a woman?":
Not sure that Twitter 2.0 AM -- After Musk -- is all that much better than version 1.0 under Jack Dorsey.
Kind of the nature of the beast, and of the lowest common denominator -- which is rather low indeed, rationality being in particularly short supply these days, some echo-chambers more so than others. But you in particular might have take some consolation, at least, from the highly recommended (by me and others), The Splendid Feast of Reason:
You are very clever. I suspect your parents might say, 'too clever'. However, your finger is on the pulse (as weak and feeble as it remains) of humanity today. How about this addition to the list of 'new age' fallacies, Neglecting the Question(s): Neglecting (or conveniently forgetting) the truth that every proposition presupposes a question, or the meaning of every statement requires recourse to the question that precedes it. For example, when someone says, 'Human beings have a fundamental right to healthcare, warm meals, access to digital media, suffrage (the list could go on)'. We only need to ask, 'What is a right?' From here I reckon the fallacy will be beckoned, unwittingly.
Yes, not thinking about the underlying concept behind the word or slogan is definitely an issue...thanks for reading and commenting.
"rogue scholar" -- not a Rhodes Scholar? 😉🙂
"... that can't shake a predilection for philosophy" -- as some character said in the movie "Independence Day", nobody is perfect ... 😉🙂
Though I can sympathize -- in both cases. And with "weak and feeble pulse (of humanity)". Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in my recent post on the philosophy of biology, particularly as it bears on "THE" question that has puzzled philosophers, philanderers, and politicians -- from time immemorial -- i.e., "What is a woman?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
"Never have I ever had the displeasure to meet such twits as I have on Twitter."
Amen to that. And I have at least two or three suspensions there as proof of not "suffering fools gladly":
https://medium.com/@steersmann/open-letter-to-twitters-board-of-directors-d1c87603a832
Not sure that Twitter 2.0 AM -- After Musk -- is all that much better than version 1.0 under Jack Dorsey.
Kind of the nature of the beast, and of the lowest common denominator -- which is rather low indeed, rationality being in particularly short supply these days, some echo-chambers more so than others. But you in particular might have take some consolation, at least, from the highly recommended (by me and others), The Splendid Feast of Reason:
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520239111/the-splendid-feast-of-reason