Translate

Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 February 2020

What is the difference between science and philosophy?

Science is about what is or isn't and what can or can't be done while philosophy is about whether something should or shouldn't be done.

Philosophy is the answering of moral questions eg what should or shouldn't be done in the national interest.

When answering a question of what should or shouldn't be done, one must base one's answer on facts that are agreed on.

First, establish the facts. Then, decide what should or shouldn't be done on that basis.

Science uses the inductive logic, philosophy uses deductive logic.



Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Those who love wisdom would be wiser than those who do not. Wise people can form accurate conclusions and make accurate predictions with the minimum of information, foolish people do not even know they are being fools.

https://www.aish.com/j/j/51475187.html

After months of negotiation with the authorities, a Talmudist from Odessa was finally granted permission to visit Moscow.

He boarded the train and found an empty seat. At the next stop, a young man got on and sat next to him. The scholar looked at the young man and he thought: This fellow doesn't look like a peasant, so if he is no peasant he probably comes from this district. If he comes from this district, then he must be Jewish because this is, after all, a Jewish district.

But on the other hand, since he is a Jew, where could he be going? I'm the only Jew in our district who has permission to travel to Moscow.

Ahh, wait! Just outside Moscow there is a little village called Samvet, and Jews don't need special permission to go to Samvet But why would he travel to Samvet? He is surely going to visit one of the Jewish families there. But how many Jewish families are there in Samvet? Aha, only two -- the Bernsteins and the Steinbergs. But since the Bernsteins are a terrible family, so such a nice looking fellow like him, he must be visiting the Steinbergs.

But why is he going to the Steinbergs in Samvet? The Steinbergs have only daughters, two of them, so maybe he's their son-in-law. But if he is, then which daughter did he marry? They say that Sarah Steinberg married a nice lawyer from Budapest, and Esther married a businessman from Zhitomer, so it must be Sarah's husband. Which means that his name is Alexander Cohen, if I'm not mistaken.

But if he came from Budapest, with all the anti-Semitism they have there, he must have changed his name.

What's the Hungarian equivalent of Cohen? It is Kovacs. But since they allowed him to change his name, he must have special status to change it. What could it be? Must be a doctorate from the University. Nothing less would do.

At this point, therefore, the Talmudic scholar turns to the young man and says, "Excuse me. Do you mind if I open the window, Dr. Kovacs?"

"Not at all," answered the startled co-passenger. "But how is it that you know my name?"

"Ahhh," replied the Talmudist, "It was obvious."



Monday, 13 May 2019

Gratitude for high praise

"Hello Jennifer Scharf and Claire Khaw. I ran across your online dialogues a week ago, and despite having studied many extremes of human thought over the years, I found the two of you, both individually and together, to be a unique and arresting phenomenon: two women, alt-right-adjacent but with imperious and idiosyncratic intellectual agendas, fighting it out in an almost unnoticed corner of philosophy Youtube."




Persian Drum:

Most Excellent Claire, I suspect you and Jen don't quite grasp just how more-ish your conversations have been to me and your loyal listeners.  While having little in common with your respective world-views and opinions, the manner in which you and Jen have been engaging with each other lately is really endearing.  You ladies continue to be at loggerheads and yet it is never an unpleasant experience listening to this ongoing discussion.  I continue to find your discourse incredibly interesting and even edifying, and (I know neither of you will like this) helpful to me in understanding the bible better.

You make a great team.  On the one hand:  I find that I am more sympathetic with Jen's assured, uncompromising take on God (even though I understand God to be entirely different from the Periodic Table of which she speaks).  Her take on God's sovereignty, and her unwavering loyalty to God's way -- against the tide of religious fads and so-called consensus -- is actually more in keeping with my understanding of the living God. Also, Jen's unexpected jabs at you (e.g "that's because you're an idiot, dummy") are truly  a riot, and shocking.

On the other hand: you are able to take these jabs in good humour, and carry on regardless.  In this respect you are a very accommodating  host and -- as I've stated many times -- a good sport.  Your legalistic and utilitarian approach to religion and law is at odds with my understanding of Truth (which is why Jen's take hits a chord with me), but your eagerness to 'understand Jen' is endearing, and your compassion for her is evident in your persistence and willingness to engage with her.  You also have an infectious laugh and a a very pleasing voice.  You solicit from Jen many interesting observations.

I hope you two continue these conversations.  I listen to them as I walk through the English countryside, and they bring me much pleasure, as well as providing a different angle on things that I had never before entertained. 

And if I might add (no offence intended to either you and Jen), listening to two gals battling it out for the position of Cosmic Dictator is a welcome diversion from the drudgery of this messed-up world, as well as being a refreshing change from the usual meta-political dialogue.  Blessings to you both!

Sunday, 23 December 2018

Secular Koranism scrutinised by a liberal philosopher investigating the alt-right



Peak degeneracy as exemplified in the now deleted Luke Ford stream featuring the fake Orthodox Jew organ grinder and his goyim monkeys is discussed with distaste. Jim Goad and Nick Fuentes were summoned to display themselves for the delectation of the organ grinder's alt-right subscribers while excrement-like matter poured from their foul drunken mouths mouths.  Nick Fuentes also bitched about Richard Spencer.

The rest of this conversation concerns Secular Koranism, of no interest at all to any degenerates will only come here to hear the Fake Jew stream being discussed here.




Tuesday, 23 October 2018

How I intend to re-organise the Philosophy Syllabus once I am in power

Belief in the Abrahamic God entails belief in the wisdom of His laws and obedience to them. This means belief in God logically and necessarily entails theocracy. Those who object to this do not in fact worship God, but liberal democracy.

Religions have been around for longer than man-made political ideologies, so if we want our civilisation to last, we should choose an Abrahamic faith rather than make up a political ideology that has no official handbook whose unstated principles are easily subverted by vote-hungry politicians. Religion however has ancient scripture containing what are said to be God's laws.

In the West, there are only two possible Abrahamic faiths to choose from for gentiles, and one of them has obviously failed.

Once we and our political classes have come to the inescapable conclusion of changing the official national religion, this would mean changing the political system too.

When this happens, we would have a one party theocracy as naturally as night follows day.

I have a nasty feeling that people are not going to submit to truth and logic, but try to impose on events some peculiar narrative of their own to fend off the inevitable, until the fool does finally what the wise man does at once.

When I am dictatrix of a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism, I will change the syllabus for Philosophy in academia and require that philosophers direct their minds to dividing themselves into two schools of thought: one which sees the wisdom of His laws and one which denies it.

We know which School is going to win the debate on grounds of Truth, Logic and Morality alone, even if I were not dictatrix, don't we?

Friday, 13 May 2016

Are philosophers unethical when they refuse to discuss controversial matters?


Dr Walsh has since blocked me without responding to a single point I raised. How ethical is he as a philosopher? Can cowards be ethical?

Monday, 16 February 2015

Rationalism demonstrably a superior methodology to empiricism in matters of morality




The “no difference” theory is dead A US study finds that opposite-sex parents are better than same-sex parents.

Same-sex marriage and children’s well-being: Research roundup

The debate on the question of whether children brought up by gay parents do worse than children brought up by their biological parent married to each other living with each other is already a foregone conclusion, but the proponents of gay marriage know they can manipulate the evidence and pull wool over the eyes of those who are naive enough to wait for "all the evidence to come in".

A million Londoners worked out, using deductive reasoning, that invading Iraq would be a bad idea. Yet our MPs ignored them relying on the sexed-up Iraq dossier whose evidence was obviously distorted and manipulated to get Blair what he wanted: a chance to fight shoulder to shoulder with America in an unnecessary and aggressive war.

How do I know that the evidence in the Iraq dossier was obviously sexed-up and unreliable?

Because the Iraq Inquiry was announced in 2009 but the results of its investigations are still being withheld.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

Because its findings are even now being withheld, we can conclude that they would be enormously damaging to the reputations of all those who voted for it, many of whom are still in Parliament.

The warmongering cunts who supported the Iraq war can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm

78% of the female MPs who voted for the war were Labour MPs and they are listed at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/78-of-warmongering-female-mps-were.html

Did you know that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html Women are said not to be very good at thinking in the abstract, and tend to "reason" with their emotions. This may explain why women are less likely to defend the principle of free speech, because they are probably not quite sure what a principle is and what it is for. Men, knowing that reasoning with women is a futile exercise, end up by just trying to understand and predict their moods. In the process of doing so, they too have begun to think like women and now behave like women, and that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet. If it hasn't quite done so yet, it is perhaps analogous to a turd that keeps not being flushed away, but in time it will dissolve and go the way of all that is rotten, useless and past its sell by date, such as feminism and representative democracy ...

There is a reason why advanced societies are patriarchies.

There is a reason why patriarchies run on marriage the way cars run on petrol.

There is a reason why only social conservatism will respect the institution of marriage.

There is a reason why extramarital sex is always linked with degeneracy and the decline and fall of a civilisation.

There is a reason why all the Abrahamic faiths sanctify marriage.

There is a reason why there are no matriarchies that are also advanced civilisations.

From the answers to these questions, it is possible to deduce why extramarital sex is bad for your civilisation, but these empiricist proponents of gay marriage will bury their heads in the sand and ignore every appeal to reason and decency until "all the results are in".

Sadly, Western philosophers choose not to consider these questions but prefer ask each other stupid questions such as "What is consciousness?" and then not answer them properly.



Example of deductive reasoning:


Note how the angry and confused libtard keeps demanding "evidence" which even if given he would dismiss out of hand.  It is also telling that he cannot specify exactly the kind of evidence he requires. I had in fact already presented him with the evidence: the statistic that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. He was so bent on dismissing the evidence that he pretended he had not received it even when he had already responded to it.


You are a rationalist using deductive reasoning if you conclude that gay marriage must be bad for society, and you will only accept this if you agree that marriage should only be for heterosexual couples.

You are an empiricist if you insist that no harm can come to society out of gay marriage just because you say you cannot see any harm in it.

When the majority of your MPs are so morally and intellectually impaired they cannot see the difference between recreational sex and reproductive sex, then they are either evil or demented.

Legalising gay marriage is conclusive evidence of degeneracy and dementia.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/female-mps-even-more-useless-than-male.html

Friday, 21 November 2014

Claire Khaw to replace Angie Hobbs as new Radio 4 philosopher?


Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Philosophical questions I have asked a British philosopher to which I do not expect an answer

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-taylor

Dr John Taylor who wants to waste our children's time with GCSE philosophy

Dr Taylor has a column in The Guardian, which means he is bound to PC-approved and PC Libtard. I had an idea that he was a teacher but assumed he was at some state comp, but readers should know that he teaches at Rugby School. I urge parents at this fee-paying school to resist all attempts to waste their sons' time being taught Western philosophy. They would learn more philosophy following me on Twitter, becoming my Facebook friend, asking me questions on ask.fm at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all or by following this blog.


Saturday, 18 October 2014

East London Philosophy Meetup on the Meaning of Words 22 October 2014

http://www.meetup.com/Philosophy-Off-Brick-Lane/events/213674282

The Meaning of Words


  • Wednesday, October 22, 2014

    7:00 PM to 
  • 16 Padbury Court

    Shoreditch, London E2 7EH (map)
  • "We are small finite creatures, but meaning enables us with the help of sounds or marks on paper to grasp the whole world and many things in it, and even to invert things that do not exist and perhaps never will. The problem is to explain how this is possible: How does anything we say or write mean anything – including all the words in this book?" 
    – Thomas Nagel, What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, p. 46 

    Materials for the session 
    This session is based on a chapter of Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, which you can download along with a reading activity from the Philosophy Off Brick Lane website. You can also find some relevant podcasts there. Visit the Key Themes in Modern Philosophy page to access these and other materials. 
    How many people will there be and what will the classes be like?
    There is maximum class-size of 12 people (or 13 including the teacher). Although the emphasis is on structured discussion, there are different ways of taking part in a conversation. You can come to this session talk about the chapter from Nagel's What Does It All Mean? and the other material for the session. Or if you're not sure what you want to say about it, you can come just to listen. 
    How much do classes cost? 
    For the first few meetups, attendees can pay what they think the class is worth (or nothing at all). In the future, the cost of the class will be £10 for two hours.

I helpfully suggested the Confucian concept of Rectification of Names at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names but this was deleted, probably because it is is not within the established curriculum for academic philosophy whose intention seems to be the opposite of promoting practical wisdom or phronesis.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis

Such a shame that the organiser has taken such a sudden dislike to me!

The reasons why may be divined at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/claire-khaw-asked-to-leave-philosophy.html

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

A professional philosophers' club

What would the rules be?

  1. An obligation to defend your ideas and arguments as and when required to so by another member
  2. An obligation to defend your ideas and arguments on social media when challenged by members of the public
  3. An obligation to comment on politics

Roger Scruton - the only Conservative philosopher in Britain who is still alive - is clearly too old and doddery to do any of those things.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-scruton-conservative-philosopher.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/roger-scruton-hates-muslims-so-much-he.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/roger-scruton-asks-just-what-is-this.html

If you like the idea, whether or not you are academic philosopher, get in touch.  If you want it to happen, we need to organise.  There could even be money and prestige in this.

In the meantime, join https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/ so we can see how we like each other.

Roger Scruton holds the monopoly on British Conservatism.  If he chooses not to discuss something with you, he will simply refuse to engage, so he cannot be said to have lost an argument.  In this way do the arrogant claim their apparently supremacy.  This is a tactic commonly employed by the Liberal Left too, and they get away with it, so far.

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Philosopher appears to be proposing self censorship - another nail in the coffin of academic freedom and free speech in the West?

http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/Staff/Archard/


Dear Professor Archard

Would it be possible for me to have the rest of your essay?

Personally I find it shocking that Mary Warnock should now be suggesting that the philosophers should watch what they say after the implementation of her pernicious education policies that have ruined the education of so many British schoolchildren.   

If this woman is in fact proposing to curtail free speech because she fears criticism of her discredited policies and give up on the language of what is morally right and wrong, then I think the British public ought to be told about this.   

Regards
Claire Khaw






The Acceptable Face of Philosophy

David Archard asks what compromises philosophers should be prepared to make in order that their ideas will be listened to.

In the very engaging memoir of her life’s work on various public bodies, Nature and Mortality (2004), Mary Warnock notes that during her drafting of the committee report that led to the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act on reproductive ethics and scientific research, there was a critical point when she realised that her insistence on the language of morally right and wrong was misplaced. She recognized that they needed to talk instead in terms of what was acceptable – a usage she had previously rejected as fundamentally mistaken. In essence she had come to believe that her responsibility was not to recommend what she and others on the committee thought was morally justified, but rather, to find a set of recommendations that could win the support of the government, Parliament and the general public, and so what was acceptable to them.

Warnock did indeed steer the committee to produce a report that led to the drafting and passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. That Act created a regulatory body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.




Questions I would like to ask Baroness Warnock:


  1. What do you feel is your greatest achievement in life?
  2. What do you feel about being an over-promoted mediocrity being allowed to jump on her hobby horse and ruining the education of generations of British schoolchildren?
  3. Do you have any regrets?
  4. Are you really not aware that the distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference?
  5. Would you say you are in touch with the concerns of ordinary people?
  6. When you say that philosophers need to talk in terms of what is acceptable rather than "insist on the language of morally right and wrong", were you trying to justify expediency at the expense of morality?
  7. Is someone who openly favours expediency over morality an immoral person?
  8. Should immoral female academics, however elderly and apparently distinguished, be challenged when they advocate what is clearly immoral or at the very least against the interests of free speech?
  9. What are your views on free speech?
  10. Do you think academic philosophers teach anything useful?  If so, what?
  11. When is it acceptable to make a moral compromise?
  12. Is there a difference between a "moral compromise" and a "mere" compromise?  
  13. If so, what?
  14. Should certain principles, such as free speech and academic freedom, never be compromised?
  15. What are we to make of a philosopher who recommends that philosophers only say what is acceptable and forget about what is morally right or wrong?
  16. How do you feel about compromising on academic freedom and free speech?
  17. Should a philosopher who openly advocates compromising on academic freedom and free speech be uncompromisingly denounced for her immoral proposal?
  18. Are you suffering from dementia?
  19. Should we propose that you be "euthanased" if it is dementia that has caused you to make this immoral proposal as well as caused you to be a burden on the state and your family?
  20. If your immoral proposal does not have its origins in dementia, are you prepared to defend it? If so, how?

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Lefty Professor of Philosophy refuses to discuss ethics or wisdom after saying he finds Conservatism "morally offensive"







https://twitter.com/GuyLongworth/status/324822302569136128

Such high standards of debate in a Russell Group University!


Monday, 25 February 2013

Death warnings on cigarette packs when I come to power




"In the long run we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes

"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time" - Mark Twain

"While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die" - Leonardo da Vinci

"No one can confidently say that he will still be living tomorrow" - Euripides

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Claire Khaw's aphorisms on Philosophy


PHILOSOPHY

  1. "Western philosophy has wasted centuries trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God."
  2. "Western philosophy is mostly about asking silly questions and not expecting a proper answer."
  3. "A degree in philosophy is a sign of three years spent learning how to talk incomprehensibly and pretentiously in order to attract the hatred, ridicule and contempt of right-thinking members of society."
  4. "The reason why Western civilisation is not flourishing is because Western philosophy is not wise."
  5. "Western philosophy should concern itself less with theology and more with the ways of distinguishing truth from falsehood, reason from nonsense, determining what is necessary and unnecessary and deciding what is practicable and impracticable."
  6. "Wisdom can predict the future."    
  7. "Wisdom will get you what you want or give you the sense not to want it in the first place."

Sunday, 4 November 2012

The wisest person should lead the nation. Are Western philosophers able to recognise wisdom though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king

Plato - only the wise should rule

Plato however neglected to define wisdom nor did he explain how it is to be measured.  

What sort of political system would produce the wisest leader?

How is the wisest leader to be chosen?

Are modern philosophers able to do better?

Yet we already know that Western philosophy is a waste of time and so is the three years spent acquiring a degree in Academic Philosophy.   It is three years spent learning how to talk like an arse, making everyone hate you and being unemployable and despised for the rest of your life.  

Academic philosophers are contemptible though in their arrogance, incoherence, obscurity and singular lack of wisdom.

What would these pretentious nincompoops know about wisdom or about measuring it?

Nothing.  They are only Reds and subversives. 

Claire Khaw complimented as being "very Protestant" by Calvinist pastor Paul Vanderklay!

  CLAIRE KHAW does not see any prospect of Christians agreeing on the Doctrine of the Trinity and suggests that Americans at least should go...