Topic: Grade School Philosophy (Read 4207 times)

Norondor · « **Reply #40 on:** September 02, 2009, 02:48:02 PM »

Quote from: Frocto on September 02, 2009, 12:21:51 PM

it is a hard argument to follow when you are only reading half the posts though

it's only a third in most of this thread

Detonator · « **Reply #41 on:** September 02, 2009, 03:01:32 PM »

Thread split, you are in third grade, etc.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #42 on:** September 02, 2009, 03:19:46 PM »

everything I do turns into shit

Mongrel · « **Reply #43 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:05:21 PM »

Isn't this the third time we've had a thread with this name? I know it's at least the second for sure.

Detonator · « **Reply #44 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:29:45 PM »

We haven't quite progressed to middle school theology yet.

Classic · « **Reply #45 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:42:53 PM »

Is that a case of one step forward, two steps back?

SCD · « **Reply #46 on:** September 02, 2009, 07:19:22 PM »

The sad thing is that at my second semester this year, I have to take philosophy.

I already have a good grasp on boolean as well as finite maths, and I have an urge to reply to every major question "where is the research and clinical observation?"

I'm a science person. Morality is a matter of perspective and will change whether it comes from the rich westerner, the poor westerner, the Syrian in a cinder block hut, the Israeli who got his home rocketed the other week, or the afghan who hasn't seen peace.

Per-mother-fucking-spective.

Observation, bitches.

Observe, record and publish so that those who have a better theroy may strike it down, otherwise your belief in the world has no leg to stand on, like the islamist who must shun and silence all dissenting thought.

JDigital · « **Reply #47 on:** September 02, 2009, 09:14:35 PM »

Quote from: Zaratustra on September 02, 2009, 12:48:57 PM

Quote from: yyler on September 02, 2009, 12:36:16 PM
Threads on WFE always plummet in quality after they are unlocked.

KEYMAN AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

Sharkey · « **Reply #48 on:** September 02, 2009, 10:08:05 PM »

As far as ethics go, I think the best way for people to conduct themselves sounds an awful damn lot like the best algorithms for playing the iterative prisoner's dilemma:

Quote

... By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.

Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.

Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.

Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).

Seems pretty fucking ideal.

Brentai · « **Reply #49 on:** September 02, 2009, 10:15:47 PM »

Which basically means that you have every moral right to key someone's car with the understanding that that person has every moral right to find you and run you down with it if you do.

Sharkey · « **Reply #50 on:** September 02, 2009, 10:51:02 PM »

Well, it doesn't exactly work if you retaliate in such a way that they don't know that you retaliated, and when they find out won't know why it happened. Also kind of silly when there's nothing to gain and much to lose.

sei · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2009, 03:28:04 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on September 02, 2009, 04:05:21 PM

Isn't this the third time we've had a thread with this name? I know it's at least the second for sure.

middle school theology

Quote from: P. Birdy on September 02, 2009, 09:20:46 AM

(hint: being a good person does not involve an expectation of reward)

(extra hint: read kant)

Quote from: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/PeerOpinion090605.htm

among philosophers expressing the view that the overall quality of ethicists’ moral behaviour varies according to their broad normative commitments (e.g., Kantianism, consequentialism, virtue ethics), nearly all said that Kantians behave on average less well than the others.

Brentai · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2009, 03:35:30 PM »

What a bunch of Kunts.

Classic · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2009, 10:50:31 PM »

So Kant would key your car?

Royal☭ · « **Reply #54 on:** September 04, 2009, 07:20:20 AM »

It'd say he couldn't, it's just something he Kant do.

Mongrel · « **Reply #55 on:** September 04, 2009, 07:31:04 AM »

Oh God, we Kant carry on like this.

François · « **Reply #56 on:** September 04, 2009, 09:51:59 AM »

I don't know what's socrates about philosophers. Seems like they're all just a freud of doing real work.

Mongrel · « **Reply #57 on:** September 04, 2009, 10:05:44 AM »

Quote from: ZedPower on September 04, 2009, 09:51:59 AM

I don't know what's socrates about philosophers.

This pun only works if your name is either Bill S. Preston, Esq. or Ted "Theodore" Logan.

JDigital · « **Reply #58 on:** September 04, 2009, 10:26:22 AM »

This might Sartre to get annoying.

Brentai · « **Reply #59 on:** September 04, 2009, 10:39:54 AM »

I know you're all expecting a big Plato puns from me but frankly I'm tired of all you Hippocrates and sad-sAquinas.

Now if you'll excuse me, I just found a cache of FF7 lolicon, so I'm gonna go whack off to Aristotle-er until my Cockburns.

News:

Author Topic: Grade School Philosophy (Read 4207 times)