Saturday, 8 January 2011
Mr Bone, how dare you suggest the hoi polloi take physical action to defend their lives and dignity? Violence actually works, and is therefore exclusively reserved for nicking other peoples oil, protecting rigged markets, ensuring the public stays in line, shooting uppity foreigners, and otherwise maintaining the corporate and Parliamentary kleptocracy that manages UK Plc. Non authorized usage is likely to lead to outrage in the Guardian, crisis in the financial markets, freedom for the general population and fewer SUVs with personalized number plates.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Exiled from the blogosphere.
Brought before the inquisition.
My charge?
It’s blasphemous how on point my shit is.
Deuces to the LES.
Trading open bars for open skies.
One last round of LOLZ and Mexican Cokes with the squad?
Nah.
No goodbyes this times.
Peaced out quicker than Draper with a jumpoff.
I’ll confess.
Asked my barber to come with.
Dude’s post-modern Civil War reconstruction carpetbagger swag is still an inspiration.
Brought before the inquisition.
My charge?
It’s blasphemous how on point my shit is.
Deuces to the LES.
Trading open bars for open skies.
One last round of LOLZ and Mexican Cokes with the squad?
Nah.
No goodbyes this times.
Peaced out quicker than Draper with a jumpoff.
I’ll confess.
Asked my barber to come with.
Dude’s post-modern Civil War reconstruction carpetbagger swag is still an inspiration.
A kind of Woody Allen comedy but without the jokes. Lots of cultural signifiers to make ivy league couples on a date feel at home, but totally lacking in substance. There could have been more from the supporting cast, several more opportunities for a string of self-deprecating subtle jokes were missed, and I was left hoping that as Zooey Deschanel walked off from the park bench at the end she strolled carelessly into a fast moving bus.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
"Only an idiot can choose to believe something. To select your beliefs on the basis of what you'd like to be true like some sort of pick 'n' mix is ridiculous. For a belief to be rational, there must be some persuasive reason to support it. Faith, by definition, lacks that vital evidence which is why I cannot 'choose' to have it."
The problem with this reply sir is that you assume the meaning of the word 'belief' to be completely transparent , when it most certainly is not. For the sake of explanation consider the word 'true'. Here are three assertions that utilise the word 'true':
1) The claim 2 + 2 = 4 is true
2) It is true to say that there are 2 cups on my table
3) Peter Hitchens is a true Englishman
The word true has a slighly different meaning in each statement. The first concerns semantics and is a necessary truth. The second is a contigent truth concerning circamstances. The third is an appraisal and does not easily fall under either of the previous two categories.
Similarly, the words rational and belief can be plausibly used in more than one way. Consider the following statements:
1) It is rational to believe proposition x, if and only if x is self evident or follows as a matter of deductive logic from already known propositions (self-evident or deduced from self-evident).
Philosophers have been debating 1) for centuries without apparent resolution.
2) It is rational to believe empirical claim x provided there is much evidence supporting it.
Anyone that endorses Karl Popper's philosophy of science must reject 2), although common sense would seem inclined to defend it.
3) It is rational to believe that x is true provided it explains a state of affairs no worse than competing explanations and for which there are practical reasons for its endorsement which competing explanations lack.
I interpret our host as endorsing 3) for religious belief. If I am correct, then the notion of choosing a rational belief is not ridiculous in context. One might disagree with the reasons that our host gives, but they are not obviously absurd.
The problem with this reply sir is that you assume the meaning of the word 'belief' to be completely transparent , when it most certainly is not. For the sake of explanation consider the word 'true'. Here are three assertions that utilise the word 'true':
1) The claim 2 + 2 = 4 is true
2) It is true to say that there are 2 cups on my table
3) Peter Hitchens is a true Englishman
The word true has a slighly different meaning in each statement. The first concerns semantics and is a necessary truth. The second is a contigent truth concerning circamstances. The third is an appraisal and does not easily fall under either of the previous two categories.
Similarly, the words rational and belief can be plausibly used in more than one way. Consider the following statements:
1) It is rational to believe proposition x, if and only if x is self evident or follows as a matter of deductive logic from already known propositions (self-evident or deduced from self-evident).
Philosophers have been debating 1) for centuries without apparent resolution.
2) It is rational to believe empirical claim x provided there is much evidence supporting it.
Anyone that endorses Karl Popper's philosophy of science must reject 2), although common sense would seem inclined to defend it.
3) It is rational to believe that x is true provided it explains a state of affairs no worse than competing explanations and for which there are practical reasons for its endorsement which competing explanations lack.
I interpret our host as endorsing 3) for religious belief. If I am correct, then the notion of choosing a rational belief is not ridiculous in context. One might disagree with the reasons that our host gives, but they are not obviously absurd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)