stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 07, 2003, 23:44
|
|
Erm, sorry. But anyone who comes up with concepts like 'magical thinking' and 'rational thinking' is in my overtly clueless but not admitting it pile. I should publish the pile. Piles, lists, they're much more worthwile. Theyre a much finer gut level reactionary entertainment than wanking. er.. well, maybe not.
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 07, 2003, 23:45
|
|
but you could write a damn fine semiotic driven philosophy paper on these two types of thinking. hmm.. yes. Er. can I say SO! again ?
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 07, 2003, 23:46
|
|
;) I shouldnt get involved. RIGHT! I'm going to start my own blog, oh yes. world beware!!!
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 17:05
|
The problem with that article is all the examples he uses obviously support his own personal beliefs. I mean it's obvious the wisdom of "removing Saddam" is still an open question, but he makes it seem like a simple open-and-shut case of "rationality."
Basically his thesis is good, but his examples reek of partisanism.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 17:06
|
|
Do you have a point?
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:11
|
Yes, maybe, you can't work it out ?
Or
No.
you have a problem with that ? fuck ya.
Its your decision.
There is no point in categorising types of thought as in 'rational or 'magical'. sorry if that was too hard to follow.
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:12
|
|
I will keep my posts rational for your benefit in future.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:24
|
All I see is a lot of snarky sarcasm and thinly veiled personal attacks . . . WHY is it wrong to talk about rational vs. magical thinking . . . or is that too rational a question for you?
I guess you'd rather look for demons to chase. How magical of you.
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:33
|
twat! lets break it down. The sarcasm is humour, sorry if you cant handle the stuff.
Right. Lets assume there are different types of thinking (there aren't, but lets just play along). One type would be no better than any other type when it comes to getting at the, lets call it, Truth. Why ? Well, because you can never be 100% that you have and understand every single variable that contributes to the issue. So, you'll always be applying your 'rational' type of thinking to an incomplete set of data. The type of thining in no way compensates for this flaw. And, as you don't have every variable, you can never truly judge the weight/importance of the variables your missing.
On a surface level this is, as Morfe has said a few times in these tail chasing thread, how people fit the facts to their theories. Well, thats what any thinking does, even if it creates a discovery or a personal epiphany, there is no real definite. Therefore there are no different types of thinking, and therefore no possible 'this kind of analysis is better than that kind'. There is only approximations that fall within acceptable tolerances, nothing else. Okay ?
Analysis, thats the word that should be used, not thought. It's analysis we're dealing with here, not thought types. Or the word abstraction if you really want to get at the fundamental flaw in this intellectual wanking.
|
stray
|
Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:34
|
|
there are loadsa philosophies on truth, as you probably know. And logic too, and the flaws in logic. Thats why I go muhahaha, why, and SO! and gibber a lot.
|
