To acknowledge there are differing perspectives is harmless, but to assert intractable stubbornness in your own perspectives is the height of ignorance. To insist that all perspectives are valid – as Nietzsche did – is absolutely dangerous.
Today a judge in Massachusetts found Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter for her participation in the suicide of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy.
We now face a psychotherapeutic argument that would allow individuals to self-identify as different and distinct “persons” in different situations, each of which must be accepted for “what it is.”
History shows, in spite of efforts to rewrite it, that the immigrant contributed very largely to the founding and upbuilding of this great nation.
There is a dogmatic stubbornness among the die-hard proponents of anthropogenic climate change – a refusal to consider (or, at the very most, understand) why opponents of such a notion will not roll over and play dead at the feet of “scientific consensus.” I will get to this later. It should be noted first, however, that…
Zuckerberg is wrong. Debate the ethics or morality of a universal basic income, but don’t call it equality.
Pragmatism has been described as a uniquely American philosophy – perhaps the only system of thought that was wholly originated and developed in the United States. And it needs to die.
Hypatia’s refusal to defend either Tuvel or logic should be a clarion call to any serious intellectual that is interested in the pursuit of truth. Today’s epistemology is more interested in emotion than truth, no matter how sound your argument may be.
Understanding that modern connotations of “rights” have differing – and sometimes even opposing – implications, can we perhaps find common ground by understanding the history behind the word?
Perception is not reality. Perception is the perception of reality. To claim anything else is to change fundamentally the meaning of reality. Reality is not, and cannot be, dependent on perception; neither can truth.