Skip navigation

Tag Archives: realism

Trapped by their fears, Realists retreat screaming whenever faced with a Relativist idea. Simply can’t swallow it. And they retreat into exactly the same lack of intellectual discipline they accuse litcrit of. Conditioned by our cruel education system, that treats children as cattle, they refrain from any philosophy not geared towards providing “correct answers to the test”. To win the argument, then, you should proceed not with sound argumentation — that would only lead them into rationalization — but instead with masking relativism’s sour taste of personal responsibility. Read More »


Old logics and old dialectics organized the kinds of arguments in such a way that the worst possible dirty trick in the bag was the ad hominem argument, and you became nicer as you progressed from opposing the person to opposing the person’s argument itself. Ok, but going against someone’s arguments is another way of going against this person and, also, to blur the lines between person and argument is another way of recognizing this person as a living breathing material real person. Although there is an angle to the old point of view, the game of arguments is more nuanced than that, and the rules of the game must be more comprehensive.

In fact, there’s a kind of exclusion right there, inside this scheme of arguments. Specifically, that it assumes there is only one possible set of values to orient the discussion, one set of motivations, and that therefore there is only one scale to measure arguments with. This in turn led to a bunch of misunderstandings, like turning “sincerity” into “truth” into “perfect language” into “the voice of bog”. Giving up the possibility that «truth» could be measured, we keep the measure of the intent of arguments and ideas, and this turns out to be more useful, although much less divine.

Starting from a different assumption, we instead say all arguments are equally fictional, they all stem from an alien subjective reality from which we are forever excluded. All arguments are the enemy. All arguments are forms of manipulation. And as the arguments rise in complexity they also expand our possibilities of action.

Another way to explain is that one argument on a higher level includes many arguments at a lower level. A judgement involves a lot of actions or the possibility of a lot of actions. It is a measure of complexity.

This measure can be roughly arranged into a typology that almost wants to be a scale:

  1. noise/silly
  2. Eris, or arguments towards arguments
  3. Ethos, or arguments towards judgement
  4. Thelos, or arguments towards actions
  5. noise/dumb

Read More »

Do you know all these people who bitch about “don’t be too Cartesian”? They think “Logics” is some kind of beast, some evil force that has absolute and unshakable disrespect for everything they feel. Feyerabend (as always) knows where that comes from. Turns out in Greece Logics only meant “how to speak” and they would learn it pretty much like in Brasil we do learn Portuguese. For them “this is illogic” didn’t mean “you are wrong by the powers of reason”, it just meant “i can’t even understand what you say”. The weird thing was when some guys (who actually did this public speaking thing as a kind of show) started using things that they took from Logics to seemingly prove opinion-independent facts. Read More »

The peak of science-ness, or something like it, the very idea of determinism, amazingly enough, rests upon a fairy tale, a fairy tale complete with demons and magical powers!

To wit, i am talking about determinism as the idea that having the position and speed of every particle in the universe you could know everything: Past, Present, Future, just for starters, but also everything that is subjective (would be just a side-effect of the particles interacting), everything that is probabilistic (would be merely incompletely observed) and so on.

Well, the guy that fleshed the idea out (it was certainly latent in more than one scholar’s mind) was Laplace. To explain it, he created a story of a demon! It would be a demon that would know all the particles’ data. Read More »