tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post1341643928794626847..comments2024-03-26T14:20:38.103-04:00Comments on The Thought Criminal: Why Materialism and Atheism Are Compatible With The Interests of the 1% And Entirely Incompatible With Liberalism Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-45195357527051093832015-01-26T11:08:08.206-05:002015-01-26T11:08:08.206-05:00"You need to exit the framework that is mater..."You need to exit the framework that is materialist atheism to assert why they shouldn't."<br /><br />Which is the most useful application of Godel's theorem to even non-formal systems: because every system (the proof only applies to formal systems, which are limited by being formal, and structurally similar in important ways for the proof by that very limitation) is capable of generating questions it cannot answer. So, for answers, you must look to another system. Wittgenstein understood this, and understood math and physics, too.<br /><br />Weinberg understands physics, and thinks he understands everything. He's a putz.<br />Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-15700497462409904722015-01-26T11:05:25.812-05:002015-01-26T11:05:25.812-05:00Has Weinberg read even Aristotle's Nichomachea...Has Weinberg read even Aristotle's <i>Nichomachean Ethics</i>? Or Euripides "Medea"? How about Spinoza's ethics? G.E. Moore's <i>Principia Ethica</i>? Augustine's <i>City of God</i>? Sartre's essay on existentialism as a humanism? Nietzsche's <i>Ecce Homo</i>? Any work of ethics at all? Does he imagine only physics is a realm of study with information one must learn before presuming to speak on the subject, and all other realms of human endeavor are open to the physicist because who needs to know anything except physics?<br /><br />I'm sure Weinberg is regarded by the know-nothings who think this sounds intelligent and insightful. But to me it's the rantings of a four year old who is too ignorant to realize how ignorant he is. I mean, honestly, he barely understands Rawls, and probably knows nothing about the ethical structures of utilitarianism which Rawls was simultaneously taking as irrefutable while trying, with his "original condition" notion, to refute it (or at least reform it; but Williams James and Dostoevsky and Ursula LeGuin could tell Weinberg that was impossible. Then again, none of those three were physicists, so who cares what they think, right?)<br /><br />Honestly, the depth of stupid in these people....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.com