If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Carl Sagan Day. How have turtlenecks and science touched your life?   (lib.store.yahoo.net) divider line 76
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1187 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 12:30:15 AM
WE ARE MADE OF STAR STUFF. WE ARE A WAY FOR THE COSMOS TO KNOW ITSELF. WE ARE PART OF THE UNIVERSE, NOT APART FROM IT.

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.
 
2012-11-09 12:36:52 AM
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
=============================================
... the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Carl Sagan
 
2012-11-09 12:37:00 AM
Turtle-neck trivia time. (Although this was prior to the Second Coming of Jobs)

Back in the early to mid-90s, Apple was developing their first PowerPC-based systems, which, at the time, had the potential to blow Intel-based PCs out of the water in performance terms.

The first model was codenamed "Carl Sagan" and somehow, word got back to Carl, who pitched a royal fit to Apple's management.

After that, the model code-name was changed to "BHA" which was short for Butt-Head Astronomer.
 
2012-11-09 09:13:31 AM
I watched Cosmos as a kid. When I was 4 years old, I explained to my grandmother what a googol was, at which point she declared me an "old soul." I kind of lost my way in high school, where I was good at math but didn't apply myself. I got a job as a salesman out of high school.

Fast-forward about 7 years, I re-discovered Cosmos online, as well as watching Sagan's Pale Blue Dot video. This re-ignited my interest in astronomy and science in general, to the point I enrolled in Astronomy 101 at the local community college. I liked it so much, I signed up for a few more related classes. I did so well in my physics classes in the next couple semesters that I decided to become a full time student and pursue my degree in physics.

Earlier this year, I completed that degree and was accepted to grad school.

I have Carl Sagan to thank for that.
 
2012-11-09 09:14:01 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
=============================================
... the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Carl Sagan


It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. - Carl the Sage.
 
2012-11-09 09:15:03 AM
The Demon Haunted World is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy.
 
2012-11-09 09:17:50 AM
smoking weed and watching the entire cosmos series in one weekend remains a highlight of my life (something I'd reccommend everyone try at least once), the goddamn opening theme song still gives me chills (there was also the added bonus of being able to rewatch the series again while sober for total comprehension), netflix having that streaming was probably the best thing they have ever done

now have my kindle loaded with a bunch of his fiction and non-fiction books, so far have read billions and billions and cosmos

Carl is stands out to me as one of the few genuinely good human beings to have been around in the 20th century. It really gives me solace to know that there are people out there who have been struck by his thoughts in the same manner as I have been.
 
2012-11-09 09:19:13 AM

flaminio: The Demon Haunted World is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy.


That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.
 
2012-11-09 09:21:28 AM
In beeeellions and beeeellions of ways.
 
2012-11-09 09:30:52 AM
t2.gstatic.com

carl sagan changed my life. tip of the turtleneck to you, my interstellar hero.
 
2012-11-09 09:33:59 AM
I'll speak against Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World," as it's a clever book which impressed me in high school, but I have serious reservations about its central argument. Yes, the universe, if you care to look at it, is much more interesting than the myths that have accumulated over the centuries of human memory, but many of those myths are normative in nature, and there's nothing descriptive science has to say about normative issues. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (sayeth the empiricist Hume), and science is less a candle in the dark than the observation that it is dark. It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress, or to even hypothesize about what might constitute that progress.
 
2012-11-09 09:37:39 AM
I was blinded by science.
 
2012-11-09 09:41:55 AM

Nurglitch: I'll speak against Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World," as it's a clever book which impressed me in high school, but I have serious reservations about its central argument. Yes, the universe, if you care to look at it, is much more interesting than the myths that have accumulated over the centuries of human memory, but many of those myths are normative in nature, and there's nothing descriptive science has to say about normative issues. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (sayeth the empiricist Hume), and science is less a candle in the dark than the observation that it is dark. It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress, or to even hypothesize about what might constitute that progress.


You sound like a philosophy major.

It is highly illustrative that the base concepts of all morality can be taught to, and fully understood by, a person in Kindergarten. All else is really just mental masturbation.
 
2012-11-09 09:47:49 AM

Nurglitch: It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress,


I've read the book, and I don't recall it claiming to be a book about morality. The central theme is that science advances human progress (morally or immorally), and mythology and superstition doesn't. It's more of a "how-to" guide to skepticism than anything.
 
2012-11-09 09:51:48 AM
media.avclub.com

Seen him on PBS
 
2012-11-09 09:54:45 AM

jack21221: I have Carl Sagan to thank for that.


For convincing you to trade making money as a salesman for a life of poverty in grad school?
Shyeah, thanks a lot, Carl.

/The institution enrolling you is certainly thanking him.
 
2012-11-09 10:00:46 AM

DECMATH: For convincing you to trade making money as a salesman for a life of poverty in grad school?
Shyeah, thanks a lot, Carl.

/The institution enrolling you is certainly thanking him.


Joke's on them, I'm quitting grad school to hopefully be a high school teacher. So, I'll be living in poverty teaching high school rather than selling mattresses. :-p
 
2012-11-09 10:06:42 AM

jack21221: DECMATH: For convincing you to trade making money as a salesman for a life of poverty in grad school?
Shyeah, thanks a lot, Carl.

/The institution enrolling you is certainly thanking him.

Joke's on them, I'm quitting grad school to hopefully be a high school teacher. So, I'll be living in poverty teaching high school rather than selling mattresses. :-p


♪ ♫"And did those feet, in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green?..." ♫ ♪

/Careful with that word around Mr. Lambert.
 
2012-11-09 10:17:29 AM

DECMATH: jack21221: I have Carl Sagan to thank for that.

For convincing you to trade making money as a salesman for a life of poverty in grad school?
Shyeah, thanks a lot, Carl.

/The institution enrolling you is certainly thanking him.


Oh, my poor Guildenstern, "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space".
 
2012-11-09 10:24:47 AM
Sagan loved smokin' da skunk....after his passing the family announced that fact proudly.

PPPSSSSSSUUUUUUKKKKK.....(cough-cough).....whoa, this Cosmos stuff is *cosmic* bro.....
 
2012-11-09 10:26:06 AM

dittybopper: /Careful with that word around Mr. Lambert.


But it's my only line...
 
2012-11-09 11:15:47 AM
Imagine: Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan on stage debating a couple of fundie nitwits. I'd pay good money to see that.
 
2012-11-09 11:15:53 AM
Who's stepping up to fill the void he left? Who's in the public eye these days promoting science? Neil Degrasse Tyson, yes, but it's a job bigger than one dude, no matter how awesome.

I'm stepping up: Because science doesn't have to be scary.
 
2012-11-09 11:18:52 AM

dittybopper: flaminio: The Demon Haunted World is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

 
2012-11-09 11:30:40 AM

GypsyJoker: dittybopper: flaminio: The Demon Haunted World is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.

That book should be required reading in every high school and college in America.


It should be required reading for the entire human population.
 
2012-11-09 11:33:07 AM

jack21221: Nurglitch: It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress,

I've read the book, and I don't recall it claiming to be a book about morality. The central theme is that science advances human progress (morally or immorally), and mythology and superstition doesn't. It's more of a "how-to" guide to skepticism than anything.


It is a book about morality, essentially the argument that moral choices informed by reality are better than moral choices informed by traditional bullshiat. As you say, the central theme is that science advances human progress whereas mythology and superstition don't. Likewise, that being skeptical is good. Saying what is good, and what we should do is a moral argument.

The problem being that knowing what's going on doesn't necessarily inform you about what you should do about it. A useful counter-point to it, and better primer for the value of skepticism, is Northrope Frye's The Educated Imagination. Rather than being a darkness occluding our ability to think clearly about the true and the good, literature (including mythology, and even superstition if you have a clearer notion of what that is that merely Sagan's pejorative) is about how we go about moving from mere facts to systems of knowledge, and moralities. Science requires imagination as much as it requires honesty and critical thinking.

dittybopper: Nurglitch: I'll speak against Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World," as it's a clever book which impressed me in high school, but I have serious reservations about its central argument. Yes, the universe, if you care to look at it, is much more interesting than the myths that have accumulated over the centuries of human memory, but many of those myths are normative in nature, and there's nothing descriptive science has to say about normative issues. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (sayeth the empiricist Hume), and science is less a candle in the dark than the observation that it is dark. It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress, or to even hypothesize about what might constitute that progress.

You sound like a philosophy major.

It is highly illustrative that the base concepts of all morality can be taught to, and fully understood by, a person in Kindergarten. All else is really just mental masturbation.


You sound ignorant.
 
2012-11-09 11:57:14 AM
I was lucky enough to find myself a course short for my final term at Cornell and Carl Sagan's Introductory Astronomy fit my schedule. Great lecturer, better than you can imagine, even if you've seen Cosmos. Got my first preliminary exam back with a 99.5%. I could not figure out what was wrong with my answer, so I got in line. I told him I didn't care about a half point, but what was wrong? He looked at it and said, "No one gets a perfect score on my tests."

Later he said in a lecture, "Perfection is death. Less than perfect leaves you room to grow."
 
2012-11-09 11:59:28 AM

Nurglitch: You sound ignorant rational.


FTFY. The true mysteries of existence are to be found in science, not the self-congratulatory navel gazing of sloppy thinkers.

Or, put another way: By itself, science has never hurt anyone, and it has elevated mankind from being one step above the animals, to where we are now. It is only when it is perverted and subjugated by different philosophies that it causes death and pain.

Philosophy is intellectually bankrupt. It is a way for people who *FEEL* instead of *THINK* to congratulate themselves on how smart they are. It's a diversion, and it can certainly be fun, but it has never produced a single, solid, quantifiable benefit for mankind. It is a framework built out of nothing. Can you build an airplane with philosophy? Can philosophy cure someone's cancer? Can you *EAT* philosophy? Well, one could say that you can't eat science either, but science has resulted in our being able to feed more people on fewer resources.

In other words, philosophy is like Gilligan's Island: Fun, but of no practical use whatsoever, and if you take it too seriously, actually detrimental to your ability to figure out life. I find that I use things like math more often to figure out what I should do in life than any philosophy more complex than "don't hurt others".
 
2012-11-09 12:01:04 PM

Nurglitch: The problem being that knowing what's going on doesn't necessarily inform you about what you should do about it.


But knowing what's going on is still a necessary for increasing the likelihood of an action being effective, compared to groping about in the dark. Whether an action is likely to be effective, and whether or not it is good, are separate questions, true. But the book seems to me to be quite clearly about the scientific method, and not the is-ought distinction.

Whether or not believing a particular mythology is good, and whether or not a given mythology is part of some ecosystem or process of good-idea-generation, the scientific method is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

Some people try to take the mythology out of the oven too early, and bootstrap it into some claim or other about reality, that is falsifiable. Pointing out the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such efforts does not equate to pejorifying literature.
 
2012-11-09 12:35:43 PM
If you like Carl, also check out:
i88.photobucket.com
James Burke

If you like Neil Degrasse Tyson, check out:
i88.photobucket.com 
Brian Cox
 
2012-11-09 12:41:28 PM

dittybopper: Philosophy is intellectually bankrupt.


You sound ignorant.

dittybopper: I find that I use things like math more often to figure out what I should do in life than any philosophy more complex than "don't hurt others".


How do you figure out what you should want to do?

dittybopper: it has never produced a single, solid, quantifiable benefit for mankind


The Value of Philosophy
 
2012-11-09 01:06:50 PM

Nurglitch: It is a book about morality, essentially the argument that moral choices informed by reality are better than moral choices informed by traditional bullshiat. As you say, the central theme is that science advances human progress whereas mythology and superstition don't. Likewise, that being skeptical is good. Saying what is good, and what we should do is a moral argument.

The problem being that knowing what's going on doesn't necessarily inform you about what you should do about it. A useful counter-point to it, and better primer for the value of skepticism, is Northrope Frye's The Educated Imagination. Rather than being a darkness occluding our ability to think clearly about the true and the good, literature (including mythology, and even superstition if you have a clearer notion of what that is that merely Sagan's pejorative) is about how we go about moving from mere facts to systems of knowledge, and moralities. Science requires imagination as much as it requires honesty and critical thinking.


You took an awful lot of words to say so little. Unless you intend to argue that being factually incorrect is just as "good" as being factually incorrect. Sagan's book is more about how to find truth than how to find goodness.

I have a degree in physics, not philosophy. So you can probably introduce a lot of obscure terms to dance around various points better than I can, but I can tell you that science has done more to advance the human race than mythology, religion, and superstition have for any reasonable definition of "advance." If you want to say I'm making the argument about "goodness" and morality, go for it. To me, I'm just stating a fact.
 
2012-11-09 01:31:03 PM

jack21221: Nurglitch: It is a book about morality, essentially the argument that moral choices informed by reality are better than moral choices informed by traditional bullshiat. As you say, the central theme is that science advances human progress whereas mythology and superstition don't. Likewise, that being skeptical is good. Saying what is good, and what we should do is a moral argument.

The problem being that knowing what's going on doesn't necessarily inform you about what you should do about it. A useful counter-point to it, and better primer for the value of skepticism, is Northrope Frye's The Educated Imagination. Rather than being a darkness occluding our ability to think clearly about the true and the good, literature (including mythology, and even superstition if you have a clearer notion of what that is that merely Sagan's pejorative) is about how we go about moving from mere facts to systems of knowledge, and moralities. Science requires imagination as much as it requires honesty and critical thinking.

You took an awful lot of words to say so little. Unless you intend to argue that being factually incorrect is just as "good" as being factually incorrect. Sagan's book is more about how to find truth than how to find goodness.

I have a degree in physics, not philosophy. So you can probably introduce a lot of obscure terms to dance around various points better than I can, but I can tell you that science has done more to advance the human race than mythology, religion, and superstition have for any reasonable definition of "advance." If you want to say I'm making the argument about "goodness" and morality, go for it. To me, I'm just stating a fact.


Okay, so provide a reasonable definition of 'advance'. You know, prove that you're stating a fact, rather than just your superstitious opinion.
 
2012-11-09 01:42:46 PM
Religion advances you. It doesn't advance humanity, which is why we have other things to do that. That's the point.
 
2012-11-09 01:44:12 PM

Nurglitch: Okay, so provide a reasonable definition of 'advance'.


Real GDP per capita, life expectancy, most happiness for the most people...

I just gave you 3 reasonable definitions. By the way, in what way could my "opinion" have been considered "superstitious?" Do you not know the definition of the word?
 
2012-11-09 01:49:00 PM

Nurglitch: Okay, so provide a reasonable definition of 'advance'. You know, prove that you're stating a fact, rather than just your superstitious opinion.


To make it sporting, you should first give him a reasonable definition of 'fact' to work toward. Don't just lure him into the dark alley of epistemology for a mugging, meet him out in the open.
 
2012-11-09 01:52:40 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Nurglitch: The problem being that knowing what's going on doesn't necessarily inform you about what you should do about it.

But knowing what's going on is still a necessary for increasing the likelihood of an action being effective, compared to groping about in the dark. Whether an action is likely to be effective, and whether or not it is good, are separate questions, true. But the book seems to me to be quite clearly about the scientific method, and not the is-ought distinction.

Whether or not believing a particular mythology is good, and whether or not a given mythology is part of some ecosystem or process of good-idea-generation, the scientific method is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

Some people try to take the mythology out of the oven too early, and bootstrap it into some claim or other about reality, that is falsifiable. Pointing out the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such efforts does not equate to pejorifying literature.


Of course knowing what's going on is necessary for determining whether an action might be effective. It doesn't help you decide what your goal should be. Which is the issue with the book, as it holds that accurate description, science, is better than useful proscription, mythology. Hence the point about the is-ought distinction, in that Sagan is saying that knowing what is the case is better than knowing what ought to be done, which is a false dilemma.

Sagan's perfectly on the money about the utility of science in knowing, but he seques that into the conclusion that the mythologies according to which peoples have defined their actions are holding us back. Bad mythology holds us back as much as bad science, creating cognitive dead-ends the likes of which we see in dittybopper's scientism fetish, but Sagan takes a narrow view of mythology and superstition. He misunderstands is as a literal description of reality rather than a metaphorical, action-oriented, user-friendly-to-apes social frameworks for action.

Mythological literalists might believe that the Earth really was created in seven days, but then ontological realists might believe that artifacts of their theories are genuine objects found in nature, and platonists might honestly believe that there are such things as numbers. Heck, the mythology of the mind/soul is so deeply embedded in our Western culture that there are entire research programs dedicated to studying something that stubbornly remains mysterious.

Yet Sagan fails because he holds these things to be equivalent, to believe that simply by knowing about our world in a properly humble fashion we can determine what we should know, and how we should act. And he further fails to encouraging people like dittybopper to fetishize the sciences as Science, some bizarre platonic entity (while excoriating philosophy as though it is a separate pursuit, and not at all what Sagan is doing when he makes the argument that science is a moral compass).
 
2012-11-09 01:55:34 PM

jack21221: Nurglitch: Okay, so provide a reasonable definition of 'advance'.

Real GDP per capita, life expectancy, most happiness for the most people...

I just gave you 3 reasonable definitions. By the way, in what way could my "opinion" have been considered "superstitious?" Do you not know the definition of the word?


So how do I test these definitions to know that they are reasonable? You know, scientifically. I suppose I could just take your word on it, as I would a priest, but that seems superstitious.
 
2012-11-09 02:37:24 PM

Nurglitch: I'll speak against Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World,"
...
science is less a candle in the dark than the observation that it is dark. It gives us no moral light by which to advance human progress, or to even hypothesize about what might constitute that progress.



Round here, saying stuff like that is like drawing a picture of Mohammed in the grand mosque in Mecca.
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-09 02:41:50 PM

Nurglitch: Mythological literalists might believe that the Earth really was created in seven days, but then ontological realists might believe that artifacts of their theories are genuine objects found in nature, and platonists might honestly believe that there are such things as numbers.



Ontological realists and platonists differ from mythological literalists in that their abstractions are represented both symbolically and in their brains, which *are* genuine objects found in nature. So, falsification-wise, very different.

While it has been years since I've readthis book, I don't recall him saying that science is a moral compass, or that it can determine what we should know, although I can't say for sure and I'm unlikely to re-read it anytime soon Perhaps you could reference a particular passage? If not, then in any case, what I believe is that the scientific method provides a vantage point of great practical importance, which properly ought to inform an individual's approach to the problem of what they ought to know.

Whether he did express the idea effectively or not in that book, one certainly *can* castigate those who use half-baked ideas to lazily narrow the range of that problem, and to lazily disregard important facts outside of that range. The user-interface of mythology is used by some as mostly just that (social framework for action), but others do take it mostly literally, and plenty of others are somewhere inbetween.

You're accusing him, it seems to me, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I contend that the baby and bathwater are more like two chemicals in solution, and that attempts to cause a precipitate to form (using fact-based criticism) so that high-concentration bathwater can be removed should not be (though it often is) construed as an attack on the baby.
 
2012-11-09 02:52:30 PM

Nurglitch: I suppose I could just take your word on it, as I would a priest, but that seems superstitious.


"Search your feelings, Nurglitch. You know it to be true."

But seriously, it's more productive to compare one concrete definition of 'advance' to another, rather than to an unstated plantonic ideal.

Comparing life-expectancy as a measure of progress, to say, "proportion of people who share my values".
 
2012-11-09 02:54:05 PM
 
2012-11-09 02:54:50 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Nurglitch: Mythological literalists might believe that the Earth really was created in seven days, but then ontological realists might believe that artifacts of their theories are genuine objects found in nature, and platonists might honestly believe that there are such things as numbers.


Ontological realists and platonists differ from mythological literalists in that their abstractions are represented both symbolically and in their brains, which *are* genuine objects found in nature. So, falsification-wise, very different.

While it has been years since I've readthis book, I don't recall him saying that science is a moral compass, or that it can determine what we should know, although I can't say for sure and I'm unlikely to re-read it anytime soon Perhaps you could reference a particular passage? If not, then in any case, what I believe is that the scientific method provides a vantage point of great practical importance, which properly ought to inform an individual's approach to the problem of what they ought to know.

Whether he did express the idea effectively or not in that book, one certainly *can* castigate those who use half-baked ideas to lazily narrow the range of that problem, and to lazily disregard important facts outside of that range. The user-interface of mythology is used by some as mostly just that (social framework for action), but others do take it mostly literally, and plenty of others are somewhere inbetween.

You're accusing him, it seems to me, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I contend that the baby and bathwater are more like two chemicals in solution, and that attempts to cause a precipitate to form (using fact-based criticism) so that high-concentration bathwater can be removed should not be (though it often is) construed as an attack on the baby.


No, I accuse his argument of confusing the descriptive with the normative. That confusion undermines his case for naturalism, leaving it open to calcifying as a kind of mythology itself (a la dittybopper), or becoming a revealed truth (a la Karl Popper and the falsificationists left in his wake).
 
2012-11-09 03:04:26 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Nurglitch: I suppose I could just take your word on it, as I would a priest, but that seems superstitious.

"Search your feelings, Nurglitch. You know it to be true."

But seriously, it's more productive to compare one concrete definition of 'advance' to another, rather than to an unstated plantonic ideal.

Comparing life-expectancy as a measure of progress, to say, "proportion of people who share my values".


I think the issue is what you consider to be a concrete definition, and in particular how such a definition is valid. There are very few philosophers who would propose an unstated platonic ideal as a starting point for establishing a metric of advancement. The problem being that you would be left requiring a concrete definition of 'productive', as in what the payoff would be, and how that payoff compares to other definitions.

My point is about how one goes about evaluating one's axioms. The re-evaluation of axioms is a philosophical activity. But, as Hume pointed out hundreds of years ago, there is nothing about one set of axioms to imply that it should be the set of axioms (and logic, etc) according to which you ought to act. Or worse yet, evaluate the worth of an action.
 
2012-11-09 03:10:30 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: dittybopper: Philosophy is intellectually bankrupt.

You sound ignorant.


Typical philosopher. Just repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Two plus two doesn't equal five no matter what framework you build up to explain it, or how many times you repeat it. That's what I meant by mental masturbation.

I'm not ignorant of philosophy, I'm disdainful of it. I'm surprised you couldn't tell the difference.
 
2012-11-09 03:12:51 PM
The opening for Cosmos -- Vangelis' "Heaven and Hell" -- is requested to be played when I'm cremated.
 
2012-11-09 03:23:15 PM

dittybopper: The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: dittybopper: Philosophy is intellectually bankrupt.

You sound ignorant.

Typical philosopher. Just repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Two plus two doesn't equal five no matter what framework you build up to explain it, or how many times you repeat it. That's what I meant by mental masturbation.

I'm not ignorant of philosophy, I'm disdainful of it. I'm surprised you couldn't tell the difference.


I'm surprised too. I wish I knew as much as you. You should write down everything you know so that other people can appreciate your wisdom.
 
2012-11-09 03:39:26 PM
'Star Stuff' is one of the stupidest phrases ever, especially when pronounced with a sylibant 's'.

The constant fellating of this guy by Farkers is appalling.
 
2012-11-09 03:49:12 PM

Nurglitch: I'm surprised too. I wish I knew as much as you.


That's not hard to accomplish. Stop reading philosophy and study math and science.

James Clerk Maxwell instead of Jean-Paul Sartre. Albert EInstein, not Jacques Derrida. You'll know more about how the Universe is put together, and man's place within it, by doing that.
 
2012-11-09 03:53:06 PM

douchebag/hater: 'Star Stuff' is one of the stupidest phrases ever, especially when pronounced with a sylibant 's'.

The constant fellating of this guy by Farkers is appalling.


Nomen est omen, huh?
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report