TunaFree_DolphinMeat
TunaFree_DolphinMeat t1_iv0x7gx wrote
Reply to comment by fax_me_your_glands in The meaning crisis and language II — We need to ‘believe’ myth and metaphor in order to understand ourselves by Melodic_Antelope6490
I don't think it's that simple. The allegorical values in religion do not need to be wrapped in anti-Semitism, divisive rhetoric, and bigotry. It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's like an apple being wrapped in fetid rancid meat. Yeah the apple is an apple but you don't want to eat your way through what it's wrapped in.
TunaFree_DolphinMeat t1_iu0cms4 wrote
Reply to comment by OutsourcedIconoclasm in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
I know what you're saying regarding nature and my point stands. Using it as an excuse doesn't add up. Seeing as how there are people that still destroy nature in a phenomenal sense sans technology.
TunaFree_DolphinMeat t1_itubckt wrote
Reply to comment by OutsourcedIconoclasm in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
A direct relationship with the world doesn't dictate your willingness to destroy it or not. Many cultures claiming to appreciate nature still destroyed it. Using technology as an excuse or proxy doesn't really add up.
TunaFree_DolphinMeat t1_ituar4f wrote
Reply to comment by Howmanybutts in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
Yeah, I agree with this sentiment in general. If a person is morally repugnant or bankrupt that should be remembered. But their contributions to society aren't diminished because of that. You can absolutely cherry pick the good parts of a bad person's work.
TunaFree_DolphinMeat t1_ix7pjgb wrote
Reply to comment by Kektuals in The famous Butterfly Dream of Taoist Philosophy and how it recommends a radical openness to judging right from wrong by CaptainOfTheKeys
Calling someone foolish prior to understanding their point of view seems unnecessarily narrow-minded.
I do agree that they certainly weren't objectively evil but their actions should be condemned. We do need to learn from our historical mistakes and learn from them. The US bombing of Japan in WWII is often justified by the potential for saving lives. In reality all we did was vaporize two civilian targets with our brand new toys. It's possible it did save lives. It's also possible that it did not.