Sisyphus

That picture is begging for a caption contest.

A good point, and one of the many reasons that we are not rational (or at least sometimes appear not to be). In part this is because the game of life has multiple rounds. If this one game was all there were, rejecting a proposal on the basis of unfairness might not be rational. But in a multi-round game you can make it clear that you reject "unfair" proposals, logic be damned. In the end, this sense of fairness can benefit you, as others fear to offer you an unfair proposal.

Indeed. In fact, that's probably the whole function of anger. Being spiteful is self-harming pretty much by definition, but the threat of spite warns others not to mess with you.

You're right. If losing even 1 competitor is worth more than $1 million, it would be #4's proposal that is accepted. The votes of 1-3 don't even matter, because 4-7 would vote no on everything until then, when it would be 4 and 5 for yes and 6 and 7 for no. 4 is safe voting no on 1-3 because he knows he can count on 5 when his time comes, because 5 has to avoid his own turn.

I agree that it's unanswerable without more info. You've got two commodities (money and reduced competition) without an "exchange rate," and a situation where the utility of each might well be different depending on where you are on the list and/or how many remain. It could well be that eliminating competitors is more important than money for everyone, in which case the guaranteed result is #6 getting a million, #7 getting nothing, and everybody else getting fired.

Isn't that the version of an earlier book that he re-wrote because the original wasn't well received? (because it was too dry?) Or am I thinking of a different one.

Pretty much, yeah. It wasn't well received, so he tried to say the same stuff a different way. I don't know much about the historical context, to be honest.

A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume, is the work of his I'm most familiar with. My senior year thesis in college was actually about this book, and how it can lend some persective to early problems in quantum mechanics. (If you can believe that.) I didn't find it dry at all, personally, but by that time I was used to reading some far more dry philosophy.

If you want to know where science comes from, I recommend The New Organon, by Francis Bacon. Or A Discourse on Method by Rene Descartes, if you don't mind obnoxious Frenchmen.

Other philosophers that might be of particular interest to the scientist or science enthusiast are Leibniz (probably better known as the simultaneous inventor of calculus with Isaac Newton) and Spinoza (of the frequently invoked by Einstein). But honestly, they might be more of the "don't try this at home" variety for curious laymen.

Guys like Kant, Hegel, Nietsche, etc. are going to be more important to philosophy generally, but I don't know they could really be approached without a background in all the earlier philosophers they are responding to.

I removed it for you. Mod powers activate!

Mustardgate is easily my favorite political issue of the year.

But one must take into account how many people you have to share your lab with.

You mean that's not in Severian's basement?

I think the problem with this thread is equivocation with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" that leads to misunderstandings. I think originally it was just referring to which party one tends to vote for, but we're going all over the map.

For example, what does "conservative" actually mean? It can mean closeminded, yes. Or it can mean cautious (which is not the same thing). Or it can mean neither, but adhering to a particular sort of new values. Nationalism, militarism, theocracy, and expanding executive power are all "conservative" trends, but I could also be considered "conservative" for expressing concern about those new trends, wanting everybody to slow down and not get carried away. Or in jurisprudence, a "conservative" opinion can mean either of two things, which are actually quite at odds with one another. The first just means a strict interpretation of the letter of the law. The other interprets the law in the spirit of a "conservative" agenda.

Similarly, liberal can mean other things as well. It can mean literally in favor of liberty, or progressive, or openminded. None of those things are the same. (They're not mutually exclusive, either.) To continue the jurisprudence example, a "liberal" opinion can either mean interpreting the law so as to give more weight to the spirit of the law (as opined by the judge) than the letter, or it can mean in line with a progressive agenda.

Real intellectuals tend not to get held up as champions of liberalism or of conservatism, because their ideas are too subtle for sound bites or marching chants. I've met some of the people who are held up. Once they finish their shtick, if you're not there to cheer them or jeer them, they don't know what to do or say.

I hereby propose a YT lookalike contest.

Sisyphus, I am not adding anything. I am merely stating what Fundamentalism adds, in the words of Fundamentalists.

 

What you are saying is that acceptance of the core statements in the creeds-- God created, Jesus as God, resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting -- makes one a Christian no matter what else they believe.

No, not me. You: "I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds." Although honestly, that seems like a pretty good definition as far as I'm concerned. (Or at least, better than one that requires that you have to believe in evolution in order to be Christian!)

This does not follow and historically is not true. For instance, Mormons believe all that but are not part of Christianity. The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason, of course, is that both have added to Christianity. Both add revelation not accepted as valid by Christianity. JWs, of course, are also Fundamentalists.

They're not Christians? Certainly THEY would disagree. Again, just look at the creeds. And look at the fact that everyone but the vaguest of "Christians" have more beliefs beyond that. Are Catholics non-Christian, too? You're being silly.

The Apostles and Nicene Creeds say nothing about a literal inerrant Bible or how God created. They merely state that God created.

Yup. And believing the Bible satisfies the creeds.

2. It denies essential beliefs held by Christianity.

What beliefs?

Sisyphus, do you have a problem with this statement of mine: "Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it."

Everything except "nearly all."

Do you think that theism rejects evolution or would you like theism to reject evolution?

Neither.

I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds.

No, you're not. That would mean those who believe in a benevolent creator god who became flesh in Jesus, died for humanity's sins, rose from the dead, and will grant eternal life to any who accept him. That is, in fact, what it says in the Bible, as well, so even a fundamentalist is still a "Christian" by that definition. What you've done is add a clause that they must accept scientific consensus, making the statement "Christians embraced evolution" merely tautological.

lucaspa, it seems like you're using a definition of "Christian" that is a much smaller subset of those who self-identify as "Christian." Are you aware of this?