This comic doesn't tell us who's in charge of the sheep dip. It's rubbish Bruce.

Quote from: James Gillen;741726Foucault: "I don't know why you are so certain it is they who are evil."
Kant: "BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE MONSTER MANUAL!"

(It's knowledge a priori!)

Roleplayer vs Rules lawyer....

Quote from: Brad;742579Sure.

Only if you're a postmodern.

Hrm... :pundit:

I now feel the need to clarify two things:

1. I am not, in any shape or form, a 'postmodernist'.  I am thoroughly 'modern'.  My philosophical heroes include Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Kant.  (Regarding the existentialists, I find Nietzsche and Camus insightful, but don't hang out in their club house most days.)

2. You are ... somewhat clueless about the history of philosophy.

I like that your user name is Akrasia and then you responded to Brad's trolling

The DM didn't even let Kant roll the dice. He might have got lucky and won! That De Beauvior is a DM fiat bitch.

Quote from: James Gillen;741726Foucault: "I don't know why you are so certain it is they who are evil."
Kant: "BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE MONSTER MANUAL!"

(It's knowledge a priori!)

I have to disagree here.
The DM, who decides the alignment of NPCs, is not bound by the Monster Manual. Ergo there's no reason to assume monsters are exactly as described in the Monster Manual.
Also Kant is metagaming.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;743162I have to disagree here.
The DM, who decides the alignment of NPCs, is not bound by the Monster Manual. Ergo there's no reason to assume monsters are exactly as described in the Monster Manual.
Also Kant is metagaming.

knowledge a priori = metagaming.

JG

Quote from: NathanIW;742970I like that your user name is Akrasia and then you responded to Brad's trolling

Ha! I choose my handle for a reason.

Almost all logical positivists I've ever met are people who absolutely refuse to admit they're engaging in a limited belief paradigm and aren't actually all that interested in truth.

Now there's one for the analytic philosophers:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/28

Quote from: Akrasia;748797Now there's one for the analytic philosophers:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/28

I laughed.

Quote from: Akrasia;7429442. You are ... somewhat clueless about the history of philosophy.

Okay, believe whatever you want.

The Wittgenstein bit particularly slayed (slew?) me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;743759Almost all logical positivists I've ever met are people who absolutely refuse to admit they're engaging in a limited belief paradigm and aren't actually all that interested in truth.

Given how concerned they are with verifiability and falsifiability, I'm guessing the truth you wish they were interested in is some sort of woo-woo magic truth or something.  It's hard caring about the truth of poets, theologians and sorcerers when you're busy providing the philosophical underpinning of the type of research that made things like computers and satellites possible.  For all their faults, the logical positivists (and the revision of their ideas by later pragmatists) are onto something that actually works in the real world.

I'm also suspicious that having a "limited belief paradigm" is what you call it when people refuse to believe in magic or aliens or jeebus before they have evidence of it actually existing.

EDIT:  Carnap's admonition to not meta game was awesome.

Quote from: Brad;748942Okay, believe whatever you want.

...

Quote from: Brad;742178What

To clarify, only an existentialist would eschew the postmodern label, which makes it all the more laughable as they're just Postmodern 2: Electric Boogaloo.

(and of course Kant isn't a postmodern...yeesh)

Short of Heidegger tricking out a Delorean or Foucault having access to the TARDIS, this is simply not possible. So either you're suggesting that effects can follow from a future cause, or you don't know what you're talking about.

To say nothing of Kant belonging to a school of thought that didn't exist until decades after his death.