Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
SpanielBear:
I'm sure there are other resident philosophers, but I'm the one who's here.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. What does it mean to know something, how do we get to truth rather than belief, what level of certainty are we happy with. Scepticism, scientific method, experiments vs metaphysics- these are all subjects that epistemology deals or has dealt with. You are right to call it a branch related to science, because it is asking the same basic questions- what can we know, and how do we know it?
Deontology is basically to do with creating a system or practice based on first principles and logical rules considered in abstract. It comes up most often in moral philosophy and especially in the works of Immanuel Kant. He tried to formulate a system of morality based on logic, with the maxim "only act as if that act could become a universal law." So if asking oneself "is it right to kill this man", one would reformulate the question as "how would it be if we killed all men". The universal law being obviously insupportable , one would use that as a guide to action.
This is a controversial theory, to say the least.
Not much to do with science either, especially as Kant was an "armchair philosopher", who believed he could make practical guide to life based on pure reason, without reference to that mucky outside world.
Tova:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 09:48 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 09:14 ---
--- Quote from: MrNumbers on 31 Jan 2018, 08:01 ---I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.
--- End quote ---
I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...
--- End quote ---
Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.
Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!
--- End quote ---
Okay, so let's take a step back. I hope that this conflict can be resolved somehow, even though they may not meet again in awhle.
Much as we like to go back and forth to figure out who was right and who was wrong, Faye has got it right so far. She has first listened and then acknowledged Bubbles' legitimate reasons for feeling angry and upset.
If you take a moment's thought, then maybe you can empathise with both sides? We've already discussed Evie's background and why she may have been as thoughtless as she was. If you take a moment to consider Bubbles' background, I am confident it will occur to you why Bubbles did not feel free to be absolutely forthright in a conversation with a person she didn't know.
So, where to from here? Like the Hanners/Tilly situation, should Faye encourage Bubbles to express her discomfort more assertively next time? Should Faye have a word with her about what happened? Or something else?
Is it cold in here?:
Kant is highly relevant here because another formulation of the categorical imperative is always to treat people as ends in themselves and not as means to an end.
Practicing that will save a scientist from letting professional detachment drift into horror.
Evie let herself treat Bubbles as an audience rather than as a person. That was avoidable.
Tova:
COMIC.
Here we go...
SpanielBear:
U.S.S Faye Whitaker, oblivious to the point of clinical blindness, plows on like an icebreaker through a polar bear's back yard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version