You must log in or register to comment.
Can someone explain the difference between “poetic language” and “dialectically coming to the truth”?
Dialectically thinking would be to consider the issue at hand, and to form multiple positions to interpret or explain the situation, often contradictory or opposing positions.
The banker example has the philosophy cop browbeat the banker with a single line of reasoning. What he could do is take the bankers position himself, flesh it out, and argue both points (and others) to find the most sound position, that is often a nuanced blend of the others.
Thanks, great explanation!
About the last panel, I mean, ok, but isn’t that what the banker is doing too? Isn’t that what everybody does for everything? So therefore the only sin is coercion?
But the banker thought it was ok when he did it but not when the “robber” did it. Which represents (so it is claimed) a poorly grounded belief system, since what the banker does is (it is argued) the same as what the robber does.
No, the banker didn’t create the threat of poverty, that existed before the banker arrived.
The masked robber, however, did bring the gun and threaten the other person. If the robber was never there, the threat wouldn’t be there either.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
I never said the banker created the threat of poverty, indeed, I never even said I agreed with the premise of the comic. “Philosophy cop” is supposed to be a cop, why would you be surprised that he tries to arrest someone on shaky grounds? That happens even in real life, non-joke contexts. Honestly, if you try to take the comic seriously rather than as a joke, the more surprising element would be that the cop was not only called out by internal affairs, but purportedly should expect to be punished for his misdeeds.
We found the Philosophy Defense Attorney.
I think the rich should be taxed fwiw, but this particular argument doesn’t work.
deleted by creator
The thing is, it’s not an argument (at least, in the context of this comic), it’s a joke. It’s not intended to stand up to scrutiny, it’s intended to humorously contrast with your expectations (which, whether it succeeds or not is really a matter of opinion - I happen to kinda like it).
Apparently, being consistent in your beliefs and actions is the most important thing.
What a terrible comic. It very much gives a “I just found out about communism” vibe. Without banks, you wouldn’t even have the choice to get a loan to purchase a house or get starting capital for a business. And about the interest part, do you expect them to be a non profit? How will the banks pay their workers? I agree that the rates are too high, but come on, it’s a service that you choose to make use of.
do you expect them to be a non profit?
Well of course not, I expect them to not exist as private entities. If they’re so big that their failure would cause the collapse of the economy, they should be federalized to prevent the greedy fucks from playing fast and loose with other people’s money to make themselves rich.
it’s a service that you choose to make use of.
Imagine you’re in a plane crash, and you wake up on an island…
Did you miss the part where the comic defends the banker by attacking his attacker’s method of attack?
Or you could, y’know, house people without them needing to take a loan.
Banks are not the be-all-end-all of resource distribution.
I never said they were the be-all-end-all of distribution. This comic implies that banks somehow are responsible for providing money to people to buy housing. This is a way larger systemic issue. People should be paid enough to be able to purchase property.
People should be paid enough to be able to purchase property.
What are you? A commie?
Banks are also not responsible for housing.
Maybe the comic wanted to make a joke and not be a rigorous philosophical work explaining every possible detail
