Our discussion on the star trek metaphysics in class reminded me of a philosophy comic that encapsulates the basic arguments surrounding the idea that we don't have biological continuity, and what that means with respect to the self.
'Comic,' per say, only refers to the medium of 'The Machine,' as it is much longer and dramatic, as opposed to shorter and comedic. In any event I think it illustrates the thought experiment quite well.
Hopefully this post, in conjunction with my last one, can spark more conversation about our collaborative effort to put our arguments on paper.
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1
Enjoy!
This is what it's come to? We're posting Existential Comics on our academic blogs?
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, the more I think about the Star Trek metaphysics the more complex it actually seems. Maybe it hearkens back to Deven's point, though, that knowledge is only valuable insofar as it is useful...
Could it be argued that knowledge gathered now without an immediate use is still valuable as someday it may end up being useful? Sort of like an intellectual investment that may end up greatly beneficial? I don't know if we can really know how useful knowledge is until we find a use for it (obviously,) but how about things that seem to be useful but instead set people back in their intellectual progress towards a certain goal?
DeleteI incline to Dan's point, with the caveat that we are equally unaware of how dangerous our discoveries might turn out to be.
DeleteI agree--isn't the proper usage of evidence X a necessary part of what is constitutes to have knowledge of X? I'm thinking of moral philosophy in general, which is certainly considered knowledge.
ReplyDelete