Which is a more accurate picture of joy? This:
Or this:
This is only a hard question if you make it one. Or if you’re not into Sam Cooke.
Which is a more accurate picture of joy? This:
Or this:
This is only a hard question if you make it one. Or if you’re not into Sam Cooke.
Sam Cooke isn’t a picture of joy, but an inspirer of joy.
Yeah, that’s right. I will end you, and all joy.
I don’t know what reductive materialist means, but I’ve decided I don’t want to be one. I want to be a DEductive materialist. That’s where it’s at.
I’m hung up on the word accurate. What does it even mean in this context? It seems clear to me that the thing that is unequivocally joy (the brain scan – I assume it’s a scan of someone experiencing joy) is technically more “accurate” than a thing that causes joy in a good amount of people. Isn’t it kind of like saying, which is the more accurate picture of fire: a picture of a raging inferno, or a picture of a match? A match causes fire, but it is not an accurate picture of fire.
Yeah, what he said.
Also we’re not being reductive, we’re just SAYIN, is all!
Those who are carefully pondering the semantics of this post CLEARLY aren’t feeling it and are thus missing the point in it’s entirety, that perhaps some things are beyond the explanations of science and language.
x
Fair enough, but I generally think “if you don’t agree with the point, you don’t understand it” isn’t a very effective argumentative technique.
True, though I don’t think anyone is asserting any kind of argument in this comment thread.These comments are more like a series of honest musings, much like this post. Still, my sass can defy the logic of “argumentative techniques” or rather, invalidate them.