Ignorant atheists don’t get to tell me how to Christian.
You deserve to be dismissed. You bring nothing of value to the table. You could, perhaps, be a student, but you are dead-set against having your ignorance corrected, so that seems unlikely.

Yes, I do, in fact, have disdain for ignorant moral subjectivists.
You deserve disdain because you hold a stupid and evil view of the world.

And you are, presumably, teaching this evil and stupid view to your children.

I hope for your sake they don’t listen to you and actually adopt sound views of morality.
But if your own children do turn out to treat you in an utterly immoral way — you’ll have earned it, since you taught them that there is no such thing as morality. 🤷🏻‍♀️

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

28 Apr
Another cool lesson I learned on the path of chemistry:

I was top in my class, but the award for “top in chemistry” went to this other girl because her professor was head of the department and mine was a new hire.

But I was already bailing for physics, because ⬇︎
1 I was really, really good at chemistry. Just because you are really, really good at something doesn’t mean you necessarily *like* it much and

2 I still thought *physics*, as the fundamental science, might be a path to something profound about the world. I was very, very wrong.
Pretty soon I was doing a Philosophy/Physics double major, and I was good at physics too—but I soon learned that for at least 100 years or more it had become a kind of advanced recipe following. “Quantum cookery.”
Read 6 tweets
27 Apr
I feel like this point is not well understood by many. It would probably clear up a lot of confusion about what I do with ideas.
A lot of the things I say, which sound absurd, *are*, in fact, absurd, but what I’m doing is following out the implications of what someone else has said, to see whether or not the initial assertion survives this or detonates in a BANG! of absurdity.
But most people, from my observation, feel as if they have a “right” to say things that have implications but not have the implications drawn, unless they approve of them.

Or have a right to made concrete arguments without the logical form of their argument being tested.
Read 5 tweets
27 Apr
The problem with those who naively appeal to “the obvious” is that nothing is, in itself, obvious.

What the naif takes to be obvious may, upon reflection, turn out to be true — but his defect lies not in missing the truth, but hitting only by accident.
I have always liked this saying of Master Qingyuan Xingsi.

It always puts me in mind of Socrates, who often argued the views of the common people, against the “sophisticated” sophists — in an utterly uncommon way.
It is difficult to have a discussion with the sophisticated. Their sophistication gets in the way.

But it is impossible — often — to have a discussion with the completely uneducated man. Especially when they take a perverse pride in their own lack of education.
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
Remember how Ahmaud Arbery claimed he was just out jogging? Apparently that was “his thing.” 😂
He literally has the nickname “the Jogger” because he’d (a) pretend to be jogging, steal stuff, and run away, or (b) run away from cops and others and if caught claim to have been jogging.
Does add a little doubt to the claim he was just innocently jogging the day he died, since that was his go-to excuse whenever involved in a crime. 🤷🏻‍♀️
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
I’m a 5. Always have been.

I literally have only the vaguest, faintest ghost of anything like imagery.

I think almost entirely by means of concepts, and never by means of pictures/images. Because I don’t have any, or “none worthy of the name” as James says.
William James
My inability to conjure images in my imagination doesn’t mean I cannot recognize things, although I do have a lot of trouble matching names to faces.
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
As an undergraduate, I took a course in Ancient Philosophy, which was essentially going to be Plato and Aristotle (which is appropriate).

It became clear we wouldn’t be able to finish the Republic AND have enough time for Aristotle. I lead an insurrection to finish the Republic.
I can’t say I regret our finishing the Republic — the professor was certainly up for it, since a group of students DEMANDING TO BE TAUGHT was rare even back then — but as a result I had VERY little knowledge of Aristotle going into grad school.
I *tried* to remedy this by taking a course on Aristotle during my first year of graduate studies, under Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, using Joseph Owen’s magisterial Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelean Metaphysics: b-ok.cc/book/1247389/f…

But it was too hard. I wasn’t ready for it.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!