Miss me with that grade school stuff.TKA wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:09 pmMiss me with that junior high school stuff.Charlie's Shadow wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:14 pmThere's also a matter of applicability. Most theories have a domain in which they are applicable, which is defined explicitly by the one that developed that theory, or implicitly, by the hypothesis and assumptions common to most theories.
The point of philosophy and political theory is to apply them to all aspects of life. That's why they have to be robust. You can apply them to anything, and more times than not, they enhance whatever you apply them to. A capitalist critique applied to Dragonball is probably one of the most salient, given how obvious they tend to be with their marketing.
"Broly was popular, so we made Toriyama-sensei write a movie about him."
"Future Trunks was popular, so we made Toriyama-sensei write an arc about him."
I deliberately did not reply to you because you called a poster "braindead", which is beyond the pale for me. I recommend reassessing how you interact with others.
If you think you can ignore the basics of argumentation, and worse, ignore the fundamental hypothesis that ensures the consistency of a theory, then you're the one that's stuck in lower levels of philosophy. What basis of argumentation do you have to state that you can straight up dismiss the limitations of a theory and apply it to whatever you want with no care at all? Because if you have none, your argument is just pseudoscience. Might as well ignore statistics and claim that astrology is real.
Intentional or non-intentional unawareness of all parameters used in development of a theory or even a small part of a theory often leads to disastrous conclusions, and this applies to all scientific fields. If you want a few examples of misunderstandings of fundamental aspects of some theories, here's a video. Even basic statistics can be absurdly misused due to lack of understanding.
https://youtu.be/bVG2OQp6jEQ
https://youtu.be/ioxWuCd-mn0
In case you reply with "I'm not talking about statistics", keep in mind this is an example of the general point: Lack of understanding/Intentional ignorance towards the main hypothesis and assumptions behind a theory or a method.
This is all very basic, anyone even remotely familiar with how development of a scientific theory works would know that. So maybe try learning a bit more before saying that other people's arguments are "junior high school stuff".






