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.
So does the Philosophy Internal Affairs guy. Hypocrite.
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.
deleted by creator
In the last few panels the banker is gone and the philosophers are leaving unharmed, so once again the day is saved by the Philosophy Cop.
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.
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.
Banks are also not responsible for housing.
They are taking advantage of people’s hardships. The robber just takes from a well insured institution. A victimless crime.
