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.
Thanks, great explanation!
So does the Philosophy Internal Affairs guy. Hypocrite.
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.
The lesson here is that if you're gonna commit a crime, don't make excuses to try justify it, those will inevitably put the philosophy cops on your trail, just do it cause you want to. Prepare with some Stirner in case there's a sting operation.
Take notes, pirates, and hoist your sails with pride in your skulduggery, not deflections.
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.
Apparently, being consistent in your beliefs and actions is the most important thing.
This led to an entertaining and brain-excercising hour-long rabbit hole. Nice!
Did I just read a Brecht quote in a web comic?
The masked robber brought the gun and threatened the other person. If that masked robber goes away, so does the threat.
The banker arrives offering a loan after someone is already dealing with the threat of poverty from nature itself. If the banker leaves, the threat of poverty does not go away.
How does someone create a whole comic about this, and never realize that simple fact?
I have so many questions. Like, for instance, do you think being in debt to a money lender means you're not poor or something?
the threat of poverty from nature itself
The threat of poverty comes from society. Or are you under the impression that fucking bears are the ones who will be beating your ass for failing to make rent, or for camping in a city park.
I think that's why philosophy internal affairs arrested 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.
do you expect them to be a non profit?
Well of course not, I expect them to not exist as private entities. If they're so big that their failure would cause the collapse of the economy, they should be federalized to prevent the greedy fucks from playing fast and loose with other people's money to make themselves rich.
it's a service that you choose to make use of.
Imagine you're in a plane crash, and you wake up on an island...
do you expect them to be a non profit?
yes
tbf, I think the comic is also making the point that the philosophy cop isn't making a good argument.
Did you miss the part where the comic defends the banker by attacking his attacker's method of attack?
