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.
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.
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.
I never said the banker created the threat of poverty, indeed, I never even said I agreed with the premise of the comic. “Philosophy cop” is supposed to be a cop, why would you be surprised that he tries to arrest someone on shaky grounds? That happens even in real life, non-joke contexts. Honestly, if you try to take the comic seriously rather than as a joke, the more surprising element would be that the cop was not only called out by internal affairs, but purportedly should expect to be punished for his misdeeds.
This led to an entertaining and brain-excercising hour-long rabbit hole. Nice!
