Comments for Hammer of Thor

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by yszoe

yszoe — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:11:17 +0000

8377. Good site!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by jgoux

jgoux — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:09:22 +0000

Nice site 5926! Good site!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by nhwia

nhwia — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:07:04 +0000

Nice site 0872! Good site!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by ecfis

ecfis — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:04:25 +0000

Good site!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by foigx

foigx — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:53:32 +0000

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by vwtja

vwtja — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:49:40 +0000

11Good site!!!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by awdir

awdir — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:33:42 +0000

Good site!!!

Comment on Thor– no one can outfight him and no one can outtalk him by yvoec

yvoec — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:32:13 +0000

Good site!!!

Comment on Scruton on Freud by Tony

Tony — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:44:34 +0000

The question posed is why would someone be drawn to present explanations about our nature that demeans us or that turn our common conceptions upside down? Freud, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Marx and others are part of a group that inspire an “ethics of suspicion.” Writers like these are important to read because they allow for a forum where common beliefs can be tested and, in some cases, realized. As Derrida pointed out, I am aware I am a man only when I have seen a woman. Although Freud’s belief in the unconcious is potentially irrefuatable, it might have shown us that we have a conscious. These suspicious thinkers are valuable because they do two things: (1) they test the ground we walk on, which allow us a forum to earn our beliefs; without new ideas testing old ideas, how will we ever know the true value of those old ideas? (2) They provide a contrast which can illuminate beliefs we didn’t even know we had.

Comment on British Philosopher Trashes America; in other News, Dog Bites Man by Questioner

Questioner — Sat, 27 May 2006 19:09:16 +0000

So what are the principles on which Grayling bases his condemnation? You suggest he has an “emasculated” just war theory. In Jeff Hart’s new book on National Review, Hart criticizes the Catholic Church because, among other things, it “developed a ‘just war’ doctrine irrelevant to modern warfare, where the distinction between soldier and civilian collapses . . . (p. 122). I gather you think “just war” theory is still relevant and was relevant in WW II. Please explain where your principles differ from Grayling’s.