fuckphilosophy.com

this isn’t exactly philosophy, but i was just thinking that in the future the handy-man of the past will become the man who is handy at computers and the internet. the physically engineered world of bricks, wood and nails will become the computer component/software component/net communication world. this will leave people’s homes in disrepair, and their living space a shambles. the old-fashioned handy-man will of course still be necessary, and i’m thinking that they may become a kind of leisured class, making good money per hour, overtime whenever they want, etc. yet they may still be looked down on socially…therefore…?

what is the difference between some kinds of rationalistic argument (as in the rationalist philosophers who would deduce supposedly necessary truths that could turn out to be counter-intuitive and/or incongruent with experience, but since reason reigns it must be true – for the rationalists) and something like the above deducing of some possible future? both start with some clear and distinct ideas (in the above example it would be the starting point from which that future is projected – today). and both would proceed along some rational path of argument (in the above example it would be the reasonable cause/effect relationship between such socio-economic situations).