| I would have to pick either platonism or postmodernism. The idea that man made concepts such as numbers just happen to float out there independent of the human mind is sort of ridiculous. It's just labels we use to describe stuff. And postmodernism with it's relativistic morality is essentially just excusing evil. The worst of it all is that technically they have a point, "good" and "bad" are also just a label, which I just said don't exist independently of humans, but then they end up at the wrong conclusion from a correct premise. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
JaniSIr said: The idea that man made concepts such as numbers just happen to float out there independent of the human mind is sort of ridiculous. So you think the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter wouldn't exist without humans? |
Reply to Zarutaku
JaniSIr said:
The idea that man made concepts such as numbers just happen to float out there independent of the human mind is sort of ridiculous.
The idea that man made concepts such as numbers just happen to float out there independent of the human mind is sort of ridiculous.
So you think the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter wouldn't exist without humans?
| @Zarutaku I mean maybe there is some alien civilization out there that invented a math equivalent to ours, but a circle is not a physical object. A rock will continue to exist without us, a circle is something we made up. Sure there might be a circle shaped rock, and its shape will not change whether we call it a circle or not, but without anyone having a concept of what a circle or length even is, you can't talk about that. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
Reply to JaniSIr
@Zarutaku I mean maybe there is some alien civilization out there that invented a math equivalent to ours, but a circle is not a physical object.
A rock will continue to exist without us, a circle is something we made up.
Sure there might be a circle shaped rock, and its shape will not change whether we call it a circle or not, but without anyone having a concept of what a circle or length even is, you can't talk about that.
A rock will continue to exist without us, a circle is something we made up.
Sure there might be a circle shaped rock, and its shape will not change whether we call it a circle or not, but without anyone having a concept of what a circle or length even is, you can't talk about that.
| @JaniSIr Then how does this ratio show up in countless processes throughout the cosmos, if it doesn't exist in nature by default? |
| I like Plato. He's kind of like the Greek Buddha. You see how he bequeathed reality to thoughts and concepts, in much the same way Buddhism explains that thoughts are the true nature of objects. The only way to distinguish objects is through the mind and the senses, therefor something like a 'tree' or a 'chair' can't be said to have existence outside our perception of it (simply put :P). In Buddhism that means that actually it has no existence because they don't believe in having a mind any more but Plato is kind of explaining the same thing. For a bad philosophy, I pick solipsism and nihilism. those are both egocentric philosophies which deny a true reality . |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
The idea that man made concepts such as numbers just happen to float out there independent of the human mind is sort of ridiculous You can easily see the expression of human-independent concepts in nature. Take male and female symbolism for example, it's reflected in literally everything. The list is endless. These things aren't the result of randomness or a creation of you humans. They're being informed from beyond. |
| What makes a philosophy bad? Philosophy means love of wisdom, so is a bad philosophy one that hates wisdom? |
| I was never into philosophy, I am not educated in philosophy, I have read very little philosophy. But I've seen people bashing on "postmodernism" in architecture all the time, I never understood it. Because while there is so much postmodern architecture I dont like, there are also so many postmodern architects I really like. I read In Defense of History and it did such a terrible job at confronting postmodern historians. If Evans had more integrity, he would just make a book confronting White instead of tying to expose "postmodernity". It clicked with me when I rewatched some Jordan Peterson slop I watched when I was 15. Peterson literally came up with his own version of what is "postmodernity", grouped every modernist idea he didn't like into it and made a career out of exposing a made-up philosophy. |
Commit_CrimeSep 6, 6:17 AM
 |
| I noticed most people have no clue what they are talking about when they talk bad about moral relativism to such a degree they are not even on Wikipedia level. Literally no research American philosopher Richard Rorty in particular has argued that the label of being a "relativist" has become warped and turned into a sort of pejorative. He has written specifically that thinkers labeled as such usually simply believe "that the grounds for choosing between such [philosophical] opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", not that every single conceptual idea is as valid as any other. In this spirit, Rorty has lamented that "philosophers have... become increasingly isolated from the rest of culture." Moral relativism is more about understanding context and acknowledging the reality different people do indeed not agree on morals. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| I am not sure that is the meaning of postmodernism. It seems more of a criticism of traditional narratives and romanticism, and I can at least understand that notion. It is more a rejection of an objective history rather than the meaningless of morality. This is not to say I do not have my own criticisms. |
 "Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” |
| I guess will depend on the metric by which we gauge what is a bad philosophy. Is it being philosophically non-robust (postmodernism or cultural relativism comes to mind) is it having worse outcomes in the world when practiced (Marxism, fascism, antinatalism, or third worldism/postcolonialism can apply here) is it the insidiousness of being able to pass through most people's bs radar unscathed (nativism or anti-market sentiment can apply here) There are many dimensions that can make a worldview bad. |
 |
Reply to Zarutaku
@JaniSIr Did we really come up with it, or did we evolve from nature, and have "recently" become capable of discovering its fundamental workings?
| @Zarutaku if we weren't capable of understanding our environment we'd have gone extinct long ago. But the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. (I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.) |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
Reply to traed
I noticed most people have no clue what they are talking about when they talk bad about moral relativism to such a degree they are not even on Wikipedia level. Literally no research
Moral relativism is more about understanding context and acknowledging the reality different people do indeed not agree on morals.
American philosopher Richard Rorty in particular has argued that the label of being a "relativist" has become warped and turned into a sort of pejorative. He has written specifically that thinkers labeled as such usually simply believe "that the grounds for choosing between such [philosophical] opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", not that every single conceptual idea is as valid as any other. In this spirit, Rorty has lamented that "philosophers have... become increasingly isolated from the rest of culture."
Moral relativism is more about understanding context and acknowledging the reality different people do indeed not agree on morals.
| @traed That's a pretty reasonable description, however if the "strawman" line of thought is actually widespread, then that word becoming a slur is not unjustified. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
Reply to JaniSIr
@Zarutaku if we weren't capable of understanding our environment we'd have gone extinct long ago.
But the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. (I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.)
But the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. (I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.)
JaniSIr said: the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. Why can a description not hit the nail on the head? JaniSIr said: I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory. Not quite believe, but if it's a non-anthropocentric one, then it's a not too unreasonable possibility, with a few indications. |
Reply to Zarutaku
JaniSIr said:
the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative.
the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative.
Why can a description not hit the nail on the head?
JaniSIr said:
I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.
I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.
Not quite believe, but if it's a non-anthropocentric one, then it's a not too unreasonable possibility, with a few indications.
| @Zarutaku I'm not sure how you mean that. The quality of the description is its predictive power, but even if it is really good there is an abstraction layer by necessity. I think that's too ridiculous to entertain seriously, until there is a good evidence to the contrary, and that'll probably never happen. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
Reply to JaniSIr
@Zarutaku I'm not sure how you mean that. The quality of the description is its predictive power, but even if it is really good there is an abstraction layer by necessity.
I think that's too ridiculous to entertain seriously, until there is a good evidence to the contrary, and that'll probably never happen.
I think that's too ridiculous to entertain seriously, until there is a good evidence to the contrary, and that'll probably never happen.
JaniSIr said: until there is a good evidence to the contrary Probably no evidence yet, but there's rational reasoning, if we assume quantum theory to be true, then it can be asked why nature is quantized, and a reasonable answer is that it has to be, similar to how we have to quantize our own simulations. |
| My experience tells me that any adherence to a strict philosophy or ideology will eventually turn you into either a fanatic or a hypocrite. |
 |
| A generic answer would be Marxism/socialism/communism but those are extremely influential for both sides of the political spectrum That's hard to say, honestly. I would probably say Nihilism |
| Where is Meusnier when you need him. My impression (as a physics person not of this particular subfield) is that the notion of the universe being a simulation actually has purchase in the sense that we might be able to think about the way the universe encodes and deals with information as similar to how computers encode and deal with information. If you want to be flashy about it, as all pop-science does, you can say that signs that the universe deals with information the same way computers do indicate that we are some kind of program run on a computer. But where it actually makes sense is not as a claim of ultimate reality, but as a way to think about how information works in physics. Further, again not claiming to know the field here, I'd think that what it would mean for ontology that "we're living in a simulation" isn't obvious. A computer encodes information and represents it using its hardware or whatever (also not a CS person); how is that different from the universe containing information and representing it via matter? I'm not sure. If the provocative aspect of simulation theory is the programmer, well, I don't see how that's much different from God, or whatever other thing the foundation of the universe is thought to be. As to good and bad philosophies, well, the tradition of disputation finds bad arguments useful. I wonder how much you can place philosophy on the good/bad spectrum though, because as a field it's not like marketing, rhetoric, or football, which can function probabilistically because they assume truth either inaccessible or unknown. Truths are certainly unknown to philosophy, but it is inherently in the business of claiming truth or falsehood. Philosophy seems to me thus either right or wrong; Wrong philosophy posits the wrong entities in the universe. Though philosophical schools can have bad pedagogy or praxis independent of the entities posited by their philosophy. As to Platonism, circles somehow manifest themselves in the universe with some regularity (even when they're actually ellipses). Physically this definitely means something, and it means something exists that allows circles to manifest. In AdS/CFT class my professor used to say that particles are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group; it seems like physicists that think about ontology do entertain the notion that math is literally real, and that we are made of reified bits of math. Rorty is right that accusations of relativism mean very little; in particular, calling postmodernism relativist misses what postmodernism is doing. That said, liberalism and capitalism have indeed made many people true, crass relativists, allowing any valuation scheme and calling them all equal, as long as they all map the entirety of reality onto money and utility. Notice that these real relativists are not postmodernist at all. Now quoting Rorty: It is no more evident that democratic institutions are to be measured by the sort of person they create than that they are to be measured against divine commands. ... Even if the typical character types of liberal democracies are bland, calculating, petty, and unheroic, the prevalence of such people may be a reasonable price to pay for political freedom. Hence the fanatical believe that taste is subjective. Notice that even the idea that truth, language, and such are social constructs is a truth statement; the postmodernists did not think they were wrong, so clearly they were not ultimately relativists. They clearly thought the universe was real; whether it was one thing, or multiple things, or changed over time are different questions. I'm in the middle of The Archaeology of Knowledge by Michel Foucault, and though perhaps this is an unfair characterization, he's kind of trying to pull a Cartesian doubt-everything on the field of history of knowledge. I think he might be about to say that statements are kind of like the dual space to meaning, mapping all possible contexts to all possible meanings given those contexts (I know all possible contexts isn't a vector space, and all possible meanings not a field, but whatever). Whatever he's saying, it's not relativist. |
| I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour and who then asks: Am I then a cheat? – for he wants to perish. |
| @auroraloose I love you. Please tear apart Roko's Basilisk some more. OT: I know this is considered pseudo-philosophy, and I am not sure of the definition, but...objectivism is probably the funniest name one could give to their own ideology. OBJECTIVE-ism. A very "you need a high IQ to understand Rick and Morty" sort of move from Ayn Rand here. If I ever create my own ideology, I am going to call it something like "auroraloosism" or "philosoppai". In terms of what I hate the most, CMTU is probably the biggest pile of shit I read. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. |
PeripheralVisionSep 6, 7:09 PM
"Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” |
Reply to PeripheralVision
@auroraloose I love you. Please tear apart Roko's Basilisk some more.
OT: I know this is considered pseudo-philosophy, and I am not sure of the definition, but...objectivism is probably the funniest name one could give to their own ideology. OBJECTIVE-ism. A very "you need a high IQ to understand Rick and Morty" sort of move from Ayn Rand here. If I ever create my own ideology, I am going to call it something like "auroraloosism" or "philosoppai".
In terms of what I hate the most, CMTU is probably the biggest pile of shit I read. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.
OT: I know this is considered pseudo-philosophy, and I am not sure of the definition, but...objectivism is probably the funniest name one could give to their own ideology. OBJECTIVE-ism. A very "you need a high IQ to understand Rick and Morty" sort of move from Ayn Rand here. If I ever create my own ideology, I am going to call it something like "auroraloosism" or "philosoppai".
In terms of what I hate the most, CMTU is probably the biggest pile of shit I read. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.
| @PeripheralVision Roko's basilisk is just edgy reddit Pascal's wager. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| The underbaked, infantile understanding of "nihilism," where people think it just means you're edgy and cool and don't care about anything. For starters, no matter how laidback or uncaring people want to act unless you are literally wired differently and dangerous, everyone cares to some degree about a lot of things. And everyone cares to a large degree about at least a few things. But more than that, it's just the tepid and tenuous grasp on the concept. The concept of nihilism at it's core actually relates more to stoicism which I would argue is the most important philosophy there is. It's a philosophy that in it's final stages is about self-appointed meaning, morality, and caring because you care, not because you have a reason to. |
auroraloose said: If the provocative aspect of simulation theory is the programmer, well, I don't see how that's much different from God, or whatever other thing the foundation of the universe is thought to be. The difference is in the post-creation role. A program just runs on its own, without ongoing intervention. That points to a chaotic, doomed universe whose "god" is absent, long dead or simply asleep - which is very different from the active, sustaining role of a deity in most religions. auroraloose said: But where it actually makes sense is not as a claim of ultimate reality, but as a way to think about how information works in physics. I find it fascinating that quantum uncertainty (and the idea of hidden variables, of course) in physics is strikingly similar to lazy-loading in data science. It ties back to an anthropocentric view of the universe, since we seem to be the only observers capable of collapsing its states. And if you push the thought further, there is a good chance that all those beautiful macro-objects - stars, galaxies, clusters - don't even "exist" in the sense of having their full states defined. Instead, the universe might be gradually unrolling in step with our expanding observational capabilities, haha. The moon isn't there until you look at it. I like this cosmology, it leaves us at least a sliver of hope. PS: Now our beloved "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" takes on new colors, as humanity itself seems to act like a collective god, and the creation being an ongoing process... Come on, join our church already, and drop your dollar in the box! |
LoveYourSmileSep 7, 12:54 AM
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to JaniSIr
@Zarutaku if we weren't capable of understanding our environment we'd have gone extinct long ago.
But the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. (I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.)
But the model was fit onto nature, it's descriptive, not authoritative. (I hope you don't believe in the "we live in a simulation" theory.)
| Saying the universe is a simulation is dumb just for being poorly worded. It's like, okay... what's it a simulation of? Lol In other words there's a universe out there where everything looks precisely the same as ours, but ours is a cheap copy of it, maybe playing out in some alien holodeck? If someone actually means to say this universe is fake then he's much closer to the truth. |
XMGA030Sep 7, 2:03 AM
| Facism, ultra-nationalism, any other 選民思想-based philosophy. I'm not saying that either patriotism or hatred towards other nations is particularly bad (the second one is acceptable if there's a reason for that), I'm referring to the ideologies that go like: "We are the best, because it's us, and everyone else is trash, because blah blah blah". |
 |
Reply to XMGA030
Saying the universe is a simulation is dumb just for being poorly worded. It's like, okay... what's it a simulation of? Lol
In other words there's a universe out there where everything looks precisely the same as ours, but ours is a cheap copy of it, maybe playing out in some alien holodeck?
If someone actually means to say this universe is fake then he's much closer to the truth.
In other words there's a universe out there where everything looks precisely the same as ours, but ours is a cheap copy of it, maybe playing out in some alien holodeck?
If someone actually means to say this universe is fake then he's much closer to the truth.
| @XMGA030 I threw that in as a joke, I didn't expect people to seriously reply to that. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| Anything that isn't Diogenes. If you aren't using public hearings for shitting and pissing publicly then you are living life wrong. |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
Reply to JaniSIr
@traed That's a pretty reasonable description, however if the "strawman" line of thought is actually widespread, then that word becoming a slur is not unjustified.
| @JaniSIr I have never seen anyone with a view all morals are equal inherently. A moral can be only good or bad relative to how this is measured by culture or by individual psychology. I guess it just means there are little to no universal morals is an easier way to understand. Anyway you are talking about is closer to a different philosophy that I think has different origins. Moral nihilism (also called ethical nihilism) is the metaethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality does not exist. Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions to be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. It is also distinct from expressivism, according to which when we make moral claims, "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is ... we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Reply to vasipi4946
Anything that isn't Diogenes.
If you aren't using public hearings for shitting and pissing publicly then you are living life wrong.
If you aren't using public hearings for shitting and pissing publicly then you are living life wrong.
| @vasipi4946 I know what I need to do, but I don't know if I have the will to do it. :( |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| Atheism and nihilism are the worst. |
  |
| @LoveYourSmile Everything you just said is wrong. Ya liberal-capitalist art fanatic. First the easy one: LoveYourSmile said: The difference is in the post-creation role. A program just runs on its own, without ongoing intervention. That points to a chaotic, doomed universe whose "god" is absent, long dead or simply asleep - which is very different from the active, sustaining role of a deity in most religions. I think you're forgetting about deism. Now to quantum mechanics: LoveYourSmile said: I find it fascinating that quantum uncertainty (and the idea of hidden variables, of course) in physics is strikingly similar to lazy-loading in data science. Again, not claiming to be an expert in the physics of information and its relation to quantum mechanics, or in computer science, but it seems to me the only similarity is that "wavefunction collapse" and lazy loading both involve a situation in which an "answer" is delayed. Lazy loading involves not constructing objects that take up memory until necessary; a quantum superposition (in one basis!) transitioning into a pure state (in another basis!) involves no change in the "size" of the object at issue. A particle is still a particle, however it's weighted in its Hilbert space. Indeed, at least compared to the basis in which the nice, local dot on the detector is a pure state, the prior state of superposition (again, in the basis we like!) is more complicated. I think it's more like asking a pseudo-random number generator to give you a number; you don't know what you're going to get, and the one number is far less information than the pseudo-random number generator itself, but all that information is still there in the generator, and was necessary to produce the number. So if there is an analogy between lazy loading and uncertainty in quantum mechanics (I'm not saying there's not, because again, I'm not an expert), then I don't think it can be what you described. I was actually adjacent in my graduate studies to people who do think about the physics of information, but it's not something every physicist necessarily knows. (Also remember that quantum mechanics is determininstic as far as the wavefunction goes; the Schrödinger equation tells you exactly what the wavefunction is, and what its time evolution must be. More on this in a moment.) LoveYourSmile said: It ties back to an anthropocentric view of the universe, since we seem to be the only observers capable of collapsing its states. My impression—at least from among the physics community I was around—is that most physicists don't like this kind of immaterialism in quantum mechanics. I believe Jesus is going to return, wrap the universe up like a scroll (whatever that means), burn it up, and make a new one, and I don't like that kind of immaterialism in quantum mechanics. I think the philosophers who argue the world can't be fully material/physical are right, but I am highly reluctant to try to appeal to quantum mechanics as evidence. The theory itself gives us no reason to think that humans, as physical objects, are any different as "detectors" from anything else. My understanding is that what gets called "wavefunction collapse" (which I put in scare quotes because it's the popular term, and I'm not sure what the best technical term would be because I've never tried to get into the foundations of quantum mechanics) disappears if your wavefunction actually encompasses a big enough system, i.e. the particle impinging on the detector and the detector itself. Of course, you can't truly separate these from the rest of the universe, so what you'd have to do is time-evolve the wavefunction of the entire universe. This is where I start being unwilling to talk further, because I don't know enough (I remember seeing Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in the university library and checking it out because such a thing is obviously awesome, but I didn't actually read it, because it's too inaccessible for someone not actually an expert in the subject). Holography in quantum field theory and cosmology suggests that the "volume" (called the bulk) of the universe can actually be entirely expressed by physics on the "edge" (called the boundary). In other words, the whole universe is a hologram defined by what happens at its "edge" (complicated by general relativity and cosmology, which do not require the universe to have an "edge," but this is actually surmountable). And in scattering in quantum field theory, the path-integral formulation suggestively adds up probabilities of all possible trajectories to produce the one that "actually" happens. But it starts at time negative infinity, and ends at time positive infinity. These too are boundaries, and—in the middle, things aren't completely defined. (This is actually true of energy calculations in general relativity as well.) All this is correct. And my speculative implication is this: Maybe the beginning and end are fixed, but there is no way to fully define or pin down the now, and it really can unfold in all sorts of unpredictable ways. |
| I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour and who then asks: Am I then a cheat? – for he wants to perish. |
Reply to traed
@JaniSIr
I have never seen anyone with a view all morals are equal inherently. A moral can be only good or bad relative to how this is measured by culture or by individual psychology. I guess it just means there are little to no universal morals is an easier way to understand. Anyway you are talking about is closer to a different philosophy that I think has different origins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
I have never seen anyone with a view all morals are equal inherently. A moral can be only good or bad relative to how this is measured by culture or by individual psychology. I guess it just means there are little to no universal morals is an easier way to understand. Anyway you are talking about is closer to a different philosophy that I think has different origins.
Moral nihilism (also called ethical nihilism) is the metaethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality does not exist.
Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions to be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. It is also distinct from expressivism, according to which when we make moral claims, "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is ... we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action".
Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions to be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. It is also distinct from expressivism, according to which when we make moral claims, "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is ... we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
traed said: But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out. This isn't correct, unless you're careful by what you mean by "standard." As the Wikipedia page goes on to say, In fact Mackie and other contemporary defenders of Error Theory, such as Richard Joyce, defend the use of moral or ethical talk and action even in knowledge of their fundamental falsity. Appealing to false structures or standards because they're useful in some context is the same reduction of everything to power, "science," money, or whatever. So that moral nihilists have "standards," whatever those are, doesn't water down the nihilism. Further, while there is indeed a difference between relativism and nihilism, because relativism is often contextual (i.e., in this culture something might be okay, but in another one it'd be bad), the way relativism gets appealed to in practice usually ends up in argument actually being the nihilistic claim that all there is is power: Because in different cultures different things might be okay, that culture itself is a construct means that all that exists is the power to construct systems, and no system is better than another. This is why Nietzsche isn't actually a nihilist: He didn't want people to become Last Men, the kind of people Rorty talks about who are "bland, calculating, petty, and unheroic" because keeping people like that helps maintain liberal democracy. He believed that everything was power, yes, but where he was different from the liberal capitalist was in that he wanted to build something with dignity, and he had a clear idea of what that was. He didn't place everything under consumer preference. |
| I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour and who then asks: Am I then a cheat? – for he wants to perish. |
| Ah yes, I see Key board warriors brawling for no reasons I would pick Over-Consumerism As a casual user of Tiktok, a lot of people are low key brainwashed to consume excessive things for short term clout Like one example: Labubu Matcha Crumble Golden Cookie Keychain If we don't pick our interests, others will pick them for us |
Casual Manga/Manhwa/Manhua Reader |
Reply to traed
@JaniSIr
I have never seen anyone with a view all morals are equal inherently. A moral can be only good or bad relative to how this is measured by culture or by individual psychology. I guess it just means there are little to no universal morals is an easier way to understand. Anyway you are talking about is closer to a different philosophy that I think has different origins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
I have never seen anyone with a view all morals are equal inherently. A moral can be only good or bad relative to how this is measured by culture or by individual psychology. I guess it just means there are little to no universal morals is an easier way to understand. Anyway you are talking about is closer to a different philosophy that I think has different origins.
Moral nihilism (also called ethical nihilism) is the metaethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality does not exist.
Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions to be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. It is also distinct from expressivism, according to which when we make moral claims, "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is ... we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action".
Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions to be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. It is also distinct from expressivism, according to which when we make moral claims, "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is ... we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
| @traed I suppose this extreme level of well defined moral relativist views are pretty rare, but it still has influence in pop culture and politics. That's how you get movie villains that are portrayed as not evil but misunderstood, or really just people justifying double standards... |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| The Grass Is always greener? Actually that's a pretty accurate phrase, I just couldn't think of anything at the moment. XD |
 |
Reply to SushiSuperLover
Ah yes, I see Key board warriors brawling for no reasons
I would pick Over-Consumerism
As a casual user of Tiktok, a lot of people are low key brainwashed to consume excessive things for short term clout
Like one example:
Labubu Matcha Crumble Golden Cookie Keychain
If we don't pick our interests, others will pick them for us
I would pick Over-Consumerism
As a casual user of Tiktok, a lot of people are low key brainwashed to consume excessive things for short term clout
Like one example:
Labubu Matcha Crumble Golden Cookie Keychain
If we don't pick our interests, others will pick them for us
| @SushiSuperLover I don't think that counts as a philosophy, because the whole point of those sales tactics is to avoid the slow thinking processes that philosophy was supposed to rely on, and trick the subconscious to spend money basically thoughtlessly. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
auroraloose said: I think you're forgetting about deism. I think the idea of god makes no sense then. At all. You can just say "it is as it is", and not invent any god abstraction. auroraloose said: Lazy loading involves not constructing objects that take up memory until necessary; a quantum superposition (in one basis!) transitioning into a pure state (in another basis!) involves no change in the "size" of the object at issue. The point is the cost of computations. Say, you have a very compact evolving algorithm that only produces the material world (not just matter, but the laws of physics themselves) when needed, quantum uncertainty is just an observable side effect of that computational economy. auroraloose said: Ya liberal-capitalist art fanatic. How else could one exist in this beautiful world?  |
LoveYourSmileSep 7, 10:24 PM
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to auroraloose
traed said:
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
But even Moral Nihilism also does not inherently mean not trying to have a standard it just rejects calling these morals as real things beyond what people value them at and is a power struggle of clashing goals trying to beat each other out.
This isn't correct, unless you're careful by what you mean by "standard." As the Wikipedia page goes on to say,
In fact Mackie and other contemporary defenders of Error Theory, such as Richard Joyce, defend the use of moral or ethical talk and action even in knowledge of their fundamental falsity.
Appealing to false structures or standards because they're useful in some context is the same reduction of everything to power, "science," money, or whatever. So that moral nihilists have "standards," whatever those are, doesn't water down the nihilism.
Further, while there is indeed a difference between relativism and nihilism, because relativism is often contextual (i.e., in this culture something might be okay, but in another one it'd be bad), the way relativism gets appealed to in practice usually ends up in argument actually being the nihilistic claim that all there is is power: Because in different cultures different things might be okay, that culture itself is a construct means that all that exists is the power to construct systems, and no system is better than another.
This is why Nietzsche isn't actually a nihilist: He didn't want people to become Last Men, the kind of people Rorty talks about who are "bland, calculating, petty, and unheroic" because keeping people like that helps maintain liberal democracy. He believed that everything was power, yes, but where he was different from the liberal capitalist was in that he wanted to build something with dignity, and he had a clear idea of what that was. He didn't place everything under consumer preference.
| @auroraloose I don't feel well or am doing well but am going to try to reply anyway as a poor distraction so I may not be as clear as I would be if in a better state. By standard I think I meant more in terms of personal standards as in having a sort of consistency and sense of self because inconsistency can be not so much predictable in results so it could be seen as undesirable and lacking a sense of self could be in some cases troubling for an individual. When viewing morals in other terms than morals this is where level of prediction comes in that it ties onto understanding other mechanisms such as power struggles, which of course does not inherently mean only dominating others but can be trying to be free from others, if such a thing is even possible while remaining in a society. I am not so sure that is true that relativist arguments usually must be nihilistic ones. When I spoke of "context" I was thinking more of how different morals arise through different conditions of an individual and culture. They lean relatively good not because of any universality of morals or because of a rejection of morals entirely but because majority of individuals and cultures are only doing the best they can with what they have. So moral relativism can be used as an argument against using violence and other coercion to change morals. So it may not inherently be saying no system is better than another from a higher view but could be questioning how would you even determine what morals are better if your own are also the result of your own limitations of your culture. Of course there also is the issue of asking what is culture. Since the boundaries of culture are not black and white but very blurry and mixed especially in this internet age. So one could argue individual morals holds more significance since individuals can become very different from the culture they are in by either being influenced by other cultures directly or their life experiences more resembles that of those in other cultures than their own. Some morals are more common than others, though one also should not assume more common is inherently better but it gives a reason to pause to examine history and current conditions why it became more common. I am aware (oh fuck here I go again struggling to spell his name) Nietzsche is an opponent of nihilism at least how I assume it was defined in his time but at same time I kind of get why he became seen as a nihilist in a sort of redefining way. Though I could be wrong and maybe he isn't the first. I have only skimmed some of his writing before but I have read the entirety of Ego and His Own by Max Stirner once although it also was a fast read. Stirner's Egoism is thought to of had an influence on Nietzsche. It is a bit difficult to interpret since Max was cheeky where some of his more absurd statements have been actually criticisms that if you are going to be selfish don't be selfish in a way that turns others against you. Though it has been a while so Im not paraphrasing just the general sense I got from him. |
traedSep 8, 2:46 AM
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Objectivism (Ayn Rand's bullshit hyper-individualist ideology) is the Nickelback of philosophical thought. “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers |
Take care of yourself |
| What's so bad about hyper individualism? the Nickelback of philosophical thought. ouch |
Reply to LoveLikeBlood
Objectivism (Ayn Rand's bullshit hyper-individualist ideology) is the Nickelback of philosophical thought.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers
| @LoveLikeBlood Ayn Rand herself is quite odd. She would go on about welfare being bad but she voluntarily signed go for welfare. She constantly defended tobacco companies saying smoking doesn't cause cancer then she got lung cancer from her smoking. She also based the hero of Atlas Shrugged on a murderer of a 12 year old girl which he also dismembered his name being name Edward Hickman. She idolized that guy as an ideal. She also cheated on her husband and then beat up the guy she cheated on with because he did the same with her and used her own same justification. Seriously WTF https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Reply to XMGA030
What's so bad about hyper individualism?
ouch
the Nickelback of philosophical thought.
ouch
| @XMGA030 I suppose the issue stems from game theory, where the longterm best strategy is cooperation. Basically your self interest is to nurture your community as far as they don't take advantage of your good will. |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| Well i definitely cant stand any religious philosophy. I like ancient philosophers, they really got a lot right and said amazingly interesting thoughts although they lived 2000 years before us. And btw not all of them believed in gods, many understood that it was just a fairytale for the masses. And the most unexpected thing is that i like Nietzsche. I have read almost all of his books, and i have read Zarathustra about three times. Well i know that he often gets REALLY carried away, many of his ideas generally resemble social darwinism and other far right crap, but... i think that he said right things in many ways and Zarathustra really changed my life, me before and me after this book is two completely different persons. But still Nietzsche is too life loving for me. Closest philosophy to me is radical antinatalism or efilism, the idea that this life is full of suffering and that origin of life on this planet was a mistake and it should not have happened. |
| If we aren't going with nationalism since that is something that can take many different forms, I would definitely have to pick out Ayn Rand's philosoophy of objectivism as it is a moral philosophy that actively encourages toxic and selfish behaviors. It can be interesting to pull from when creating fictional settings and characters (like BioShock for example which uses a lot of Rand's philosophy to create the city of Rapture), but since it is an ideology that is actively thrives off of selfish behaviors instead of empathy it is probably not something you should follow |
This post is brought to you by your local transfem gamer goblin. Will not tolerate bigotry and will fight against "anti-woke" sentiment to make the anime community a safer place.  |
JaniSIr said: And postmodernism with it's relativistic morality is essentially just excusing evil. As a self-describe postmodernist at this point (it was a long journey to arrive here though - I no longer see as valid the pretensions of universality and universal applicability and/or idealist aspirations of the whole laundry list of ideologies, some of which I formerly subscribed to for years), it isn't really about "excusing evil", because you cannot "excuse" a wholly fictional concept to begin with. The entire basis for it as a concept is purely mythological, unscientific/non-biologically based, and not rooted in any tangible material reality. "Evil" in the sense as thought of or defined by most is about as useful for attribution or an explanation for actions or behavior as the old Ancient Greek pantheon like Zeus and the like are for explaining meteorological phenomena like lightning. But as a term it's not and never was intended to explain so much as to attribute blame in a simplistic way, insult, and othering individuals and categories of people. And also to vilify and demonize so as to secure community/popular support and approval for killing or otherwise harming those whom the label has been applied to. |
WatchTillTandavaSep 8, 11:59 AM
Kwanthemaster said: Atheism x_scolopendra_x said: Well i definitely cant stand any religious philosophy. *puts on Mortal Kombat music* FIGHT! |
| Anti-aliasing enthusiast |
| Anything about Communism/Marxism and anything from the Frankfurt School of Thought |
Reply to JaniSIr
Kwanthemaster said:
Atheism
Atheism
x_scolopendra_x said:
Well i definitely cant stand any religious philosophy.
Well i definitely cant stand any religious philosophy.
*puts on Mortal Kombat music*
FIGHT!
| @JaniSIr |
|
More topics from this board
» Young vloggers/Youtube rabbit holesW3TFT - 6 hours ago |
3 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» things you watched anyway that your parents didn't allow you toTheBlockernator - 6 hours ago |
7 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» What are you doing right now? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-Mayhem- - Dec 25, 2020 |
1717 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» If some scientists theorize that many women have big butts to attract males... why do some males have big butts naturally? ( 1 2 )Absurdo_N - May 31 |
60 |
by PeripheralVision
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» Thoughts on utopia?getah_karet - Aug 30 |
18 |
by User8492
»»
4 hours ago |