Worst philosophies

She's just a free-market libertarian and not a very good philosopher of one. @Auron recommended me some non-Marxist authors/economists earlier that may be better suited for making many of Rand's general claims more coherent, maybe?



To be clear, Nozick is seemingly an anarchist, which does not mean he necessarily agrees with Rand, who is for the free-market and a government that rigorously defended property rights. David Graeber was after all a self-proclaimed anarchist and he leaned very far to the left.

Which funnily enough, Huemer and Nozick both criticized her and many of her positions/reasonings.

There's two main reasons why she is infamous.

1. Her philosophy, objectivism was the literal inspiration for the society Rapture in Bioshock.
2. In the states, the Objectivist foundation gives away free books to public schools extolling the virtues of objectivism.
3. It is literally just libertarianism by another name to most people. Funny because she hated libertarianism because she thought it led to anarchy.

Since I'm the one who started this, maybe this will end it:

Whether math is discovered or invented is mostly irrelevant, what really matters is what we do with it.

Hmm, I guess I'll throw in some of my brief thoughts on the math philosophy stuff as well (I'm no mathematician though lol)

Units of measurement (mm, cm, m, km), and units of time (second, minute, hour) were invented by humans in order to make everyday life more convenient for ourselves and for the world. Algebraic notations were also invented, and they’re used to try and make sense of math and come to conclusions. Symbols like “1, 2, 3” were invented by humans as well in order to represent and communicate quantity and numerical concepts.

Does math exist independently of humans? Yeah, I believe so.

Some examples of math being "naturally beautiful" and discovered:

Aliens from far away galaxies use something else to represent numbers other than “1, 2, 3,” but the beauty in the frameworks are still there.

The Pythagorean Theorem and C = (pi)d, are also discoveries rather than inventions—they exist independently of humans and are inherently/naturally true regardless of whether humans discovered them or not.

Since I'm the one who started this, maybe this will end it:

Whether math is discovered or invented is mostly irrelevant, what really matters is what we do with it.

@Zarutaku Strongly disagree. The existence of numbers independently from humans is a frequent apologist argument, as that opens up the possibility of non-physical things, such as God.

Both are same terrible progressivism.


Infinite has the best story and Gunplay. 1 has better atmosphere that's it. 1 anti capitalists nonsense. 2 childless millennial story. Audio dairy piss poor in 2 and slightly interesting in 1.

If you played game higher than normal you realize the powers and the increased to abilities is what you need to win

A correction, Nozick is not an anarchist. The first part of Anarchy, State and Utopia is explicitly arguing against anarchism (and bringing some of the most scathing critiques of it, I would say) in favor of a minimal state (which I also disagree with, but is significantly more defensible), so yeah he would be a night watchman state supporter, I suppose. Really, all 3 of these people do not agree with Rand so would not make her more coherent, lol (they can make libertarianism more coherent I guess).

And ofc anarchism is not necessarily is a right wing ideology, if anything the most mainstream versions of it are left wing like Graeber whom you mentioned.

For more of the substantive criticisms of Objectivism, see Why I am not an Objectivist by Michael Huemer. I think it's always better to find critiques of a view by someone who understands and studied it a long time. The same reason why this criticism of Marxism from a longtime Marxist who studied it extensively is of more merit to me.

Certainly the hottest take in this thread, and one I simply do not understand. Infinite was the Fallout 4 of the franchise.

• The gun upgrading mechanism is garbage. Certainly 1 was not spectacular in that regard, but at least you get to carry your firearms from when you obtained them to when you finish the game. Infinite incentivizes against upgrading many guns since you likely will not be able to find another copy in certain areas. Also no alternative ammo; if you want something incendiary you have to pick up the Vox launcher.
  
  
• Vigors are prohibitively expensive in terms of their upgrades. You basically have to scrounge around for coins. Bioshock 1 and 2 uses a separate currency for upgrading them.
  
  
• Salts barely exist, which is not a huge issue but this makes guns not only a substantial portion of your damage, but makes combos of vigors too expensive for experimentation.
  
  
• On higher difficulty you could trivialized the game with Winter Shield. Double this with destructive, close-range weapons like the shotgun.
  
  
• Environmental kills are basically lobbing people off into the clouds below.
  
  
• Greater movement does not make for a better game.
  
  
• Yeah, Andrew Ryan and his city is more interesting because his philosophy is not just "white supremacist evangelism". Give me anti-capitalist nonsense over anti-racist nonsense with reality warping shenanigans with an amnesiac Vietnam vet. There is a tragedy to Ryan's vision because his grievances with the above world are very real.
  
  

To be fair, Infinite is much more of a shooter than Bioshock 1 and 2 are, which borrows from System Shock in that it has certain elements of immersive sims (A shooter with light RPG elements, one could say?)

I can understand liking shooters and other games more, tbh. I think the thing with Infinite is that it is carried by its story/Elizabeth.

@PeripheralVision that's how I know you weren't around 2 is the everyone hates. Infinite only got hate the after anti woke nonsense. 1 nothing more than Communism with extras steps. 2 childless millennial story.

Lol wtf you smoking? Gameplay it's top prioritized. If the gameplay sucks no one will give a fuck if the story. You ever heard BlazBlue amazing story but no one cares it's a fighting game. Story back everything except rpg

Funny part 2 and 1 only have 2 environmental kills oil fire or electric water that's lol. Infinite had about 4 not much than previous. Movement and feel good everything in a shooter. You forgot unique enemies that infinite has 2 and 1 just crack heads.

Race and religion plays small part in infinite. It tackle same themes similar themes to 1, done far better.

Ps fallout 4 better 3 only because the world made sense. @MissHeed the only one qualified to speak of fallout correct us. If want good philosophy I look towards Asia or Africa. European and American philosophy shit lol

@AmityBlight Most people believe the second Bioshock has the best gameplay and perhaps nothing else. It does not help that what has been said of Rapture has been said better in the first Bioshock.



You can have mediocre gameplay if the story is good or there is high hentai potential. I know you Elizabeth stans. For example, Mass Effect. While it is true you can have a shit story and a good game, you can also have a game be carried by its story. Another example, Wolfenstein II: The Old Colossus. The gameplay was far weaker than in the first Wolfenstein, so the story carried it.

I am not saying that Bioshock: Infinite has exceptionally bad gameplay but an exceptionally uninteresting story and environment.



What exactly is there for me to think about in terms of their society? There is not incentive to explorations because A. No rewards like unique gene tonics in the map or power to the people stations and B. Gear is basically just a few steps away from the beaten path, and most confer minor advantages if they aren't breaking the game like Winter Shield.

]There is nothing interesting in their society because of how you easily you can reject the Founder's nativist ideology out of hand. It is a streamlined game design that is a sharp departure from the first two entries.

To further criticize it, even Caesar's Legion from Fallout: New Vegas has more to say, and they are a fascist slave-owning society. What is the excuse for Columbia?

Yes, I agree with you that the racism and bigotry is not a major part of the overall story, but it just makes the world fundamentally less interesting as a result because while Columbia is the result of an ideology, the ideology rarely intersects with the player's interest or the story of Booker and Elizabeth. The setting does not factor nearly as well in the actual story of Booker and Elizabeth. The ideology of the Founders is almost an afterthought. Bioshock is the exact opposite in how much it encourages exploration.

Only one of these games disallows backtracking for a large part of the game. Only one of these games overlooks its own grounded setting for a story about reality manipulation and time-travel.

I mean, I suppose I understand finding Elizabeth more interesting in terms of the whole aspect of control and fate(?), but personally I just like Rapture more. I suppose we have our own preferences lol.

@PeripheralVision People liked the story of Wolfenstein 2 *New* Colossus? O.o
I thought it was offensively dumb, and totally ruined the game.
The only good thing I can say about that game is that it's less bad than New Blood, that game is not even fun in coop...

Bioshock infinite's story was decent, the issue was that you had to play a whole game to get a 15 minute story, that's sort of detached from the game.
Edit: @MissHeed That part didn't even register with me, I didn't follow all that...

What about New Vegas? I remember liking Fallout 3 a lot and even finished the DLCs for it, but never really got into NV myself when it came out except for loving the idea of post-apocalyptic Rome larpers

@JaniSIr The story is most told tho audio diary which are hidden very well in the game. Not your fault.

Unless you're an achievement or trophy hunter you mostly haven't seen them all. Been about 15 years since I last played BioShock. Off the dome.

@MissHeed I was just running and gunning, probably didn't listen to any of it. :D

That's a huge commitment for someone who practically faded into obscurity, having never heard of her before.

@NS2D I recently finished all Fallout 3 including the DLC. I did have fun exploring but that was it lol. Base game has no content, about only 22 quest in total.

Dlc.
Broken steel - terrible, made to play the game forever.

Operation Anchorage - worthless and boring. Who cares about a video game in a video game? What ever happen?

Mothership Zeta - I used to like this one...not anymore. Condors full of aliens that's it.

The Pit - Yeah.... The last thing you wanna rebuild in the apocalypse is a city. I don't remember anything else this was horrible also crashed with mods on.

Point lookout - is the best one, it's good because it's not as bad as the rest.

I think fallout 4 worst dlc. New Vegas dlc pretty ass too. New Vegas is a good game.

@MissHeed I never noticed. They were in love with Marxism don't lie lol.

@JaniSIr
what the hell are you talking about, janitor?

This guy is not understanding what's going on. The nice, standard adjustments he's deploying to maintain his argumentative stance don't work when the black hole shows up and eats your local equilibrium.



Here we have me declaring I'm not going to get in the philosophical weeds because this person clearly doesn't understand what he's trying to argue about—upon which, he, in a deflecting move, claims this is bluster designed to hide that I'm the one who doesn't understand. Then he turns around and claims he does know what qualia are, without giving any evidence, performing the same blustering move he claimed I made. The point, by the way, is that the concept of qualia is directly relevant to the kinds of naive, positivist arguments you're making about perception, optics, and what exists in the universe. If you do really know what qualia are, go ahead and explain what they have to do with the kind of argument you're making. Little, kekky gotchas cannot fix the argumentative trajectory here.


Here again are tiny adjustments that miss that he's already fallen through the event horizon: It's true control theory is impressive, though again, engineers (that is what this person is) don't necessarily have to understand the math to implement it. Note that I said astro people are the worst at math among physicists, and that astrophysics has been diluted by a glut of people doing data analysis. But understand that data analysis is also a bunch of linear algebra, differential equations, and statistics; the least astrophysicist still tends to have more actual understanding of math than the average engineer. Even the most bruisery of the astro grad students I knew would berate her fellow astro grad students for their lack of math skills (in particular their inability to do contour integrals), and she was doing (that's right!) control theory. Nothing this guy has described has indicated he couldn't be doing the kind of undergrad-level project where he runs a simulation on a tweaked differential equation, though even then note that what I said was "perturbed dynamics" "could mean" the simple thing I described. I know well it doesn't have to. I also know well that graduate schools produce plenty of meatheads with master's degrees in STEM, especially the engineers, and have no problem believing a "professional job that pays a lot of money" might also be worthless. Witness the crowd of young people hired to work at DOGE.

Then we've got this one, which makes the disappearance of this guy's argumentative equilibrium the most obvious:


It may not be what astrodynamics is (I'm actually used to it being called orbital mechanics), but note that my statement doesn't require me to believe general-relativistic MHD in accretion disks is astrodynamics. It is still true that this would have impressed me, and what he said he does does not. Control theory is indeed impressive, and I am now more impressed than I was when this guy said he did "ODEs" and "linear algebra" (which, again, are quite necessary to data analysis). But "more impressed" is still unimpressed in this case. I don't do orbital mechanics, but I actually do understand precisely where the various perturbations he mentions fit in the equations, and—at least the $\delta v$-change (I assume this guy doesn't use TeX) could easily just produce a nonhomogeneous part from the drag term, though of course it depends on what the equations actually are.


It is precisely the argument this guy mentions in his broken sentence above that misses the question. His argument is entirely "well, beings with eyes that can see in the optical will all see circles, and circles are in math, therefore circles have independent reality." It's that part about us all seeing circles, and circles being in math, implying the independent reality of circles that's the question being posed.

Finally, we have


A device that attempted this kind of correction probably wouldn't get past even an engineer's inspection. Unfortunately there is a slight difference between Lovecraft and Hitler—and the signs indicating a correlation between this guy's behavior and admiration of Hitler require a bit more work to dismiss.

Now to address the guy himself: Are you familiar with Bronze Age Pervert? I've read his book, and listened to a few of his podcast episodes. He's pretty funny, but—you know he spends way more time than I'd have expected attacking people who go out and embrace performative masculinity, because they end up being way too dumb when they do it? He is constantly telling this audience that most of them cannot be "men of power," that the cultural and historical conditions for this are gone and they're all too much liberal wimps already. I am glad you are able to do well for yourself with satellite control and whatnot, but you're making a fool of yourself here. You should go read some philosophy or political theory, actually, so you can see the kinds of errors you're making and signals you're sending. I suggest Arms and Influence, one of the most famous works of 20th-century military strategy. The author won the Nobel Prize in Economics for introducing game theory to nuclear strategy, and this is one of his two big books.

@auroraloose


Never said you didn't understand, was just making fun of the classic way in which people shroud their opinions through a snide "I could explain it but you wouldn't get it" in order to never have to actually make themselves open to response


What you are implying with this (I am forced to assume since I have been given nothing else) is that you are saying certain perceived geometries are limited to the subjective perception of our species, and that it is not a universal truth. What I am saying is that I recognize non-Euclidean geometry, and that perception in the universe is not accurately represented by 2 dimensions, but that 2D geometry exists independently of humans



I'm not interested in titles, I'm interested in substance. My degrees are in physics, and the work I do is physics. Just as a "nuclear engineer" or a "propulsion engineer" could build nothing and be doing exclusively physics/chemistry in their day to day.


"Could", "might" ahhh well if some people you know with a master's in STEM aren't smart, then i'm not either. well played. i lost! my job is probably just babysitting a console while AI does all my work heh. I should just give up!


Oh so you just mentioned that offhand for no reason at all lol ok. If you had understood what one in my situation might be doing, you would have automatically known ODEs are used for the control theory portion of my job. It is clear you were (perhaps still are) slightly unclear about what exactly someone in astrodynamics does. If you need more help I would be glad to explain. Or perhaps I'll take a page out of your book and simply declare you need to be humbled and smugly have you guess and then reply "ahhh just proving how stupid you are" when you are inevitably not quite right. PS there is a reason I am making the distinction between astrodynamics and orbital mechanics. They are not the same thing. If you are very clever you might be able to guess what the difference is...


An alien species' hypothetical inability to access the visual plane would not inherently dispute the objectivity of concepts within the visual plane. It would just be inaccessible for that species. Just as our perception is certainly restricted from certain universal truths that are independent of our perception of them.


Obviously. If you think I admire Hitler you are a baboon. Was just trying to point out the double standard.


I know who he is but have zero desire to engage with anything he or similar people produce and know nothing about anything he has done.


Again, not what I do and you are embarrassing yourself


Doesn't have a high enough goodreads score, and I'm busy reading ASOIAF so i will pass

@0207xander At least you finally started arguing the point, instead of your credentials. Unfortunately you are just parroting a basic Platonist view point, without any new insight that would support that opinion, besides restating the initial claim...

@JaniSIr hard to argue the point when the only response I got was "doxx yourself to satisfy me" and "don't listen to astronomers"

Lest we not stray too far from the question though, just to restate, clearly religious fundamentalism of any kind is the worst philosophy

@AmityBlight Fallout 4 is better in the sense they tried to make a world. They tried to write characters and they tried to make an okay story.

Bethesda stripped all the philosophies in fallout out, and turned it into a funland with jet packs and cartoon characters.

@PeripheralVision You missed the point. Infinite is about America and it's history how they used religion too oppress people and Race to divide people. Comparing them to each other is stupid

BioShock 1 actually destroy both parties. How bad capitalism and libertarian are and no amount liberal SJW commie bullshit or far right racist pull yourself up by your boots is nonsense gonna save anyone because their ideas are extreme and bad.

@0207xander What you're doing is not good.


You might not have said I didn't understand, but this argument directly implies it. Again, these kinds of cheap deflections don't alter the trajectory here at all. We are still circling the drain.

As to astrodynamics, you might inform Wikipedia to rename its page on orbital mechanics then, or at least to stop redirecting the query "astrodynamics" to the orbital mechanics page. As a physicist I'm used to the latter name; so given that you were talking about having a master's degree in physics, and doing astrodynamics, I figured probably had to do with some variety of dynamical systems, flows, and whatnot in astrophysics—hence my reference to magnetohydrodynamics and accretion disks. Notice this is not "no reason at all." Further, it is rather obvious that orbital mechanics/astrodynamics does have to do with control of satellites, as do the terms for the perturbations you mention in your prior comment. If you're actually saying anything here:


it is possibly that you're distinguishing mechanics from dynamics, because the latter sounds more motion-ey? (Granted, that you are someone who thinks it appropriate to like Hitler publicly, you've signaled that you are highly unreliable, so who knows whether you make any sense at all.) It's possible this isn't what you mean, and that there is something I'm not aware of, but the way you treat it as obvious makes me think otherwise. If this is the case, I think you're confusing mechanics with statics; we call it quantum mechanics but the most important equation of QM is about time evolution. In physics mechanics contains dynamics; someone with a master's degree in physics should know that. And then there's


So, of course you mentioned ODEs and linear algebra after you mentioned astrodynamics (i.e., orbital mechanics) but before you mentioned control theory, so no, I wouldn't know. I think you should be able to tell that the deftness with which I've been talking about disappearing equilibria and trajectory adjustments ought to indicate I do have a sense of what you do.

You've possibly demonstrated you understand qualia? I can't tell, though, because it's not just the "subjective perception of our species" as opposed to some objective reality, or to the perception of another species. It's that that perception itself is a third thing interposed between the subjectivity of our species and the data the universe shoots at us. I don't think geometry is limited to our particular way of perceiving the universe, but your arguments for the independent existence of circles didn't allow for any kind of interposed third thing; there was just the fact that all beings with eyes must perceive circles, therefore they must really exist independently. The more common place that bad argument shows up is in the objectivity of color: The science-brained like to argue that everyone sees the same green, because green is just a wavelength of light, and seeing green "is" just that wavelength impinging on your eyes. This ignores the entirety of the human perceptual apparatus. You were making a similar argumentative move.


Another incorrect move. For names are substance, certainly in the signals they send to people. Electrical engineers, too, are doing physics, as are nuclear engineers who build nothing. But the particular thing they're doing does indeed more appropriately include "engineering" as a modifier, because without it the implied goals of the work are different.

Finally, and if you're going to worry about anything it should be this,


It was not a double standard to call out public approval of Hitler when I display the same public approval of Lovecraft. There is a huge set of signals one sends, due to the huge historical, ideological, and social weight of one of these, that does not at all exist for the other. There is therefore a categorical difference. By being willing to send all those unfortunate signals, you indicate you are flippant at best (a juvenile internet troll, as I said). Do you not admire Hitler? I do want to say it's not likely, but in reality we really can't tell, and it is not obvious. Being willing to double down on the trolling aspect inherently makes one suspect. This is why, if you actually do have a well-paying job, you really should, seriously, remove that particular favorite. As to Bronze Age Pervert, for the benefit of the audience, he explicitly tells his followers to deny knowing anything about him or agreeing with him. Kind of like this:


Again, this does not imply this person is indeed lying about knowing about or liking Bronze Age Pervert, but it is inherently suggestive. Also, it's the correct thing for the guy to do—which is why he should drop his Hitler favorite on his profile. It's just reckless.

I don't know if you actually judge books by their Goodreads scores, or if you were just trying to disparage something I liked, but saying such a thing doesn't add to your perceived intelligence. As to the Game of Thrones books, may they help you appreciate the cruelty of life, and disabuse you of your main-character syndrome. I have indeed done enough with this conversation.

@auroraloose


I am glad you have the humility to admit you were wrong


Almost there...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


Nope



*tips cap* and my what deftness indeed!


I was not trying to define the term, but to extrapolate what you were implying by mentioning the term. Not interested in semantics, was trying to get to the point you were going to make.


That is a deliberately reductive misrepresentation of what I actually said


What would be a more accurate comparison to the point I was making is if you had said something along the lines of "You assume any species that evolves visual-spatial awareness in the visible wavelengths of light perceives some form of gradient variation to discern their environment but I disagree". Not that my green is the same as everyone else's green. I am arguing from an evolutionary standpoint, perhaps incorrectly, that 2D, 3D, and 4D space are an intrinsic aspect of visualization of space, and it is not a thing humans invented with our perception. For example, if we for some reason had no audio capacity as a species, that would not mean sound didn't exist.


Entirely depends. Some are more accurately described one way than the other, regardless of job title. Agree to disagree because I have no interest debating this since it is semantic


For the 4th time, it's not public approval. Not sure why you aren't getting this. I've already said, it's an anime forum. There will be the occasional cheeky troll.


No, and it would be very easily to tell if you had used your eyes and read my previous replies


It's curious as to why you do not believe the racism and segregation Lovecraft stood for does not have historical, ideological and social weight. If you don't mind, could you type the name of HP Lovecraft's cat out for me? Remember, you display public approval of him, and that means you support his ideology. That's the standard you have displayed with me. Your turn.


Well I am a socialist, so obviously I don't frequent that type of circle. Assuming I am only vaguely aware of him because he has lots of Twitter followers, how should I have responded in a way that would've satisfied you? The "Ahh saying you don't know him proves you DO know him" is a circular argument, since then there would be literally nobody you could trust on the planet if they claimed to not know who he was.


"Ahhh but you see, saying you don't know him proves you DO know him. Because if you didn't know him you would've said you didn't, but if you did, you ALSO would've said you didn't!" Did I get that right?


Sure I will. On one condition: You drop Lovecraft. He was a racist, and you wouldn't want to endorse that after all, right?


Just trying to have a bit of fun. I'm not going to read that book, but thought you might have a sense of humor and appreciate a cheeky pseudo-elitist reply rather than just a "No". Clearly I was mistaken.


Yes, you have indeed humbled me and put me in my place. I am quite owned. I am going to go cry about how owned I am.

Uh, I have actually? And I suppose I do have to do any cleanup work you force on me, as you can still misrepresent what I've said:

Again, for the benefit of the audience, the argument about whether he denies knowing about Bronze Age Pervert is not that it's apodictic certainty, or that that kind of argument hasn't been used stupidly as a kind of catch-22, but rather that it necessarily ups one's Bayesian priors. Had he led with the socialist line it would have raised these priors less; meaning and reason are tricky this way.

And for the benefit of the audience, this guy is gaslighting about the equivalence between Hitler and Lovecraft. An ant and the sun both exert a gravitational pull, but we don't orbit an ant. If the two were the same, we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.

And for those of you keeping score, the reference to ad hominem is typical of those bad at arguing and good at gaslighting.

EDIT: oops, didn't mean to reply to the whole thing, just to quote that one line.

@auroraloose


But if I led with the socialist line, you could have said "Aha! So you do know who he is, since you knew to reference socialism in your response! If you truly didn't know who he was, you wouldn't have done that" I already told you I do know who he is, but I couldn't tell you the first thing about him other than that he has an online presence I don't want to engage with. Just like I also know Tim Pool, Nick Fuentes, and Catturd, but don't follow any of them because I saw what they stood for and said "I think I'll pass". So again, what would have been the perfect response to your question?


That was some obvious sarcasm in reference to your comical opening line about how I needed humbling.


Why are you so flippant about racism and segregation? I still can't remember the name of his cat's name. Please, help me out and tell me what it was

Now it's just funny, because—I knew that was sarcasm? And was intentionally leaning into it? It's often impossible to tell what people are signaling online, but if you wanted to make me look like an idiot, and you had a sense of what the both of us are saying, you wouldn't keep misfiring with all these gotchas.

And for further context, one of the Bronze Age Pervertian–tactics is to attempt to quadruple down on anything supposedly hypocritical their political enemies do. So, for example, yes, Lovecraft was a racist and thought several unsavory things that are kind of an embarrassment to his legacy of fiction. What this person is referring to is the short story "The Rats in the Walls," where you can go see that the cat's name includes what we call the n-word, though honestly I find that euphemism annoying. Surprisingly, astonishingly, there was never a huge history-defining event affecting hundreds of millions of people involving a war led by Lovecraft, nor does he have tons of followers or adjacent-thinkers affecting still affecting contemporary politics. Internet trolls do not run around blowing up conversations by invoking Lovecraft, we do not have to literally write into law that Lovecraftian ideology is dangerous, and there are not neo-Lovecraft terrorist groups. I am honestly impressed somebody roped me into having to argue about Hitler online. I am usually not this stupid.

@MissHeed I suppose you are you are right. They are different games with different audiences. One leans more heavily into the shooter aspect and the other is more exploratory and vibes. Whatever ones we prefer are subjective.

@JaniSIr I think the weird thing is that people consider the story to be the best thing about the second Wolfenstein, which says a great deal about how the second entry uses its gameplay mechanic. Too many sterile environments of steel and wood that all look alike, if you ask me.

Putting aside the whole "second revolutionary that has been started in the first game but has to be started again for no reason in the second game" and the somber end of the first Wolfenstein game, people do genuinely appreciate the moments of learning about BJ as a person and where he came from. His scenes with his father are genuinely well-written and expand upon the themes of the previous game. The cutscenes were more worthwhile than the actual game.

I was going to be angry here because I thought you meant Old Blood instead of YoungBlood.

@NS2D I mean, they're not dishonest; take a course in literary criticism, or read that nuclear strategy book I mentioned. Though to be fair, you didn't need to be Henry Kissinger to read this guy.

Sound is an actual physical phenomena, it's just vibrating air.
A circle is not, that's an abstract shape.

@auroraloose Babe, come back to bed so instead I can be Peripheral Kissinger you now.

@PeripheralVision Why cross out the "er"? It even sounds correct.

By the way, it would have been cleverer to reply like, uh, I did—say you've actually read his book or one of his articles, or maybe listened to one of his podcasts, and said you could see why people think he's funny but that he's obviously insane and unserious. This would be dishonest if you hadn't actually gone through any of his material, but it'd still be a better response if you're trying to deflect. If you felt like it'd be wrong to lie, well first of all, that would be an odd juxtaposition with favoriting Hitler on MAL, but even so, saying just about anything more than the flat denial you gave would have functioned as a distraction. You could have said, yeah, I know about that lane of online humor and find some of it funny, but know better than to get too deep into it. Implying like you do that this is indeed a catch-22, that there's no way to get out of it, and that therefore I'm being unfair, therefore misses a good deal of possible nuance, and further indicates you aren't thinking that much about what you're saying.

@JaniSIr I'm not sure that's relevant to the particular analogy he and I were making, about the qualia of color and whether we all see the same green. He was saying that the possibility that some organism evolved sight that somehow didn't involve dimensional perception wouldn't disprove the existence of spatial dimension. I didn't want to get too deep into it, but I was actually going to discuss how bringing in the evolution of perception didn't matter, because we don't understand how the human perceptory apparatus translates sensory signals into perception, so it doesn't matter if we all evolve the same kind of apparatus. Even beyond potential immaterial considerations, there could be material differences between each person's sensory organs that tweak how we perceive color.

You're right of course that here sound is still a material phenomenon, while circles are more abstract. I really do think circles have some kind of real existence, and I do think the evidence of math and physics is overwhelming, but the problem is formulating what that existence actually is. Acting like it's obvious, so it doesn't matter, is the wrong choice philosophically.