Yes! I've been trying for a while now to create a short comprehensive thesis, but I have a hard time finding the right one or I sound like a 15 year old who just read Nietzsche. I will try again tomorrow.

Their choice is no more or less free than mine just because they do not happen to care about doing the right thing. — Bartricks

Yes, that is the liberalistic argument. And I support it.
But surely also something else must be responsible for this hypothetical bad dooers bad deeds. Be it culture, circumstance, brain chemistry etc.? In my experience talking to these type of, let's be fair, men. They just don't seem to care.

Or if you mean the psychopathy? Well, like if you don't empathise with anyone I guess you are not influenced by them? But for me that's impossible. Just food for thought, and it actually circles back nicely to bosses possessing psychopathic traits i think :grin:

There is no clear puzzle or question or argument in your OP. It's all over the place. — Bartricks

That kind of the point. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this.



I agree the argument that it takes away responsibility is a bad one. One of the aspects of what I was thinking was given that argument psychopaths would possess more free will. But I just realized that that is very much just a stereotype from my side. But to square that with bosses possesing pyscopathic traits might be interesting. Because they have more money and power right?

We can turn this around and posit a man who couldn’t hear people’s thoughts , but when they deliberately communicated with him, he always know why they were thinking what they were thinking, such that he was able to always see things sympathetically from their point of view. Some are better at this than others, and this skill is much more valuable than simply being able to hear people’s thoughts. — Joshs

Yeah this is probably it.

WHY they were thinking what they were thinking — Joshs

He probably ment that he could understand everyone on some animal level, it was a wierd dynamic and he was very macho.

Sorry for badly structured question. Feel free to philosophize freely. :smile:

I wouldn't say objects 'consciously manipulate'. — TheMadMan

I mean, if you move a rock. That is manipulation of the object. If someone forces you to move the rock, that's also that (causality right?). Maybe i'm using the word manipulation wrong.

I'm not sure what exactly is nagging you. — TheMadMan

Just that there is something here that i feel is true but i can't put my finger on what it is.

In mathematics an infinite regression can have a "first cause". — jgill

One could argue that a theory of everything can explain everything and why everything is. But the question will always be what lies beyond that. At that point it will be impossible and of no use to prove. Why bother. The abyss if you will.

I've read about spacetime being a dimension, and that humans experience time as change because brains work in the direction of entropy. But that's above my pay grade.

I see, white blood cells. What you are describing exists if you think it does. It's basically metaphysics vs materialism (is the thought real or the mechanism creating the thought). However you choose to categorize your phenomenon it will always be an abstraction of a system composed of isolated individuals. Abstractions are prone to error. If your concept allows you to predict a coming totalitarian regime it has pragmatic use. But as far as i know theory seldom have in the grand scheme of things (except CIA theory).

But just about Descartes possibly being inspired by the demon that would come to be known as Schizophrenia to form the basis for the prevailing justified true belief zeitgeist of modernity, and the cogitio is a rather interesting topic. — introvert

So Stalin for example is unreasonable, a problem, anti-capitalist, schizo and represents the age before capitalism. I see these essences in the may 68 revolt (communist) from the perspective of the pro-modernity (capitalist). And i guess like nazis are pro-modernity, so they are anti-schizo. and schizophrenia represents the enemy of modernist society in its ultimate form; someone who can't contribute to the capitalist metaphorical machine, or maybe it's more like someone who doesn't see the point at all. But the question arises: does that not go for everyone in a capitalist system who don't participate, old, sick, (real)leftist etc? Or are you saying those have a schizo essence because they are counter modernity?

It was not my intention to discourage you from philosophizing btw! I'm just having a hard time following some of your train of thought and that's on me.

Sorry, I came home after some heavy drinking when I wrote that. What I'm saying is; You should probably use a synonym. I don't trust your understanding of schizophrenia; you could remedy this by giving a case example and draw parallels from it. Alternatively separate the essences in to Crystallized / Uncrystallized or something like that. Then you have more space to work in and a fine metaphor.

I understand that you are talking about essences. And that these are aspects of schizophrenia but aren't schizophrenia in itself, and that mechanisms exist that categorize these essences into ultimately a disease. The anti-schizo ethos is a set of essences responsible for the stability of a given structure. As i understand it from you this structure is in itself more correlated to introversion? My problem with some of this is the classification of the opposites (i don't know much about dialectics) like the classification seems prone to human error and disagreement in it's basic elements.

As for schizophrenia, I obviously have no clinical experience with it, it is just my belief that the premodern world was more schizo than the modern world, which is increasingly antischizo. — introbert

Then your should not be basing your entire string of thought on it.. It becomes confusing and comes of as a bit dumb/ignorant.

This reminds me of the Table in Anti-Oedipus. It has so much stuff on it that has been placed there for no reason. It is complex yet simple, and can no longer be used as a table. Like in a so called schitsofrenicis drawing it has had things added until there is no more to add and no longer has any clear use or describable properties. It has become more of a plie. You wouldn’t know how to grasp it physically or mentally. Me, I guess you could find some pleasure in taking things of the table (in case of the drawing bring out an eraser).

↪trogdor I'm not quite sure I follow. — Agent Smith

A theory of everything with one entity is basically a religious text like the Bible. It explains all phenomenon yes? Haven't read it. All from ethics to science.

With the alchemy im thinking like; alchemy became science in some sense; and science is what would be used to build a super AI God, which could be our doom but most likely not. There was a mystic side to alchemy too (as far as i understand) but that gets spaced out very fast.

Future super AI will most likely just be a tool i figure. And if we somehow the scientist somehow develop Putin AI that goes rouge it will most likely only use violence; but in a metaphysical butterfly effect scenario if the AI is smart enough it would truly be God. Given that like a subtile crack in a wall makes something do something, which i with my human brain can't grasp. But i don't think this is possible given that humans have freewill and that minds can't be read.

And like would the Theory contain sociological models and such? Like Capitalism and culture? That's what i mean the book would be very thick.

I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is. — Agent Smith

I view it as a question of pragmatism in https://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html . Like the machine doesn’t need to truly know everything it just needs to construct its own model of pragmatic conduct thus giving it omnipotence; absolute control over this dimension. I guess natural science can tell us the fabric of the universe and that a machine could in theory say understand everything down to the smallest quantum mechanics, bending it to manipulate the carbon-based lifeforms. And will the machine have human senses? will it perceive things as humans do?

I think A theory of everting (philosophical, mathematical) could be written but it will most likely be people who don't agree with it. And would such a theory book dangerous, could it be used for the benefit of evil capitalist to shorten people’s attention spans making them subjects under a metaphoric corporate shadow regime? It's a question of perspective I figure. Could such a theory help the Bangladesh Factory worker to find happiness in its life of tribulation. In a sense this is what religious texts are.

Here is another phrase for you: solve et coagula; proto-science. The alchemic minds observed the phenomenon of coagulation. Novacula occami attributes this to God but the human seeks to understand for betterment the irrational sake of curiosity which as the old saying goes; killed the cat.

The existing (scientific) paradigms, especially the Theory of Evolution, can't be used to make sense of altruism (re The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins). That's all. — Agent Smith

Perhaps the natural sciences can't yet but that is not their purpose. In the social sciences on the other hand there have been attempts to construct elaborate models of thinking, culture, ethics; but as it seems humans have a hard time agreeing on things if they are not based on pure empirical observation, which is a phenomenon almost exclusive the natural sciences, that is in itself prone to human error. Perhaps science have dogmatically replaced God in your mind. But then I guess we all need something to believe is real not to fall into madness.

One who looks out for thier own interests at the expense of others is, quite literally, an idiot. — Banno

Back to the topic at hand, the Greek idiots. Humans are social animals. And most people have a desire (or whatever you want to call it) to be liked, at least by what they consider their community, which complicates things in modern society. I’m basing this on my common sense (who wants to be disliked by their people). Some are born without empathy, some lose it thought trauma and what not; psychopaths, narcissists, sociopaths. With that in mind; someone looking out for them self at the expense of others is an idiot given that the victim’s (for a lack of a better word) is part of the same community and understands what is happening. In this case the idiot will most likely be shunned by that community, and if it is a tightly knit one that could be really bad for the idiot. Example: "Nicholas, why did you say that? Everyone is gonna dislike you now you idiot?" - greek 300bc.
I’m thinking about some of the Native-American tribes pre conquest who had beautiful ethics for both human and animal, do no harm, live as one with nature etc. Being liked by some community and having a "good time" seems like something humans want in most cases, except for the occasional hermit. I don’t see how digging deeper into the cold biology of it makes this truth any more comprehensible. Even in a hypothetic Greek citystate filled with rapey, sadistic pigs, going against the norm is idiocy, in the context of social wellbeeing and survival. So yeah i'd say there is immense wisdom in that and that key here is the defintion of expence.

Like I mentioned the larger and more complex a system is, think globalized world and the internet, the same concept could be applied but everything gets much messier, because so many things could be considered right or wrong; ideology, values, beliefs, convictions. So, I guess a lack of understanding is what constitutes an idiot given the definition provided, and it does oddly enough make sense in the context of human nature. For the average Greek 2008, the bankers were the idiots, the bankers just cashed out.

...when offered a choice like this (altruism) or that (selfishness), one must have the gumption to ask "why not both?" — Agent Smith

I’m a working-class guy living in the west, not a single mother of five working a factory in Bangladesh. To answer this question: because altruistic decency is better for everyone, it makes people happier. I fail to see how a world of purely egoistic identity derived pleasure helps the majority. What about the people who are, as you put it, biologically incapable to fend for themselves in this Sodom and Gomorra you dream of? Also most of what is cosider sick in this day and age was done, and is beeing done in the name of personal pleasue and selfishness. I dont see why we as a specie should exercise that muscel.

Reading another thread i realize what i ment to write was omniscient, omnicience. I mean from a rationell point of view.
Yes but can a machine truley know everything?

I've met people with 140+ IQ who were dumb as rocks. Maybe the human drive to categorize everything leaks on to actual humans as well (RIP Carl Linnaeus). Yes, it does. We love to judge, define, categorize based on looks, style, demeanor and so on. And poof along comes a "tool" to measure once level on intelligence. Would you rather get surgery by a trained surgeon with 100iq who reads books on anatomy every free hour, or a random person of the street with 200....? Peterson is a trained psychologist; he is not dumb but he sure isn’t the brightest. You can train for IQ test and score higher just that in itself should discredit IQ as some magic number that limits what a human can achieve.

Maybe if you want to do top level mathematics you need a higher-than-average IQ. I don't think so, you just need to be properly educated and have a passion for it. What Jordan is trying to do, and what he fails to realize is that; in trying to help people understand what they want to do, he is selling them the fears and insecurities of the capitalistic power hierarchy, he is trying to crush people’s desires to educate based on societal pressure and other’s opinion, which i guess he is successful in doing? I wouldn’t know. One must wonder why he choose the field of psychology; he sure does seem to think a lot. Hope he gets well soon and sorts out that nasty addiction.

The first thing that comes to mind is that he seems obsessed with the subject and also this is coming from someone (him) who scores very high on IQ tests. — Gregory

Yes he obviously sees himself as above the average. To add to this he is on a self-proclaimed quest to stop the communist youth from destroying the west. He bases this conviction on the works of Carl Jung which by today’s psychology is basically mysticism.

It makes sense in the context of ancient Greek life — Tobias

What should we do about the Spartans Nicholas, we just voted 50/50? NO! I’m going to sit here and eat my olives. -Two greeks 300bc.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to imagine the Greeks valued men who were not self-obsessed and willing to discuss political questions for the benefit of their respective city-state. Of course, there were people who had more influence. Not thinking up well thought out decisions could lead to horrific outcomes. If someone didn’t want to (or couldn’t I guess) they were an idiot. I think i read in a old book that it ment someone who didn't understand thier education but your explanation makes more sense!

So egoism is idiocy. I prefer a system in which everyone is egoistic, the way it actually is I believe, and it all works out. I've seen people being called out for thinking for someone else. Doing that is considered a sign of arrogance. Every man for himself, people, every man for himself. — Agent Smith

I do understand the urge to seek knowledge for the benefit of oneself, that written, questioning the motive of altruism is for my mind a sign of true idiocy. Where does it lead, does it make you feel superior?

Altruism is, all said and done, just a fancy way of being selfish... — Agent Smith

“You where the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi.

I thought the goal of philosophy was to end all evil. If such a thing is even possible. I don’t see how egocentrism and greed is of any use in doing that, quite the contrary, in my experience it makes people more likely to ignore and not support people who are in dire need of understanding.

And what role does the cultural capitalistic feedback loop play in this? There is an entity out there that wants you to focus on yourself. Don’t even dare to think of the homeless man who smells like pee as an actual human trapped in a horrific fate. He is below you, a degenerate of no use to society, of no use to you.

Pragmatic rhetorical language theoretical philosophical text for you! (university stuff)

I don’t know a lot about how words came about but I do know a little something else about langue, meaning, definitions, human nature and psychology that might help you in your philosopyhsing.

Language is constructed with syntax ((form(x and, y then z)) and semantics (meaning) and is always prone to misinterpretations stemming from ambiguity and lack of clarity in constructed sentences. This is especially true in communication because people are, a lot of times very unclear. There are for some languages, a goverment institution that gives out lexicons and such deciding what words are "real" words and what they mean. What people think a word means is often based on their schooling, upbringing, socioeconomic background, circles etc.

If you want to be understood you need to be aware of what words generally mean, but also what they mean, and could mean to the recipient at hand. Central to this is the concept doxa; basically everything you hold as a truth that is not necessarily true. Example: what does the word fate mean.

I find it silly how a lot of debate and philosophy usually boils down to a debate over semantics, (what does this word mean? etc.) It means whatever the recipient thinks it means, always has, always will. The romans did a lot of thinking on this. Central to it is also identity, group thinking, ideology, metafors and so on.

Words can as you said bring about emotion, and this can be understood with common sense and does not require deep evolutionary psychological thinking. Say you are at war and someone mentions the other country? This may bring about feelings of fear, hope, national pride. Politicians use this kind of thinking all the time.

When it comes to art that's a different beast entirely. As anti-art (art made to not be art) was being considered art by the main stream during the da-daist wave, one could argue; because art specifically made not to be art, is now considered art, then anything can be art. At least this is what you say if you talk to a museum guide. Before that the conceptual definition of art was much more narrow if you understand what i mean.

Talking about words and groups the word sociolect is one to know. It's a way to speak used by a group and can contain rad slang words. Think surfer dudes riding gnarly waves. If a group of any size decides a word Φ means something then it does, later that word may enter the dictionary, later it may become frooptwwyth.

"In other words, we would understand more than a complex pile of isolated facts..."

To add to this: facts are true because they work. Newton's physics is not perfect. Einstein’s physics is not perfect. No one knows if dark matter actually exists etc. but it helps us understand and build things.


"What could possibly be simplest explanation for all phenomena? A ToE (theory of everything)? One with just one entity obviously, oui?"

God is probably the oldest one. It can mean a bunch of things emotion, desire, physics, an actual entity beyond what the senses can perceive.

Based in the human experience the more complex something gets, so does it's easiest explanation. There are explanations to most phenomena, and putting them all together in a rational way would make for one thick (and subjective) book. A current theory of everything would need to be conjured from the human point of view. Just like the mathematical ruleset used to build skyscrapers, i figure it too would have to be pragmatic or causalitistic to be considered true. What makes it difficult is the human subject. I think the core theme here is omnipresence. Would understanding a theory of everything make one omnipresent? And why would one seek this omnipresence? In that sense if humans can't achieve omnipresence there can never be a true ToE. Thinking about it; beeing convinced something is because of something could be seen as a primitive form of omniprecens in accordance to The novacula occami. Another answer could be "Because you experience it". But this dosen't work if you are asked to explain a difficult concept, or how you make mashpotatoes so guess it's not true omnipresence. Im thinking about a human as somekind of critter in the forest. We are animals after all, right? Makes sense that God is the shepperd in christianity.