• Currently Reading
    Technological Slavery, Ted Kaczynski

    turns out crazy old uncle ted has some interesting ideas
  • The biggest political divide is actually optimist/pessimist not left/right
    Obviously I largely agree, however lately from various things I have read I have started to wonder if the optimism/pessimism divide is a product of a technological and agricultural society. It is hard for me to seriously consider debates like this happening in a primitive world in which humans are not domesticated and behave as animals in a larger ecosystem. Questions like this just would not arise, no one would give them any thought. This sort of thinking is symptomatic of severely corrupted and twisted creatures, things that by all accounts really should not exist.
  • Currently Reading
    Also, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, Ted Kaczynski.
  • Currently Reading
    Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott
    The Technological Society, Jacques Ellul
  • Currently Reading
    Finished The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Very good, would recommend.
  • Currently Reading
    The burning conviction that we have a holy duty towards other is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless. — Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    It's very possible an even more evil version of Trump can come out of this. Biden and the rest of the Democrats have no strategy or plan to deal with this, they want a status-quo return to the Obama years and it's going to backfire against them even more than it did in 2016. Obama's (and his administration) failure to turn this country in a different direction during the financial crisis is directly responsible for Trump to have the political clout he does.Baphomet

    :up:
  • Coronavirus
    When I first saw the news, in my gut I thought: Pfizer probably sat on its vaccine until after the election because a Biden administration would be more profitable than a Trump administration. If it means delaying vaccinating the population and letting thousands of people die unnecessarily, so be it.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Nevada just got called by AP.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    It's finally fucking over, goddamn
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Yesterday I thought Trump had Georgia but yeah now I'm not so sure. Would be pretty cool to see a lone blue island in a sea of red.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    And it will be someone else. Trump has shown the way for a future Caesar to enlist populism to overthrow the mechanism of the republic.Banno

    :up: This is the beginning not the end
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    What are the estimates for when we will know the last few states?
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    It's looking like Nevada will decide who wins the election.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Texas is gonna be a shitshow
  • Ethics of masturbation
    like most things, when done in moderation, it's fine, healthy even
  • The allure of "fascism"
    I think the root appeal of fascism is "authoritarianism". When you start to feel that people's political beliefs are dangerous or taking away your personal power, there is an inclination to want to dominate the other people and not let them have a say.Philosophim

    Actually I think at least in some cases the allure of fascism is not personal domination but just a want for a master, someone to work for and be herded by. Personality responsibility and freedom come hand in hand, and if you don't want to have to deal with that responsibility, you can give up some of your freedom in exchange for a comfortable life of servitude.

    I don't think authoritarianism is the root of fascism as much as it is just one of the aspects (symptoms). Nor do I think it makes sense to say one thing and one thing alone is the root of fascism. It's a complicated phenomena that has many different roots.
  • Are most solutions in philosophy based on pre-philosophical notions/intuitions? Is Philosophy useful
    I think something that tends to happen with philosophy is that you loop back to where you started from, but afterwards you have a better understanding and less anxiety about whatever it was that you initially set off for. It is not a circle but more like a spiral, with the length of the spiral corresponding with your understanding.

    This is not just with philosophy, this is just generally the way it is with anything you learn, but it's more apparent with philosophy because nothing seems to get agreed upon in the way it does with facts and theories in the sciences, or best practices in the arts and trades. With math you might learn basic arithmetic, and later down the road you learn about calculus and differential equations, and finally perhaps some abstract algebra, which brings you right back to the basic arithmetic you learned in 1st grade, but this time you have a deeper understanding of things than when you were five.

    With Western philosophy there sort of seems to be three different periods, the initial dawning of naive theorizing, the systemic, super-rational philosophy of the scholastics up to the idealists, and then the disillusioned, bitter deconstruction of the failure of everything that happened. I think maybe @180 Proof said something along the lines of this somewhere, but I don't really remember. I could see perhaps philosophy either entering a new phase, or looping back to its initial. Movements for both are happening right now. I think this gives philosophy a somewhat mystical fatalism though, and I've been reading Spengler, so take that with a grain of salt. I'm sort of just rambling right now anyway.

    Then again fucks folks like Feser think that underneath the history of philosophy resides a perennial tradition that more or less has got it right. In that case there is a more obvious sense of progress. Then again, maybe just stagnation.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    He'll probably lose then because though the GOP are willing to put up with alot, they'll not tolerate a loser.Mr Bee

    Unless they have no other alternative, which very well could be the case.
  • Currently Reading
    Industrial Society and its Future, Ted Kaczynsky
  • Currently Reading
    Male Fantasies v1 piqued my interest. Picked up a copy, fascinating read.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Until they come back again... :worry:
  • Are most solutions in philosophy based on pre-philosophical notions/intuitions? Is Philosophy useful
    Most of the time the only value of reading is to better calibrate your sense of what not to read.
  • Are most solutions in philosophy based on pre-philosophical notions/intuitions? Is Philosophy useful
    I get that, sometimes I'm the same way. Other times, it just seems like LARP-ing, dressing up in costumes for fun, "I am a so-and-so who believes in such-and-such, and I really do, I promise I'm not making this up, I'm not just an intellectual dramatist" :shrug:

    Are you familiar with the common sense philosophy of David Stone? Flawed man, morally speaking, but had some interesting perspectives on philosophy. A common charge he accused other philosophers of being was disingenuous; saying tongue-in-cheek they believe in something but not actually truly believing it, often from what he observed to be a desire to be as provocative and contrarian as possible, to draw attention to themselves, like a monkey flinging shit.
  • Are most solutions in philosophy based on pre-philosophical notions/intuitions? Is Philosophy useful
    Do you think the quest for wisdom in philosophy could be just a dream, a mirage? I'm sympathetic to this. It's absurd to think that 2K years of thinking amounts to just about no discernible progress towards this dream, but then again, that's exactly what has happened. From the outside-in, that's exactly what it looks like. Nothing has been accomplished. It's so hard to believe and it feels like maybe there has to be some kernel of value in it all, but there's just nothing there, it's just a history of thought-spasms.
  • Are most solutions in philosophy based on pre-philosophical notions/intuitions? Is Philosophy useful
    I think a measurement of progress in philosophy could be the degree in which questions of a particular domain are classified. We break them down into certain domains, like ethics and metaphysics, which gives some clarity, some hooks to hold on to. These domains are themselves broken down into different camps. So like in metaphysics you have the broad classes like idealism and realism, and subclasses within them, and subclasses within those, etc.

    Basically then the measurement of progress in philosophy is the degree in which a person has to start from square one. How many paths have already been taken, that other people can take themselves. If you want to climb a mountain, it helps to have a trail.

    I guess the question then becomes, do any of these paths actually lead anywhere? I think sometimes it's enough to simply know what sort of question a question is. Wondering if closing your hand into a fist creates another object by itself is an odd question, but defining it as a mereological question, and clumping it together with other questions of a similar sort makes it less odd. I think eventually you can get to a point where it seems like just about all possible positions in a given domain have been explored, and no further progress is to be made apart from eliminating positions.
  • Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?
    An idea that, if carried out by the members of a social group, would lead to the disappearance of that group, cannot count as moral for the members of that group.Srap Tasmaner

    If every member of a group comes to believe that the group that they are a part of should not exist, and they collectively decide to disband the group, then the group will no longer exist. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is very common.

    By group, did you mean specifically a species? i.e. whatever contributes to the preservation of the species is moral, and whatever threatens this is immoral?

    I say: evolution produces animals that are capable of thinking about and acting in accordance with morality. Evolution did not create morality. Just as evolution did not create light, but rather eyes that can sense light.

    Antinatalism is in accordance with a set of perceived moral laws that transcend the survival of the species. From the perspective of natural selection, it is a malignant adaptation. That does not make it incorrect.
  • Coronavirus

    It's easier to stay indoors in CO, especially NoCo, on account of the wildfires making the atmosphere polluted with smoke.
  • Currently Reading
    The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert PaxtonMaw

    No shit! I just started re-reading this.
  • Help coping with Solipsism
    When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

    I think this sounds vaguely Buddhist? There are lots of labels for things, including the label "thing" and the label "label". The sense of self is just that - a sense, no different from any other experience.

    some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does.Darkneos

    When people talk about philosophical stuff, each person comes in with a collection of assumptions, which provides a context that without which nothing would get off the ground. There is no such thing as a default position in philosophy - that's just another name for a prejudice, aka this position is the default position because I personally cannot fathom how it could not otherwise be true given certain assumptions which I coincidentally believe to be irrefutable.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    The reply name contains a link to the comment, which fulfills the same function without duplicating text :up: — darthbarracuda


    But a direct quote really gives substance and respect to the source material, for example, like this:

    Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

    People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

    And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX


    See?
    Merkwurdichliebe

    Oh yeah I see now.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    The reply name contains a link to the comment, which fulfills the same function without duplicating text :up: