Comments

  • Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?
    it should be understood that the term "alt-right" is used as a name for generally right-wing views. — ssu

    That's how I understand it.
  • Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?
    I'm not sure if Judaka chose the term 'alt-right' purposely or was being a bit casual with terms.
    From other things he said I took it to mean 'the right' as most of us understand it.
    The alt-right, to me, seems to be defined by the liberals. The extreme right is objectionable and I'm not sure where they crossover into the right. However, it seems to me that liberals object generally to the world, or culture, they believe is the result of the right and their priorities.
  • Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?
    ↪Judaka


    There seems to be a host of issues out there orbiting around the idea of being white, and then all those issues being conflated into one position: that of ‘privileged white males’.

    It’s quite difficult to attack a culture that encompasses so much history and is behind everything we have in what was referred to as ‘the west’. I don’t know what it’s referred to now, but I know that ‘the west’ is now perjorative. And I know there’s good and bad in that history. But then that’s the history of any culture. It’s easier to reduce it down to a specific target, and it satisfies, what to me, is behind the criticism.

    It’s the inability to face the world in a way that demands from the individual a whole host of responsibilities. That may not be the best term. But it resembles the teenage resentment towards authority and the irrational response towards that responsibility.

    So much of the criticism and attacks on ‘white ethnicity’ are loaded with contradictions. Maybe the world really is a more scary place to live in than it’s ever been, and maybe those people feel threatened by it, but it’s irrational and immature to look to blame a specific group of people and to think that by removing them, by destroying everything it represents, your problems will disappear. It’s almost suicidal in its intent. So why would the alt-right allow such a mentality to gain a foothold, why wouldn’t they resist.

    It’s the perfect weapon for the left, and it always has been, this feeding of resentment and pointing of the finger. But it’s also become something of a knowing and superior attitude to attack the alt-right, that one is more enlightened, really, it’s virtue signalling.
  • Morality
    Really, this is just another chat room and the same people are here. It’s a shame.
  • Morality
    ↪Terrapin Station


    I think you’re saying I’m not saying anything and that I think disagreeing is saying something.

    I was disagreeing with my posts being called irrelevant.
  • Morality
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Obviously. Your problem seems to be me not agreeing.
  • Morality
    ↪S

    I’m responding to the op. I don’t have to look at things your way.
  • Morality
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Because you deny relevance to me looking at the why of morality as irrelevant in an effort to determine what it is, and yet there is nothing in the posts but disagreement. Why is your approach better than mine, why is it irrelevant?
  • Morality
    None of you agree.
  • Morality
    ↪Terrapin Station


    And so far no one has been able to say what morality is, despite all the contorted formulations I’ve read.
  • Morality
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Because, from my point of view, morality is inherent in man. It had a purpose that enabled him to evolve successfully. Otherwise there would be no communities as we know them. That’s the context.
  • Morality
    ↪S


    So you think you can work out what morality is with no context?
  • Morality
    ↪S


    What morality is? Don’t be so arrogant. If it doesn’t have a purpose, what it’s good for, then why would it exist?
  • Morality
    ↪Isaac


    There's an evolutionary reason why we tend to like junk food, and tend to turn our noses up a boiled veg. It's because we're programmed to seek out high energy return foods. Now, does that make eating junk food mandatory? Is it now the case that we 'must' eat junk food, because we've identified the biological cause of the general preference for it? — Isaac

    I think we eat junk food because it’s easy. We dont need junk food to give us a high energy return when we gave other food that we’ve eaten for years.

    If instead of junk food you said morality, and that our survival and successful evolution was dependent on ideas of morality that evolved and held together our co-operative communities, then yes, we must keep morality intact today, because without it we would lose the glue that holds communities together.
  • Morality
    ↪Isaac


    But I'm not seeing how you're moving from the existence of a cause for moral judgement being the way it is, to the existence of a moral absolute. — Isaac

    That is a big question, and probably entails more work than I can be bothered with to try and explain. It’s not that I can’t be bothered addressing your question, it’s just that it’s a complicated area, and after all, I’m not out to reshape our thinking, nor do I necessarily have the skills.

    But, the incest taboo is an interesting area to think about. Why is it there?
  • Naughty Vs. Evil
    The notion of evil is no longer useful for a host of philosophers, including Heidegger, Nietzsche, Derrida, who argue that the origin of evil isnt bad intent but intent that is based on an interpretion of a situation that the accuser doesnt share and cannot understand. — Joshs

    This is moral relativism, right? Morals are not common property.
  • Naughty Vs. Evil
    ↪Joshs


    We say the evildoer knew what they were doing was wrong, implying that heir interpretation of the moral issues involved matched ours and they simply decided to choose the immoral outcome. — Joshs

    Your quote is what I think. But it’s not so much that they chose the immoral outcome as that they failed to chose the moral outcome. That might seem like I’m playing with words, but individuals can let evil happen by simply not acting, by convincing themselves that they were just doing their job. In this case I’m referring to Adolf Eichmann.
  • Morality
    ↪tim wood


    My view is that morality is evolved thought, and in that sense is a something and not a nothing, certainly more than an individual's mere opinion. I'd even argue that to some degree morality is sure as arithmetic, but the world from time to time and here and there lapses into such barbarous immorality that either humanity is at times collectively both stupid and ignorant, or morality ultimately lacks apodeictic certainty (but that has some other kind of certainty). — tim wood

    I’m in agreement with you here.
    Just because people act in terrible ways does not mean the above isn’t true. The evolution of morality exists to hold communities together because it was the moral factor that constructed them, that they were based on.
  • Naughty Vs. Evil
    But the most important point is that evil is not a real attribute of the one presumably doing wrong, it is our presumption that they are not justified, that they are deliberately and willfully doing unjustified harm. — Joshs

    Do you mean they’re only doing evil because we think so?
  • Naughty Vs. Evil
    That’s right, they are not evil because they weren’t acting immorally. They were just breaking the law.
  • Naughty Vs. Evil
    Evil is knowingly acting immorally.
  • What is a meme?
    I find memes interesting but I can’t take the idea seriously. They’re an interesting subject in terms of evolutionary ideas and they help in focusing on the whole idea of evolution.

    As I understand it they’re a way of explaining how ideas evolve in a non biological form, is that right?
  • Greed, Profit, Growth.
    Will we make a deal with technology? I rest my case.
  • What is a meme?
    There really is no infection because a person must already accept a meme before it can spread to his/her mind. — TheMadFool

    Does that mean that to accept a meme the person must have a complete or partial knowledge of it to bind?
  • What is a meme?
    ↪TogetherTurtle


    Initially a meme does seem to be just an idea, but then it’s also regarded as carrying besides ideas, behaviour, style, symbols and practices. But then is a symbol just a metaphor for an idea? Which it may very well be, and that’s it’s advantage and power.

    But I find it interesting because I also find Jungian archetypes interesting.

    Edit: but to understand the symbol you need to have background knowledge. So it can only travel around in a specific environment and die outside of it.
  • What is a meme?
    ↪wax


    I find this stuff very interesting. Are you imagining neurochemicals being used like a river carrying cargo?
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    I think maybe you have a set idea of what “human nature” is that you’ve not made explicit enough. — I like sushi

    I’ve indicated in a few posts my perception of human nature. Its a big, controversial subject with no agreement. I can only indicate which side of the differences I stand in which is probably the nomological position. I lean towards caring, co-operation, tool making (meaning being capable of abstract thinking), being conscious of wrong, through evolution, as opposed to Dawkin’s “ruthless selfishness".

    All human cultural changes, and the problems they may bring along with them, certainly make us ask evermore probing questions about what it is to be “human”. — I like sushi

    Cultures may change but can human nature? Has it ever, except through interpretation. If I look at it in an nomological light it can only change through evolution.


    We are quite unique creatures in the sense we’re both highly adaptive and creative compared to any other species on Earth. — I like sushi

    Yes we are “quite unique, opportunistic as well as being very attuned to projecting ourselves into the future”, because of our nature.
    Projecting ourselves into the future I would call abstract thought.

    What you refer to as manifestations is our nature. They may manifest themselves in particular ways, like making tools.

    Technology is the practical aspect of science, which is abstract thinking. It’s a manifestation of human nature by way of abstract thinking/science. It’s exterior to human nature.

    The question is then about how we’ll manifest this realisation in future generations - I would imagine it will lead to a future where individual creativity is played off against the more dominant commercial aspects of how we interact in society and between given delineations of society — I like sushi

    This is the same tired old argument that commerce is the problem to be overcome. Why is commerce a problem and technology not?

    In relation to technology; we are either not in control and consequently fumbling along trying to manage it, or we are in control and this is how we manage it. Either it’s part of our nature or it’s not.
    If it’s not part of our nature then we have a troubled relationship with it and we’re constantly trying to make a deal. Otherwise it’s either part of our nature and it’s not very satisfactory, leading to a continuous round of problems, or we are about to, or have already, made an uneasy pact with something outside of our nature.


    Edit: sorry, the part about manifestations is messy, you were referring to industry, etc as a manifestation of our nature, I think.
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    I’d like to go back to my posts on human nature.

    Echarmion made a post where he seems to suggest, though I’m not sure, that the idea of being a ‘golden creature’ is not part of our nature. He has a pragmatic view of human nature, but it’s not clear what he means by that. I take it to mean he rejects the idea of humans thinking of themselves as a ‘golden creature’ because it’s not pragmatic: he prefers practical views over theoretical views. So I assume he rejects the idea of a ‘golden creature’.

    He also wonders, meaning he doubts, I assume, if our nature can take part in a vacuum, meaning it’s not likely. Of course he’s right. By this I think he means that something must contribute to or form our nature, and being pragmatic this can only be our environment and our response to it.

    I don’t know if I have interpreted him correctly. But it seems to me that if humans are conscious beings then what we think also determines our nature. If what we thought didn’t achieve success in survival I’m guessing that such an idea would wither away with the dead who thought it.

    Thinking we are a ‘golden creature’ as a way to position ourselves seems quite reasonable to me. Right or wrong it’s our perception of ourselves that sustain us. Why wouldn’t it be part of what we are, coming from the very earth we stand on? So it seem, to me, that it is part of our nature.

    It also seems to be a nature very much attached to what I would risk calling a natural world, and in a way I refer back to the symbolic idea of Eden. This is completely different to a technological nature, or a tool orientated nature. We are completely separate from tools. Assuming the first tool was the use of fire, then it’s a lot different from learning to plant seeds, read the weather, or breed animals. It’s a hostile force.

    As I’ve said, human nature seems addicted to tool making, maybe because it’s enabled us to achieve so much, like surviving a hostile environment, catching high protein food, etc., and it’s embedded in our genes.

    By the same token we don’t seem to be at ease with technology except as solving problems, as if it’s grown out of control. It’s true a spear is a tool, but a spear cannot kill as many people as quickly as a bomb. Nor does the after affects of a spear last as long as radio activity. So something has happened. And from habit we turn to technology to solve a problem caused by our use of technology. It’s as if it’s a tool we don’t fully comprehend.

    I’m not suggesting that we can do without technology, nor do I have any answers. But I’d does seem like technology is a sort of drug for us and it’s an addiction we can’t fight.

    Echarmion asked what it is about recent or near future tech, specifically, that makes that technology qualitatively different? But I don’t think it needs answering. It’s like someone using a spear to hunt for food asking what could be so bad about technology in the future.

    Can human nature change? Or am I wrong about what I think human nature is?
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    What you say about “illusion” does have weight too though. — I like sushi

    What do you mean?

    Edit: I may have misread it. Are you agreeing?
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    A picture doesn’t have a sense of impending “climax” and if it does it is extended beyond the piece not held within it - if you see what I mean? — I like sushi

    Yes, I do. Which is what you mean by the span of time?
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    A piece of music might be like a piece of performance art, in that the artist makes you experience each second. But each second is irrelevant on its own.

    What is a painting actually doing in your sense of manifesting itself in an instant then the viewer stretching the instant out across time? How is this happening? The time is in your head, though not real time, more like the sense of time in a dream.

    And how is the poem doing the opposite?: to bring the viewer to compress the experience into one instant.
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    It’s a musing I find interesting for various reasons, not a hypothesis. — I like sushi

    Of course. I think it’s interesting, ‘middle ground’ aside, where the two opposites actually are.
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    But this is my problem. A play does not attempt to fool you into believing it’s dealing in real time. It doesn’t pretend to because it can’t. But as a play, it’s intention as a form, the span of time is real.

    A piece of performance art definitely deals in real time. There are no illusions, because what you see is performed life from one second to the next.

    It might be that the film occupies the middle ground.
  • Art Forms - Relation to Space and Time
    ↪I like sushi


    Out of pure interest and enquiry I have these thoughts to add.

    Is there difference between a painting and film in the sense you mean?

    The film might suggest a span of time, but isn’t it an illusion? In some ways the image on the screen is the same as a painting or photo, you can only see it from one point of view, it doesn’t actually occupy space, nor does it exist without being activated through technology. Except for sitting in the theatre for an hour you don’t really experience time. That time in the theatre is only a small part out of your day or life span.

    A play does span time. Not only does the narrative have a sense of time, beginning and end, but the play itself runs for a specific period of time right in front of you. But it’s still an illusion of time, because the writer condenses time for the sake of revealing the narrative, otherwise you would need days to tell the story.

    However, music does have a real time span.

    Edit: what I’m thinking is the middle might not be where you’re looking.
  • Were Baby Boomers Really The Worst?
    (White, Male) Baby Boomers benefited greatly from the New Deal and post-War economy and then fucked it up for younger generations, so they indeed suck — Maw

    The first part of this may be true. But not only white baby boomers. A lot of people benefited, most people’s lives improved, maybe by different degrees.

    But the second part sounds like someone lashing out at someone to blame. How did they fuck it up for younger generations? And do you mean all generations coming after?
  • Were Baby Boomers Really The Worst?
    White, Male) Baby Boomers benefited greatly from the New Deal and post-War economy and then fucked it up for younger generations, so they indeed suck[/quote

    This is the only post of yours I could find actually making a point. My last point was about how difficult it is to define a generation. So what point am I proving?     — Maw
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    ↪Wallows


    That’s very interesting.

    In a reply to a post I made to Echarmion I mentioned that one aspect of human nature is the making of tools; the first one being utilising fire. This making of tools seems to be, to me, almost an obsession and is evident in out technological history. Which indicates it’s sonething we cannot stop doing.
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    Okay. Thanks.
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    Oh, cool. Glad we can agree on something here. — Wallows

    Well, here on tpf that’s a magic moment.

    No, I don’t think I know the Singularity movement.
  • Will we make a deal with technology, whatever it is, wherever it comes from, whatever it demands, in
    Rather, the self-aggrandizing nature of technology will finally encompass its creators (most likely), instead of being treated as a means towards an/some end. — Wallows

    I think that’s what I’m suggesting in my op.
Home » Brett