A good thread for you: The Myopia of Liberalism — Leontiskos

Unity in the plurality of purposes?

What I meant was that religious influence is used for a variety of purpose, many of which are good of course, but many are self-serving or worse. I think it should be used for what it claims to offer, and nothing besides. Why waste time and effort on anything besides salvation if salvation is worthwhile?

Anyway, I’ve read most of the thread you’ve recommended and skimmed the rest of it. I’ve also read Why Liberalism Failed, as I mentioned. I’m still curious why it’s good for me.

Ah, got it — you're asking about the computational or energy cost of extra words like “please” when talking to me, not socially.

The short answer: it's negligible.

To put it in perspective:

• Modern language models like me process words in chunks called tokens. “Please” is just one token.
• Processing a single extra token takes a tiny fraction of a second and a tiny fraction of energy, typically on the order of microjoules to millijoules depending on the hardware.
• The biggest energy use comes from generating the response itself, not minor variations in input.

So, whether you say:

• “Tell me a joke.”
• or “Please tell me a joke.”

…makes almost no difference in energy use.

If you’re interested in total energy use, though — data centers running AI models do consume a lot of energy overall, but removing polite words isn’t going to meaningfully reduce that. The biggest savings would come from reducing unnecessary requests, optimizing model efficiency, or using smaller models when possible.

I've always worn sandals a lot and the last pair I got have a bottle opener on the bottom. I didn't want it, it just happened to be on the cheap pair I chose. Funny thing is that it's come in handy on occasion but is kind of gross to use.

I know of no secular intentional communities outside the history of rapidly collapsing communes or ethnic colonies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How about something like Twin Oaks? Not a cult!

Blog post evaluating the successes and failures of Twin Oaks.

Yeah, but did you care he died, like were you at all invested in him as a character, or was it just pretty prose? — Hanover

Not really, no. I like the way Tom describes his experience, that the story's enchantment lies in how it's told.

This part where Gatsby is found in the pool made a lasting impression. Rich like chocolate cheesecake.

“The laden mattress moved irregularly down the pool. A small gust of wind that scarcely corrugated the surface was enough to disturb its accidental course with its accidental burden. The touch of a cluster of leaves revolved it slowly, tracing, like the leg of compass, a thin red circle in the water.”

My wife teaches it in High School English and can’t praise it enough. When I commented about the writing she began reciting some of her favorite lines from memory.

Hamlet? I think he was indirectly calling me a nihilist.

I read Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen not too long ago. What’s your point?

The Great Gatsby.

Beautifully rich writing though a little too rich for my pedestrian tastes, I guess.

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices.

Plurivocity is the sign of a rich text. — Leontiskos

That can be used for a variety of purposes. Shouldn’t there be just one purpose though?

Religious argument and religious interaction is the most interesting kind. This is because religion is primordially identical to culture. Before the pluralism of secular states there was no difference at all. Religio-cultural encounter is the most interesting kind because it involves the interaction of totalizing forms. Chinese Confucianism meets European Christianity meets Indian Hinduism. That sort of thing is the epitome of human encounter, precisely because you have such maximally full and developed expressions of human life coming into contact with one another.

And I'm sorry, but if you think religion or culture or sacred texts are not amenable to argument and rational interpenetration, then your ignorance of history is massive. On a quantitative scale that sort of argument dwarfs all other kinds. — Leontiskos

Interesting because believers typically lament the enlightenment and the so called death of God.

And sacred text are eminently amenable to reinterpretation, unfortunately.

Did you notice the discussion of intuition in the "what is real" thread? Intuition might not be a firm basis for agreement. — Banno

Agreed.

You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory.

You’re suggesting that people with a God-shaped hole in their hearts may be desperate enough to gulp down some authentic looking Kool-Aid? A leap of faith is not always rewarded, or is it?

Is it against the forum rules to substitute AI responses for your own? — Leontiskos

My understanding is that we’re required to mention when AI is used, which is why I mentioned it.

I addressed the strange idea of "blind trust" earlier, specifically <here> and <here>. — Leontiskos

It’s a strange idea that people are entirely rational.

You don’t think that blind trust or faith has any value?

According to MFT, I guess MAGA is skewed towards Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Liberty/Oppression.

I’ll let AI take care of the uninteresting questions.

Trust is earned through consistent actions, honesty, accountability, empathy, and respect. By being reliable, transparent, and showing integrity, people come to believe in your character and dependability.

Blind trust is given without evidence or experience, often driven by emotional needs, optimism, authority, or urgency.

Now back to what I think is an interesting question: what is the value of blind trust?

Trust can be earned or given blindly. What is the value of giving it blindly?

Then I would say that trust is the most abused aspect of life, and that religion is part of life. — Leontiskos

More generally I’m inclined to say that power is the most abused aspect, though in society power amounts to influence and that includes a degree of trust. For the religious that degree of trust or faith offers enormous influential power, and as we all know, power corrupts.

Let’s say for now that X = trust.

It’s painfully obvious that faith is the most abused aspect of religion, isn’t it?

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. It also showed that conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. A understanding B and B not understanding A would seem to indicate that A is more developed. — Brendan Golledge

You don’t understand, perhaps willfully? We all have the same moral intuitions. How could we not?! It’s just that, according to moral foundations theory, conservatives value intuitions more evenly and liberals favor care and fairness, if I recall correctly. The idea that liberals cannot conceive of or are lacking intuitions like loyalty or sanctity is obviously absurd.

Btw, can you explain to me why I support a woman’s right to choose despite the intuition that abortion is wrong?

"Belief without evidence" and "We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" seem like pretty standard claims of irrationality.

If you don't see faith as irrational that's great, but anti-religious folks tend to view faith as irrational. — Leontiskos

See Tom’s last post above.

I’m anti-religious and view faith as non-rational, though there are clearly many instances of irrational religious faith.

Is that the same use of "essence" as that of the Philosophers hereabouts? "that which makes a thing what it is and not another", or whatever? — Banno

Of course not, I would say it’s intuitive and that we all have intuitive assessments of things and the intuitive sense is foundational. Knowledge, analysis, and philosophizing can shape our intuitions and allows increased manipulation but the intuition is always there.

I don’t get it. Tom doesn’t claim that faith is inherently irrational in that post or the couple of subsequent posts.

What is it to "have the essence" of mum, beyond what one does? — Banno

I’m thinking that pretty much all a child has is the essence of mum. No words or definitions. Mum may mean security, nourishment, and the like, on an instinctual or just ‘feel good’ level.

Ah yes, going back a step.

3. Faith is irrational — Leontiskos

I don’t think anyone would say it’s inherently irrational.

First, we do not need to have at hand the essence of some thing in order to talk about it. See the "mum" example given previously. We use words with great success without knowing the essence of whatever it is they stand for. Demonstrably, since we can talk about faith wiothout agreeing on the essence of faith.

Thinking we can't use words unless we first fix their essence is muddle-headed. — Banno

I think a child that successfully uses “mum” must necessarily have the essence of their mum. It’s just not a very developed concept.

If we can identify something we must have some conception of it and couldn’t that conception, however simple or complex, be considered the essence of it? Our concepts or essences may not align well, of course.

4. Anything which is based on the irrational is bad — Leontiskos

That’s rather out of the blue. I think there are many many things, like love for instance, which are irrational and good.

I was referring to instances where the free market fails to provide basic services to rural communities where demand isn’t great enough to make a profit. In these instances the government has needed to step in to ensure that essential services like electricity, telecommunications, healthcare, and infrastructure are accessible to all citizens, regardless of location or economic viability.

I realize this has most likely already been covered or isn’t relevant to regulations. I haven’t read much of the topic.

In a free market, where demand is not great enough no supply will be, uh... supplied.

I don't know about being out of place, but the colors in the first example are way too subtle, especially in the era of screens where different screens can be wildly out of calibration.

Maybe nuking that system will cool their jets because that kind of revolution was their pie-in-the-sky goal long before Trump moved towards accomplishing it. — NOS4A2

Trump’s strategy is to pressure other nations into negotiations that prioritize U.S. interests. You think that's what most people want?

Millions of Americans peacefully protested the other day in the Hands Off event. Also, Bernie and AOC‘s oligarchy tour is nonviolent.

The survey indicates that most people think murdering Trump is at least somewhat justified. Yikes. And that was before he nuked the global financial/trade system.

If you’re suggesting that my post lacks substance I’ll have you know that the image is a meditation on freedom, violence, and authenticity in a world emptied of clear moral direction. It echoes Nietzsche’s self-authoring hero, Sartre’s free agent, Camus’ absurd man, and Baudrillard’s hyperreal cowboy — all wrapped in a squint and a poncho.

During the Cultural Revolution, Mao banished intellectuals to the countryside and decimated academic institutions, so that there would be no smart people around to challenge his power. Parallels here? — Joshs

Trump convinced Americans to elect him and Elon. No need to make us any stupider.

China today…
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/980315