"The Republic" by Plato | Read by Joshua Graham by carn0ld03 in Philosophy

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unwritten doctrine = it's ok to lie to the plebs. Ignore what he wrote down

why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]PragmaticStoicism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The question would be how do you justify that "objects with parts" actually exist,

A leg carries a body. Without a body the leg can't function. Without the leg the body can't walk. Obviously objects with parts exist as I just described an object with parts. Obviously the objects are individually different as they have different functions such that two bodies without legs can't walk, even when connected. Obviously the composite is different than a sum if the parts as it can perform a function as a whole that none of the parts can perform separately.

It is absurd to claim that there is no such thing as "objects with parts".

Who is to say that a soul does not have parts?

why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]PragmaticStoicism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds like a better explanation is to say that metrology is the study of what similarities there are between different things. Rather than putting things into categories and ignoring the similarities of things in different groups, meteology rejects categories and only looks for those things which are the same.

That is the most logic I can make of what is at best a poorly considered analytical style.

why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neolib 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The whole mereology field seems to be quite esoteric to me, but I'll admit I didn't look into it closely.

In logic, philosophy and related fields, mereology (from Greek μέρος 'part' (root: μερε-, mere-, 'part') and the suffix -logy, 'study, discussion, science') is the study of parts and the wholes they form. Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology emphasizes the meronomic relation between entities, which—from a set-theoretic perspective—is closer to the concept of inclusion between sets.

why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]PragmaticStoicism 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds like complete gibberish to me. The premise seems to be that everything that is something is actually not something but some other thing that we perceive as something.

This is a type of convoluted logic that is very common, but comes in different flavors. It is a type of semantic game that bogs down in soft concepts that are hard to disprove, especially for those who are not scientifically literate.

I am confident that reality exist outside of my perception and any claim that how we percieve things with our senses determines the nature of reality is nothing more than nonsense.

Don't let modern comforts make you soft. Consider the lessons of Seneca. by PragmaticStoicism in Philosophy

[–]PragmaticStoicism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's never to late to be what you could have been.

Don't let modern comforts make you soft. Consider the lessons of Seneca. by PragmaticStoicism in Philosophy

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Too late

why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neolib 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In philosophy, mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the metaphysical thesis that there are no objects with proper parts.

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

Stoicism and Christianity share some common values. by PragmaticStoicism in Philosophy

[–]PragmaticStoicism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Copium has a short shelf life.

Stoicism and Christianity share some common values. by PragmaticStoicism in Philosophy

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why try to be great or meaningful when copium is available?

Stoicism and Christianity share some common values. by PragmaticStoicism in Philosophy

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As you sow, so shall you reap
Mindset seals fate
We are the company we keep
 
Meaning:
Every person has inalienable agency
such that we should
Turn away from evil and do good
as 'evil' impedes/shackles Agency, 'good' expedes/unshackles Agency

 
for Heaven on Earth - Virtuous Cycles for All

 

What if the "Second Coming of Christ" hadn't been a fundamental tenet of early Christianity? by jerryk in Philosophy

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a lot of words to ask a stupid question. Without reading the walloftext: It was literally the last thing the Christ mentioned. The question is unanswerable as it is based on a faulty premise!

What if the "Second Coming of Christ" hadn't been a fundamental tenet of early Christianity? by jerryk in Philosophy

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Revelation was not taken seriously in the early days. In fact it was regarded as spurious for quite some time.

In any case, yes they clearly believed that the end was just around the corner. But, so has every single generation since then.

But I say, what if "the end of the ages" is only the end for us, ie. the end of the reincarnation cycle, even if Paul and most people misunderstood? This isn't as big of a stretch as you think. Most Jews to this day think reincarnation is a thing, and so did they back in New Testament times. Indeed, when some Jews ask Jesus if a man was born blind as a punishment, whatever he had done wrong must have been in a past life. There's also the concept of karmic debt, which is what makes people have to keep living miserable lives. And what did Jesus do again? And in fact the same research you mentioned giving evidence of past lives also shows that the world is controlled by malicious beings who put stumbling blocks everywhere, to ensure that it's impossible for anyone to ever pay their debts. Is this starting to sound familiar?

I must have been some horrible feminazi last time, because I can almost remember it, and now I'm forced to live as a male which is just plain WRONG for me. It makes me want to kill myself, it's horrible. I bet I was also an identical twin of or at least closely related to another user on this site, who is literally the person I was deprived of being, and who I still seem to have a twin-like connection to. I am also disabled in so many ways. I must have really fucked up. And the evil overlords only plan to fuck me up further by devastating me. They watch me like hawks, making sure I can't so much as imagine anything, or have any supernatural experiences. And they elaborately scripted every single aspect of my life to drive me mad, because everything and everyone comes together for this very purpose. They even knew about me before my birth, because there are references to me and this plot in media shortly preceding it. And also certain media reads my mind, as well as other people, and they all seem to be able to read each other's minds as well so that I'm out of the loop and so suffer severe consequences. They want to get the hate to flow through me. And I hate to say it, but I can't see any way they could lose at this point. But I will say that if I get the chance, I will NEVER return here EVER again. I'm done with this crap. All this toxic positivity is here to make you want to be in this world, but it's all bullshit. I've seen through it now, no one will convince me otherwise again.

No it's different because by iamonlyoneman in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, well. I am here. Take it as fact.

What is Right Wing Art? What is Left Wing Art? Recall that Aesthetics, Epistemology, and Ethics can be considered as subfields within Philosophy by ceck in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A philosophy forum? I am not exactly sure what to think of that proposed idea. On one hand, it sounds nice, but how I would benefit is uncertain to me. I would probably just create a forum that mainly focuses on art, but also allows for other kinds of discussions. However, I do not currently possess the expertise to build a forum, but I do entertain the idea of making one in the future.

On another note, apologies for the late response.

No it's different because by iamonlyoneman in Philosophy

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

10 months ago

why are you even here LOL idk even what the content was sorry

No it's different because by iamonlyoneman in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Link sadly seems dead.

What is Right Wing Art? What is Left Wing Art? Recall that Aesthetics, Epistemology, and Ethics can be considered as subfields within Philosophy by ceck in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did I interpret your comment correctly?

You did actually. I am actually rather impressed, you show a grasp of both sarcasm and subtlety that is uncommon on Saidit. Now that I see you are a sentient being I will attempt more straightforward commentary in the future

What is Right Wing Art? What is Left Wing Art? Recall that Aesthetics, Epistemology, and Ethics can be considered as subfields within Philosophy by ceck in Philosophy

[–]ceck[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I assume you are making an oblique point, so I will steelman your comment.

Claim: Mona Lisa (the person shown by the famous painting) was neither Democrat nor Republican. The Mona Lisa (the painting) was neither Democrat nor Republican because those terms apply to a society that was created long after the Mona Lisa was created.

Your unstated insinuation is that using "right wing" and "left wing" to describe premodern societies runs the risk of bad historical mistakes such as "presentism."

Did I interpret your comment correctly?

What is Right Wing Art? What is Left Wing Art? Recall that Aesthetics, Epistemology, and Ethics can be considered as subfields within Philosophy by ceck in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think Mona Lisa was a Democrat or a Republican?

The Usanin Pyramid instead of the Maslow Pyramid by Ehhhhhh in Philosophy

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Take the Maslow pyramid, and flip only the top three, making your spiritual enlightenment a basis for society above it. Most important at the bottom, least important at the top.

Or to say, from a foundation of security and health, you create an environment for well being, from that well being you craft a society.

implies

Yet does not state. That is inferred on the part of the viewer, and is subjective.

The Usanin Pyramid instead of the Maslow Pyramid by Ehhhhhh in Philosophy

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe this would make sense to you then

Noam Chomsky on Religion, Consciousness, Black Lives Matter #BLM, and Education (1:03:57) ~ Better Left Unsaid with Curt Jaimungal by JasonCarswell in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Chomsky is a limited hangout of US-"ex"-deep-state.

Get a fucking education that is worth its name.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Word. I'd underwrite this, if I could.

Define "judgement" by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Insightful.

The Many Faces of Marxism. In every case, a special form of property is at the center of the “Theory,” and the liberation of man depends on its abolition, by which is meant its “positive transcendence.” by Chipit in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yes but that is the same "special form of property" that exists in healthy families ("oh you need this? take it")

the trick is we must first divide into castes; your caste gives you what you ask for 100% of the time (you get kicked down a caste for being impertinent - no one trusts you any longer) (if your caste is unable to supply your need, they'll cry instead, but that's all you get)

Constitutional Monarchy is inevitable; Frank Herbert was a Prophet

Define "judgement" by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) identification of a sin (or, "the non-Tao")

2) same as (1) and it is believed the sinful/the non-Tao behavior will never be corrected (or "repented")

Albert Camus's “The Human Crisis” read by Viggo Mortensen, 70 years later (1:32:41) ~ Columbia Maison Française by JasonCarswell in Philosophy

[–]FrankGaughan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing. I didn't see it. It would be great if there were an opportunity to voice Shakespeare's books in his voice. I'm currently researching the topic of Ambition In Macbeth, and I found a very helpful source https://phdessay.com/free-essays-on/ambition-in-macbeth/ which helped me explore the topic in more detail and write my own paper. You can use deep fake, but the voice will be a little different. You need to find a company that will sponsor it.

Comprehensive List Of Logical Fallacies by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most hypocrisy is groupthink anyway, isn't it ?

Comprehensive List Of Logical Fallacies by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's missing one: Appeal to Hypocrisy.

I guess it's arguably an example of Argument Ad Hominen.

Schadenfreude by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

subscribed.

Schadenfreude by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Overconsumption as a symptom of today's capitalism by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Its not my child. I just liked it so i translated it.

Look at the source. The author is even younger than i am. Not much... but at little bit anyways.

Albert Camus's “The Human Crisis” read by Viggo Mortensen, 70 years later (1:32:41) ~ Columbia Maison Française by JasonCarswell in Philosophy

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's okay. There are timely aspects about reflecting before, during, and after great global crises. And of course Camus is a major contributor to existentialist thought. I'm reading The Myth Of Sisyphus which was published a few years before this speech was first given.

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

What's the highest iq idea you've ever had? by yabbit in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saving money by turning condoms inside out and reusing them

Why war? Attempt at an answer by Einstein and Freud by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The most-pressing "problem" i can't overlook that finally has to be made a political priority goes like this:

Cultural and "social" development lags too far behind towards technical development.

When you pull this concept down (so to say) again to actually see better what i mean, look at this:

Every "new" market that is at first made then walled then mono- or oligopolized and then monetarized by these "internet-giants"

(actually they are more like giant armies of ants led by most hipsterest bobbleheads (with a lot of "computing"-power and harddisk-space ) that are payed, brainwashed, doxxed, gaslighted or simply extorted) actually is steered by the famous tick-congregations behind closed doors to push their private "particular"-interest "agendas" - so to say -

actually is extremely hard to regulate and force to behave in a democratic sound sense from a legislative perspective.

Because not only do the same ticks pushing these agendas have an army of lobbyists with suitcases full of money (<- "toilet-paper" simulating pseudo-"value") pushing the political bobbleheads into the "direction" they want them to "rule" but also they stay ahead in time of democratic "development" so to say by influencing politics because otherwise they couldn' test well-enough

whether there is enough money (a replaceable word for the famous "digital dividend" from Mrs. Shoshanna Zuboff ) to "make" in this new "use-case" of their very old strategy of siphoning real values from societies, groups and whole countries into their most private but very badly hideable (an ego thing, for most of them) private pockets.

Just look at Jeff Bezos e.g. literally showing off his total inner emptiness) by letting others build a yacht to virtually enlarge his micro-ego for a billion dollars.

After his recent trophy-, now ex-wife literally fucked him out of any microscopic ego he until then could hold onto in the public.

This ain't fiction ! This is the simulation of reality they pretend to let us live in for people that actively want to believe or "see" it !

But (the light at the end of this very dark tunnel, finally):

Every human being that actually wants to break out of their simulation for us "simple" people actually can do it !

It "just" has to stop to listen to or watch all their bullshit-[MSM](-simulation 24/7, finally !

And look at more than one source regarding one point of his personal "input" interest to even be able to develop a point-of-view on it that is worth being named this way !

Why war? Attempt at an answer by Einstein and Freud by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everything that promotes the development of culture works against war."

I'm not so sure about that, conflict is a tremendous catalyst for growth. I don't have much respect for Freud in general.

I think they're working off several false assumptions from the get-go, one being that war is wrong. Are two ant colonies fighting wrong? It's nature. I don't desire war but it's in our nature, and it can be productive.

Why war? Attempt at an answer by Einstein and Freud by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is an google-translated almost complete excerpt from an German article: Warum Krieg? i value importantly.

Sadly deepl wouldn't translate more than 5000 characters without pathetically trying to make me pay for it.

Enslavement of Man: Animals Only Commit Suicide in Captivity by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Urbanization is the most urging problem... because it amplifies all this problems following from the stress over the top for most human beings, i believe.

Clocks tend to tick slower in rural areas somehow...

Enslavement of Man: Animals Only Commit Suicide in Captivity by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]usehername 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Colony insects commit suicide all the time.

The statement: "Time is money" contains mostly only falseness for most "real" contexts. by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If its free you are the product. Simple, ain't it?

I respect anyone who uses his own autonomy and actually owns his / her personal simulation.

The statement: "Time is money" contains mostly only falseness for most "real" contexts. by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Sometimes I do calculate how long a task takes me against my actual hourly wage to see how much it costs in theory.

Certainly if it's a competition or offer of free stuff you should do that see if it's actually worth your while taking part.

Theorem: Freedom of speech has a higher value than the simulated need for "security" which in fact mostly only is used a justification to wage wars. Security as most bobbleheads interpret it, doesn't exist. by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Life Is Not Short by Drewski in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My theory is that my "life" actually never ends... But it is very hard to explain how i concluded this.

Life Is Not Short by Drewski in Philosophy

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Life isn't short, people who need to make the world work spend their life turning the gears and the fact that we have an aversion to removing the unproductive elements of society leave a lot of work for the productive to do.

Dreams are for sleep and fables and chasing them cheats honest people out of investments nine times out of ten.

Living immediately is to live like a dog. Do it and feel good eating your own excrement.

This whole document is demotivational trollop.

Intermediate-level trolley problem by Chipit in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd calculate the mean value of human lives lost, but i'm a lazy motherfucker when it comes to faking statistics.

Mean - Lifes lost per decision* its probability ... (stochastic magic audibly happening with a "plop"-sound) -> (comparison of "results") ->"best" solution ...

Boring as hell, actually using numbers. These are things the gods created these bureaucrats labeled "engineers" or "physicists" for. Or some "indian" "genius" for some of these riddles which are labeled "n-lemmata" when testing for ethics.

And since the lever most likely is pulled by a tick: The "worst" solution actually gets chosen anyways,

so it is conclusive to assume that this "assignment" is mostly pointless for any simulation of reality that exists in a vicinity of the one i can sense. (So far)

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could object partly ... In my personal simulation most "adults" rather loose their ability of imagination.

Their "fantasy", so to say. That is why people like me e.g. , who never lost but

(with some neurological "magic" happening nobody actually seems to understand so far)

strengthened it are called "schizophrenic", i could suppose.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, pretty much.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the purpose of life is a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of truth. If it is not a matter of truth, then there is no true purpose of life.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not really :) I'm an atheist and there's no purpose from my point of view. Was just trying to explain how I see it when other people say whatever about their subjective meaning of life. The meaning of life is just a thought in your head.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but you meant that thinking there is a purpose is the same thing as there really being a purpose. If everyone can feel there is a purpose and they all contradict each other, there is none.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, that's what it is. I don't think I used this phrase.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Instead of calling it an oxymoron like “subjective truth” just call it an opinion.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, and I'm not saying it is. There is only objective reality. Doesn't mean that people can't have personal opinions and views (such as what the meaning of life is) though.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no such thing as subjective truth. It’s a category error disguised as some deep concept.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Subjective feelings (subjective meaning of life) and objective facts ("you are here to be tested before God" or something) are not the same. That's the main problem with this argument I think.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Logic is not persuasive to you? Okay.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Religious people sometimes use this sort of argument in debates... It's not very persuasive to me as an atheist though.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saying it’s all subjective just means that there is no actual meaning but you just make one up.

Yeah, but that's the world I'd say we live in. Still doesn't make me wanna go on a gun rampage in a mall.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Try to understand the words.

If people say life means whatever you want, they’re actually saying that the meaning of life is not a truth but a preference, like a flavor of ice cream. But then they are saying there is no meaning in the sense of truth itself.

If this is what they claim, they are blackpilled.

If they still insist their life has a meaning, but insist that life means whatever you want they violate the law of non contradiction when it comes to the meaning of life.

If they violate the law of non contradiction it means that contraries can both be truth and truth itself doesn’t exist.

If truth doesn’t exist, neither does moral truth.

If moral truth doesn’t exist, the rules of morality are an illusion.

If the rules are morality are an illusion, you can do whatever you want as long as you avoid punishment.

This is also blackpilled.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a truth and it’s contrary is capable at the same time, we can possibly infer that although truth is subjective it is objective. Since truth cannot contradict itself, there must be no truth. And if truth doesn’t exist, it follows that moral truth doesn’t ether.

If someone says the purpose of life is A and another says B, and they are contrary they cannot both be true. Saying it’s all subjective just means that there is no actual meaning but you just make one up.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

s/iAmVerySmart ; this is a word salad that doesn’t connect. Your premise, support, and conclusion are all like taking an America outlet and plugging in an English power cord. It doesn’t make any sense.

When normies say life has any purpose you give it… by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

normies say life has any purpose you give it…

If a statement and it’s contrary are equally true then truth itself doesn’t exist.

In this sense what people are saying is that they give themselves a subjective purpose, not an objective purpose like some externally imposed one (by God etc). So your conclusion "truth doesn't exist" can't follow from that.

And if it doesn’t, morality is just a game that everyone pretends has rules.

Morality is something that's ingrained in you by your biology and culture. Different people have a different sense of morality. Psychopaths allegedly have different something different in their brain for example. https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psychopaths-brains-differences-structure-function/

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There has to be, or nothing makes sense. Secondly, almost all the firsthand reports say the same thing, except for which deity supposedly greets them, which is usually the one they believe in.

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I should have been more specific. What other options are there? How do you know there will be other options?

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wherever else you want

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]soundsituation 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

don't go into the tunnel of light when you die

Where else are we supposed to go?

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only men lose those abilities, because men are condemned by nature to be miserable working and fighting machines and sperm dispensers.

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For men it's because they're hardwired to become angry, depressed and arrogant so that they fight. For women it's because our species is hardwired to raise them to be entitled and used to having everything handed to them.

Behind the scenes it's the archons wanting to establish a love of life when people are most susceptible and responsive, then make life a living hell after that. They think it's funny driving us to insanity, which is why they created the matrix and made us live life in it, but they want us to have an irrational love of it so that we protect it at all costs and keep coming back for more. That's the real reason. Don't trust them and don't go into the tunnel of light when you die.

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]socks-the-nigger 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

😮

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because they have very low intelligence, and are easily entertained.

Plenty of kids are sad sacks or constant criers. Some are straight up sociopaths who love hitting other kids.

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

They take joy in the simple things adults ignore. The world is full of wonder and suprises for them.

Partly this is just how the child's brain is set up because they are more observant than adults. We lose some of our observation ability as we get older so that we can focus.

Why are children joyful? by [deleted] in Philosophy

[–]Drewski 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, innocence and a lack of knowledge of evil is definitely a part of it. As a child we are shielded from a lot of the problems of adults, the boredom and apathy that many modern working people experience every day, the loss of friends and family members that comes with getting older, the pain of strained relationships and strife that is often hidden from children.

What I really worry about is the younger generation that is constantly on their phones and tablets. I feel like they've lost many of the joys of childhood and coming of age for the constant but muted dopamine drip of constant scrolling and newsfeeds. Add that to the lack of the ability to really connect and communicate with others in person, and we have a serious problem going forward.

A Short Introduction to Universal Liberalism. It is a principle which, by definition, requires the promotion of the greatest good for the greatest number. Any principle which does not require this is inherently liable to produce net harm compared with a principle that does if applied in practice. by Chipit in Philosophy

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thats Utilitarianism, although Liberalism is very adjacent. Liberalism is technically the rule of law rather then by ruler, you don't have to obey any individual arbitrarily according to liberalism

Philosophy Book Club by greece666 in Philosophy

[–]greece666[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you are very welcome!

Philosophy Book Club by greece666 in Philosophy

[–]Antarchomachus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A philosophy group with a Stirner discussion... I'll come check this out.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]Markimus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I support the National Justice Party's proposed policies

Affirmative action should just be changed to discriminate based on economic background rather than it just being a tool to keep whites in poverty. FYI most people in poverty in America are white and affirmative action is in place solely to make sure it stays that way.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]soundsituation[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Aside from getting rid of affirmative action, what do you think could be done to help whites?

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]Markimus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The real problem is that the entire system is set up to harm whites and benefit non-whites (excluding asians in specific instances) and the myth of Systemic Racism is just a part of the broader attack on white people. It's a blood libel designed to make people hate whites and team up with the system to attack them.

This article is just further trying to obfuscate reality, no surprise it's by a university professor which is the main institution leading anti-white ideology.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]Tiwaking 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

AXXA 3 insightful - 2 fun - 5 hours ago That's a crude yet astute critique of the NAACP's definition. The author however immediately after provides a different definition. The author actually makes a point with the whole article that kind of fits in with your point.

Philosophically Speaking: If you are successful and Black then its because you succeeded despite systemic racism. If a Black person defends the the current system, the status quo, then they are "Anti-Black" and "Uncle Toms" and are pro-Systemic Racism. Therefore: Black people who succeed under systemic racism and criticise the system can and will game the system by claiming they succeeded by the merit of their own actions but will motivate others to destroy the system which made themselves a success. By destroying a successful system, racist or not racist, the Blacks who succeeded will remain an unattainable symbol for all others who come later because they motivated others to destroy the ladder that put them in their position in the first place.

The Boondocks likened Black People to Crabs. Crabs are tough but if you catch them together in a bucket, any crab trying to escape will be dragged down by another crab. The Boondocks Hateocracy - Crabs

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for posting such a thoughtful article. To me the point he makes is common sense but he does a really good job writing about it. I think one of the biggest issues is disparity in childhood education. School choice is a good way to address it.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That's a crude yet astute critique of the NAACP's definition. The author however immediately after provides a different definition. The author actually makes a point with the whole article that kind of fits in with your point.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But what is systemic racism? NAACP President Derrick Johnson defines it as “systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages [sic] African Americans.”

Systemic racism is only for niggers.

The (Philosophical) Problem with "Systemic Racism" by soundsituation in Philosophy

[–]soundsituation[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Author posits that while humans seem to naturally be drawn to teleological explanations, teleological reasoning doesn't help us understand (and in fact hinders us from understanding) the specific causes of racial inequalities.

Noam Chomsky: Starve the unvaxxed by Chipit in Philosophy

[–]NormChompsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He spells his name stupid. It's like it's missing letters or something.

Why We Must Lay A New Foundation. Much of contemporary thought — broadly dubbed “postmodernism” — abandons both reason and reality. It is the philosophical universe in which progressivism has flourished, conservatism has failed, and physiocracy must somehow develop. by Chipit in Philosophy

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree the philosophy of the founding fathers has failed. It is instead being rejected, which is different. One of the key sentences in the declaration of independence is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

First, we must believe in a higher power than humans (Creator), and the precise detail don't matter. However when humans assume this position, that is when immorality takes over and people think they can rule of others.

Then you have "the pursuit of Happiness". This has been largely rejected by people who reject the American foundations and the intentions of the founding fathers. They think that some people ought to sacrifice their pursuit of happiness because their ancestors committed some crimes. Post-modernism is meant to destroy everything it touches, and the Constitution, bill or rights and declaration of indepence is no exception. This doesn't mean that they don't work once people are educated on what they mean, since it is not supposed to be a metaphysical philosophy but rather a political one. The only prerequisite is believing in a higher power, even if it's the Universe.

I agree that the success of the post-modernist philosophies lies in the different kind of epistemology it introduces. In other words, it changes the definition of "truth". This just means it can create whatever bullshit it wants out of thin air, and of course it does so effectively gaslighting the masses with lies. The majority of people obviously don't read too much into philosophical arguments and just go with the opinion of the masses, so when post-modernist theories like critical race theory enters academia, it succeeds in convincing the masses with made up lies, which are justified by more lies at ever turn. From there it spread to the general population. I think the way out is an anti-postmodernist philosophy that counters the bullshit, and grounds everyone in the usual intuitive epistemology that doesn't require a Phd in philosophy.

Why We Must Lay A New Foundation. Much of contemporary thought — broadly dubbed “postmodernism” — abandons both reason and reality. It is the philosophical universe in which progressivism has flourished, conservatism has failed, and physiocracy must somehow develop. by Chipit in Philosophy

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know Kant, but I disagree with this article. The Old Testament views truth as "an internal relationship of consistency" but recognizes that this consistency must be based on emperical experience, and must hold over an extended period of time. This is actually a superior philosophical system to Plato. I explained the details here and here. But I generally avoid discussing philosophy these days because humanity has become too stupid to understand it.

The Causality Dilemma by RupertTaylor493 in Philosophy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Causality in fact isn't a dilemma. It's a decision or question of definition. Correlation though, that's a dilemma.

Peter Singer - "Philosophy causes offence. It should cause offence!" by UmamiTofu in Philosophy

[–]GabrielSkerst 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for sharing, I'm just studying this topic. I have not studied philosophy before, so it is still difficult for me. And when I need to complete a thematic task, then https://papersowl.com/write-my-philosophy-paper always helps me, I recommend that you too try this writing service, go right now and order philosophy paper in a few clicks, and experts will do everything quickly and with high quality.

Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, as many insist, or is it not? What is the relationship between Marxism, neo-Marxism (Critical Theory), and Wokeness? All three criticize one another, and yet all three have a great deal obviously in common. Is there some common underlying thread? The answer is yes. by Chipit in Philosophy

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely brilliant breakdown. After listening to New Discourses, you can clearly see Hegel everywhere. Almost every video or conversation of leftists promoting their agenda has some form of "aufheben" and Hegel in the mix. Everyone should listen to that channel to understand how the left is brainwashing people with manipulative tactics and dizzying rhetoric.