/philosophy/ - Philosophy

I dunno what's most emotionally resonant, so let's play a few tunes and see which one works.

1.

Legally, you do have something to hide. Estimates are 3-7 felonies a day, due to a bloated law code. In most cases they're not enforced, but if the government suddenly decides it doesn't like you, there's barrels of rope to hang you with.

2.

Bunch of rioters saying it's okay to punch nazis. Only, they get to decide who is a nazi or not.

How this plays out practically is, if they have your life on file, they find something to demonize that grabs you and not them, demonize it, and now you're a nazi.

3.

You do have something to hide. Nobody is perfect, but humans are such that we all have to pretend. If the government decides it doesn't like you, it drags your dirt into the light, but not their own, making it seem like you're particularly dirty.

4.

So look, basically with sufficiently low privacy, the government can just nail anyone it feels like nailing. Zero privacy is equivalent to jailing political prisoners and letting the king have the power of life and death. Historically, governments uniformly abuse their power.

No privacy takes away the fun games of min/maxing which requires the keeping of secrets.

You should read Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. In it, he describes the Panopticon, a kind of prison built upon the principle of permanent surveillance of the prisoners, and the effects it has on the psychology of the inmates. It should be a good starting point for what you are looking for.

Has everyone gone mad?

This is such a simple thing. If the government becomes an enemy of the people, it's only through their abuse of privacy that they are able to censor, inhibit or suppress dissent.

Has no one read 1984? Or ever heard of civil disobedience?

>>5155

>Has everyone gone mad?

No, just Slothful.

I am not op but I would have started a thread with ' I am God ask me anything' when I figured out how to make it not look like a shit post. I'll post here though

I know everything ask me anything

>>5131

What did Hannibal Barca say to his intimidated lieutenant before the Battle of Cannae?

>>5042

Your will is not stagnant, yes? Over the years, then, the nature of reality would change as your will does. If your will is static, and is not physically part of you, than what makes it yours?

How do you know that every other human you encounter isn't an intelligent observer of the universe the same of yourself? How do you know your ability to perceive and participate in reality is unique?

If reality exists before and after your temporary existence, than how is this universe explicitly tied to you or your will? What happens to your will when you die?

The answer to all of these questions, of course, is that there is nothing inherently unique or important about your individual existence and perspective in this universe. Your actions and their consequences are what define your significance in the universe, it is no one's birthright. Your claim is derived purely from the enjoyment the idea gives you, not any semblance of reflecting reality. It's a silly and quaint position discovered by every thinking​ man when they realize they can choose to view the nature of reality in any way they close. The novelty and pleasure of the idea will fade shortly and you will move on.

>>5135

What does this have to do with philosophy? He may have said somethings, or he may not have said anything at all. It was one or the other, and we can say this assuredly

>>5136

>Your will is not stagnant, yes?

Depends on how you perceive infinity

>Over the years, then, the nature of reality would change as your will does.

Of course, The "nature of reality" would be subjective

>If your will is static, and is not physically part of you, than what makes it yours?

Are you implying that we are physical beings? We very well could be nonphysical beings, just as willpower, motivation, ambition, etc, are nonphysical concepts and metaphors to correlate and provide a narrative for physical phenomena.

>How do you know that every other human you encounter isn't an intelligent observer of the universe the same of yourself? How do you know your ability to perceive and participate in reality is unique?

How do you know that everyone isn't the same person?

>If reality exists before and after your temporary existence, than how is this universe explicitly tied to you or your will?

How do you know we aren't eternal beings?

>What happens to your will when you die?

The mechanism of will's connection to being changes.

>The answer to all of these questions, of course, is that there is nothing inherently unique or important about your individual existence and perspective in this universe.

I can't hold all these logical fallacies

>Your actions and their consequences are what define your significance in the universe, it is no one's birthright.

True but irrelevant. Also, isn't it your birthright by definition? This might arguably be our only birthright actually. Well not really this is all still Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I propose polysolipsism. I am the only consciousness in my whole universe. Coincidentally, there are other universes, and e.g. yours overlaps with mine.

Dying from old age is stupid. I'll die bungee jumping or skydiving or too much salvia or some other fucked up shit

>>5124

I would rather die like this if I could, or like Socrates and become a hero.

Old age, surrounded by a family who loved and appreciated me.

Working to be honest.

>>4879

>gather information from the news

kek

News is not for education.

Fact is your family members probably wasted their entire lives, not just the bits before they died. They reproduced for the sake of reproducing, which is done for the sake of having reproduced.

If they were anything other than complicated-looking bacteria they would have thought about what they were doing and changed their behaviour when their incentives changed.

For normies, thinking is a 'not even once' sort of thing.

How is the long-run factored into these conclusions? If killing off all minority populations to create an ethnically homogenized society resulted in the long-run nullification of ethnic conflict or power struggles, since this would essentially create an infinite amount of utility and happiness since it continues to generate results far into the future, is it therefore worth a single short-term avalanche of sorrow and a massive loss of utility?

>>1669

Very myopic of you to consider that position as solely contrarian. As a Stoicist, I have to ask you, what if suffering is required to build character or to do good in this world? If you abandon all principle in pursuit of your happiness, what separates you from canal hedonists?

>>4892

"Of course not"

You presume too much. If a doctor makes one mistake in their entire career, then yes there will be consequences for that mistake, but nothing compared to the consequences facing a doctor who makes frequent or aggravating mistakes.

The task we are given as humans in society is to attempt to foresee the consequences of our actions and to make our decisions based on the expected consequences. Someone's inevitably going to make a mistake because they failed to foresee the negative consequences of their choice. They will be punished in despite of their good intentions, because otherwise there would be no incentive to anticipate possible negative consequences.

>>5093

Do you start firing every surgeon who makes a mistake?

Of course not, the consequences of doing that would result in increased death and suffering. or are you forgetting that the punishment itself must also not increase suffering? Firing an incompetent doctor may very well save lives, just as firing a competent but unlucky doctor will result in more people dying.

Moral nihilism obtains. Consequentialism is in contradiction with the structure of logic.

Even if it wasn't, it's identical to both deontology and virtue ethics, because you can define the 'good' consequence however you like. Rather than material consequences, you can define it as following a rule, or as having embodied a virtue, and voila you've re-created the other systems within consequentialism.

Similarly, consequentialism as a deontology:

The rule is to obtain the best material end state.

Consequentialism as virtue ethics:

The virtue is to always seek the best material end state.

Naturally deontology and virtue ethics are also identical.

>>431

>Morally, you may have a point, but practically, one cannot simply wave away all ills committed with the best of intentions with a "poor feller didn't mean any harm."

Amazing true fact: people lie. If your intentions can excuse your actions, guess what people will do.

>>1667

Happiness is a sensation which is good by definition. If it's not good, it's not happiness.

Suffering is the set of sensations that are bad by definition. If it's not bad, it's not suffering. E.g. workout pain is not suffering. A good itch-scratching scratch is not suffering.

You can argue these things exist or don't exist, but definitions don't need justification. They just are. They just be.

>>5133

You can also argue that suffering is a pathway to happiness. Again, this is entirely orthogonal to justification.

The Iliad is really boring, and I don't recommend it.

>>5087

Save your money, download them for free, i inherited an entire library from my grandfather and i mostly read on my laptop, books are hard to carry around and they get mouldy, its better to read from paper though, but not worthed the money if you are "poor".

>>5091

> i inherited an entire library from my grandfather and i mostly read on my laptop

Your grandfather was hip and tech-savy, but reading books on a screen fucks with my eyes after a while.

>>5087

A fairly pointless exercise, given we know nothing about you and your degrees of interest or what you intend to do with any input you may gain from these works.

that said, Aristotle's metaphysics is a book very much worth reading. Definitely more so than Machiavelli and Homer (even if you are 'only' looking for literary achievements).

Also, for what it's worth, I personally like reading compilations of different viewpoints, so your third book is probably what I would go for.

I'm curious to hear which you chose, if indeed you chose at all.

Spend less time reading and more time thinking about what you've read. You'll find you didn't really understand it, at which point you'll grok how much you can learn without spending money.

At least spend more time hanging around in libraries.

Never saw this before. It's horrifying to consider people actually think this way. Blatantly misogynistic as well, loath as I am to use that term.

And I'm aware it's a shitpost. Doesn't mean it's not founded on some people's honest thoughts.

If I didn't have a sister who spit on everything my parents and grandparents ever did for her, I'd have a problem with this.

Good Point!

This is actually true, if only because of how sexually depraved society has become.

If a daughter doesn't have sex until marriage, and she has her parents blessings for said marriage, then the father is not a cuck.

Well, novel at least. Utterly moronic, but novel.

Cuckoldry isn't about sex. It's about reproduction. The point of the cuck isn't that they don't get to fuck their wife. The point is their genes die out, and they spend time and money spreading someone else's. Daughters getting fucked is the very opposite of your genes not being spread.

There's a little bit of incel in the definition of cuck.

>have daughters

>not incel

Novel, but dumbfoundingly stupid. A Babelonian-tier monument to idiocy.

>>5059

And for your first question, I would say that people should think there are two kinds of freedom, to be free from and to be free in.

Think about buddhist abnegation as in to be free from this world and desires (Will>will).

Think about a little kid in a toy store he owns, he can play with whatever he likes. (will>Will)

It even applies to reason, when you are humbled by not knowing something although you learned (Will>will), when you get a theory down and it seems you have sucessfuly studied the natural (will>Will)

So man can be free in varying degrees and different ways, but can only be absolutely free when (will=Will), which is only feasible when man is an adaptable platform, ever evolving, ever optimizing, never content until the very epitome is achieved. So I think we'll just end up creating a fucking sentient being to do it because we are too busy sending outraged tweets and starving to death.

tl;dr: Just do your best and tell people to do it as well, it's the least and the most we can do.Or make a rogue AI, it's all the same in the end.

2x yes

No, it's not reasonable that someone who holds a stupid opinion is stupid. An idea isn't merely a product of the mind, but also of the amount of information available and also of how much energy people wish to employ in it. These two factors confound the direct effect of intelligence on an idea.

Alchemists, for instance, had a crude conception of chemical processes. But at the same time, because they had only crude tools to work with (glass was expensive and improper for experiments, substances were often filled with impurities, recipes weren't clear) the data they were fed back from chemical experiments didn't warrant any more sophisticated theory.

As another example, consider an specialist. Specialist often have very little knowledge of any area besides their narrow field of interest, yet that has nothing to do with their intelligence. Being smart doesn't prevent someone from being an idiot when it comes to another field.

As for "critical thinking", I don't know what that expression means or refers to and I'm not sure whether or not whatever it refers to is a skill or not.

>>5022

Both questions were centered around the notion of critical thinking. Unless you're saying that specialists or intelligent people with subpar means at their disposal reaching conclusions is an example of forming 'stupid' ideas *because* of poor critical thinking, you haven't answered the questions.

>>5013

there are generally two reasons why someone doesn't apply critical thinking (I'm assuming you mean this in the sense of 'being non-dogmatic as well as attempting to form opinions while being as informed on the topic as reasonably possible' - do specify if you are thinking of something else). One is a simple lack of resources, which is mostly either time or energy, and another is the outright incapability of doing so.

In both cases, when you form opinions as a result of trusting the authority of someone you percieve as competent and worthy of your trust, I do not think that it is fair to call the people in question stupid, even if, to you, their trust in these particular people may seem particularly badly misplaced.

But I would agree with you that, should they have arrived at their opinions on their own, without having the ability or invested the resources to investigate it thoroughly, while *also* holding on to their opinion *as if* they had foolproof reasons to do so, are deceiving themselves either willingly or unwittingly. the latter I would consider stupid, since I have no other word for people who feel unjustifiably competent regarding a matter, in which they know full well they have invested little to no effort, but nonetheless fail to notice their feeling of certainty is unfounded. the prior group is more willfully ignorant or obtuse than stupid, but I have no problem with people like >>5014 calling them 'stupid' for that.

Lots of smart folk don't profess any smart ideas.

The human brain should be Turing complete. The only question is how long it takes for a particular specimen to think critically. It's probably not worthwhile for sub-150 IQs to attempt to think critically, because even if they try full time, they won't learn how until middle age, and then they hardly have time to actually apply the method to anything significant.

you'd be suprise :^)

If the customers can't work out they're being fucked over then they deserve to be fucked over.

Assuming you're not some callous altruist who is only pretending to want to help (99% likelihood) then all you're doing by getting 'Sanitation' involved is enabling their gullibility. Now, instead of being fucked over by the relatively limited Krusty Krab, they'll be fucked over by 'Sanitation' as soon as regulatory capture runs to completion. Good work asshole, die in a fire.

His writing and works aren't anything extremely complex or hard to understand so just choose whatever. I would only spend like 20 min pre reading.

Start with Candide, then read his treaties and other writings, not difficult imo

>>5007

I've just started with the Greeks and it's pretty comfy tbh. Start with Plato's dialogues, the easy ones first.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm

A post form this thread is gone already

Like tears int he wind

Almost everything good from the greeks is still floating around, as that's what being influential means. Have to figure out how to filter it out, though, and I don't know how hard that would be for you.

Okay.

No, you stop barking.

>>4982

No

>>4982

https://twitter.com/panamaorange/status/830558610820329472/photo/1

>>4982

i cant i have phimosis

Pass.

Since OP is a faggot, he's probably looking for a top. Who's thirsty enough to top for a faggot?