/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>4983

Now, in "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences", Derrida criticizes Lévi-Strauss' notion of the engineer, arguing that the engineer must actually be a myth of the bricoleur, another bricoleur himself in fact, as no individual can be the absolute origin of their own discourse. And furthermore, the bricoleur gains its meaning through its difference with the impossibility of the engineer. Whereas Lévi-Strauss argued that neither the bricoleur nor the engineer necessarily supersedes the other, Derrida argued that there are only bricoleurs. But this is orthogonal to the subject at hand, which is memes.

Memes have become an internet cultural phenomenon, lately bleeding over into real life. Some people refer to 2016 election as the "Great Meme War", and a presidential candidate even referenced certain memes in a high-profile speech. There even exists a veritable encyclopedia of memes along with numerous sites that simplify the creation of memes. There are even memes about being a 'meme farmer', which sounds a lot like being a bricoleur.

In fact, the very term 'meme', coined by Richard Dawkins in the 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene", was, as he explains himself, 'hijacked', and that while the original idea meant a random mutation spread by a form of Darwinian selection, 'internet memes' are altered deliberately by human creativity. The 'bricoleurs' repurposed the scientific concept of 'meme' for the mythological concept of 'internet meme', and thereby became 'meme farmers'.

How does a meme farmer tend to her memes? She maintains a collection of images and videos, characters, situations, reactions, concepts, tropes, one-liners, quotes, references, symbols, etc. She plays with them; she mixes and matches different elements until she creates a rearrangement relevant to whatever happens to be her subject of interest. Different elements applied to different structures relevant to different events.

Now lets looks at Lévi-Strauss' explication of the work of the bricoleur:

>"The elements ofPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

culture are the things that oppose nature

http://fgbueno.es/ger/gb0mdk.htm

http://fgbueno.es/gbm/gb1996mc.htm

Maybe this can help: http://www.jesusmateo.com/imagemateo/unescoalarcon/document/eng/GUSTAVO%20BUENO%20-%20ENSAYO%201999.pdf

Humans have a lot of options for how they'll live their lives.

Culture is a group which all make the same decisions. So, as a stupid example, one can choose to admit lots of foreigners or none at all. The first culture will develop means of dealing with contrasting belief systems in an orderly fashion, and will shy away from institutions that require homogenous beliefs. The second culture will have lots of institutions that require homogeneity, but will have simple, crude methods for dealing with heterogeneity.

Hunter tribes don't need psychologists because their lifestyle doesn't put great strain on the human mind. City tribes need a plethora of support systems for the mind, because humans are maladapted for the city environment.

For less stupid examples, there's more than one way to organize a city. Different cultures can choose different, incompatible ways, and still end up with a thriving city as long as their decisions are relatively consistent.

Culture is a conflated thing. Cultures develop, or previously had, a particular character. One can see the character puts a bias on how these decisions are made. It also affects the character of the culture's art. Similarly, the art's themes will be applicable to the relevancies of the culture - decisions to still be made, or difficulties the culture has in living up to its own decisions. But, strictly speaking, the set of life decisions is a different thing than the arts a social group creates.

plato was a pidor

>>4967

Being that I'm Bosnian, I'll throw in a "Plato was a peder".

Plato was wrong. We can work out what he meant, but there's no point.

Plato's forms are a primitive understanding of how definitions work. Now we know how definitions work, and Plato's forms are little more than a historical curiosity.

>>4483

Now I can accurately guess that the people here don't

He's just a caricature of someone who's just learned about logical fallacies and doesn't entirely understand them.

Which brings us to the last comic:

>>4511

You're right that things still have a truth behind them but what the fuck, everyone except the most brainwashed post modernist knows that.

If you can't argue your point without shooting off a fallacy what is the fucking point of arguing with you, dumbass? The point of this description is to refute people that think that, because a earlier argument used a fallacy, further arguments towards the same point are invalid because the user is fallacious.

Guess what?

This shit has nothing to do with it.

Nobody wants to argue with logical fallacies because there's nothing to argue.

Go fling your

>>4527

I'll teach logic for free if anyone wants to learn.

(ProTip: nobody's willing to put in the effort.)

(Throw the horns for Socrates.)

>>4527

I picked up logic from statistics, baysneian truth statements in applied calculus or algebra, and fallacies from a philosophy class valued critical thinking. I took a few programing classes but I didn't learn anything except writing procedural code within some rules, maybe I didn't study it long enough. I don't think you need a class soley for logic, all you need is enough classes that delve into it and rely on it.

>Sophistry

I learned how to argue and do research from liberal arts classes. Science coursework is strangely hung-up on rote memorization of formulas and write-ups; they don't usually make students research a topic, memorize arguments for a prompt, and then verbally debate or aggressively question each other like lawyers. Take for example the pre-med majors who memorize a ton of facts, names, reactions, and diagnoses, but remain cultural bound and never need to question things like their own biases to get a degree, which is why they're the most likely of the "STEM matter race" to keep their religion.

>>4948

Teach us your secret.

>>4509

Ad hominem.

>>3863

>The problem with focusing on fallacies is that a lot of people tend to misidentify them.

The major problem being misidentifying them on purpose or accidentally on purpose. Even the most objective arbiter will end up finding more fallacies in arguments they disagree with.

This is why the Catholics have a Pope. Someone has to decide, meaning someone has to have final authority. However, having only one Pope is degenerate in several ways. To do the fallacy-banning thing properly on 8chan would require a board-of-boards. Each board would have their own Fallacy Pope, but there would be a meta-board with the combined thread feed of all the boards. Alternatively, OPs would all have banning privileges within their own threads, though they would need to identify their ruleset, which would be equivalent to namefagging.

>>4362

But how that murdered for philosophy if Hypatia as murdered for politics? It seems like neither of them are a martyr by your standards.

>>4500

Socrates did not advocate anything political. His inquiries, however, made fools of the citizens of athens and the professional politicians who claimed to know things yet were left baffled and unable to give any positive answer to Socrates' questions.

This spirit of complete free inquiry was catching on with the noble youth who, thanks to Socrates, were beginning to see that the adults were ignorant and really did not know any more than the youth themselves. This destruction of faith and its consequences is why Socrates was put to death, and it is why he refused to accept any wrongdoing or punishment. He knew he had done nothing wrong and had revealed the ignorant for what they were: ignorant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aikenhead

Free speech troll.

-) Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius

-) Giordano Bruno

-) in a way also Blaise Pascal (his religous beliefs killed him)

If you admire martyrs so much, kill yourself.

regard b6s3d.

>>4928

>evolution

>the big bang

>1 billion years ago

nice memes

If you had waved your arms the other way two years ago the weather today would have been 'completely different' than it is. Just like the weather is always completely different from one day to the next - but still weather.

Most random arrangements look pretty much the same to us, because they're functionally pretty much the same to us.

>>4943

Evolution is logically necessary. Does God hate logic?

M8, there are literally books that are almost a THOUSAND YEARS OLD teaching you the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric isn't about being logical in the standard sense in the way that proper arguments work, but is about a practical logic about how dumb human beings actually think and are convinced. Appeals to emotion with the veneer of reason, that's what it is. This is not enough, however, you have to not be a sperg or autist yourself in order to have the unteachable aspect of it: a finely tuned and self-aware charm and charisma.

Well, any help on this one?

idk much about this but I do own nicomachean ethics give it a try

these days, the art of sophistry and rhetoric is best learned by reading about psychology and the neuroscience behind the formation of opinions. Most of the good stuff is going to be technical and dry, but it's going to serve you better than populistic works on the matter.

I found my Asperger's downright helpful, though that's because mind-manipulation appears to be one of my areas of hyperfocus.

Yes, if you're willing to lie, there's hardly anything you can't convince a majority to believe. Unfortunately, what civilization needs now is an appreciation for truth, which no amount of rhetoric can impart.

take pills

>>4939

Take the red pill.

SAGE

>>4867

the point that might interest you, phil, is what writers are unintentionally telling their readers when they make their setting follow the rules my work is breaking.

what do you think people take away from every depiction of time travel in fiction ever?

that the past cant be changed, that it can only be changed by a select few, and that any changes will ultimately bring ruin to the mad scientist who made them?

>>4866

the design of a multiverse is essentially this:

imagine a core whose composition dictates a set of natural laws.

imagine a line in an ellipse around it, then imagine drawing another ellipse starting from one of the furthest points in the previous ellipse, but not one that traces along the first previous ellipse, then doing this again, and again, until the ellipses form a shell around the core, which causes the multiverse to resemble a perfectly symmetrical egg.

each of the ellipses is one of the timelines that is compatible with the natural laws dictated by the core, the furthest points from the core on every timeline is the point of singularity that every timeline in the multiverse shares, at the closest points of each timeline to the core of the multiverse, is point at which the universe of the timeline has reached it's maximum size, when it has ceased expanding, and began to contract.

there are two "lives" for the universe within every given timeline, each making up half of the timeline:

for example, when taking a cross-section of a multiverse to look down upon a single timeline, between two singularities, one to the core's left, and one to it's right.

one of the universe's "lives" is above the core and goes from the left singularity to the right singularity, while the other "life" is below the core, and goes from the right singularity, to the left singularity.

assuming a clockwise rotation, (it could also be counter clockwise, the rotation itself does not matter).

>>4880

I'll make my question short and simple then, without presenting my own theories about how I would do time travel:

what do you think people take away from every depiction of time travel in fiction ever? what are the maker's of such sci-fi/fantasy saying when they write the subject as the usually do:

where the past cant be changed, or where it can only be changed by a select few, but always that any changes made to the past will ultimately bring ruin to the mad scientist/well-intentioned fool who made them?

>>4888

We already have a thread on the differences between fatalism vs. determinism.

The setting that I am talking about is deterministic, but not fatalist, changes are not necessarily desirable or undesirable to the actor, the only thing that matters is that event C necessarily follows from action A in environment B, Free will, if it exists, also applies to previously experienced events, and anyone can make the choice to completely change the course of history, with an equal or (arguably) better chance of improving it's desirability from their perspective, as would any action in the present.

Most fiction relies upon fatalism, that the events of the past are what are meant to have happened, that any other set of events would have produced an inferior result, and using the consequences of time travel as a message from god not to alter is design, when you bring in consequences not tied to the specific actions of the time-traveler, but to the act of time travel itself, such as paradoxes, the imminent destruction of space-time, etc. It's kind of like god directly punishing them for going against his wishes.

>>4887

Yes, a posteriori a priori. Hegel did it.

This happens when laws are found to be specific determinations of a more general law from which the specific form derives. This has happened quite a few times in the last century, where the mathematics is discovered to provide for such a collapsing of "laws."

I mean, this is the reason why theories exit. Without looking you can predict what is going to happen. That's also an indispensable criteroin for being able to falsify a theory like Newtons about time and space. But i think you are more into some kind of rationalism that synthesizes its knowledge from basic ideas, which are existing apriori in our minds (maybe like the carteasian meditations). So maybe your question is about the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments. -->Google

>>4887

What you are referring to is, as you say, a set of hypotheses, not deductions per se.

But I assume your question is whether or not it's the case that all natural laws that are, as of yet, unobserved make enough sense to the human mind so as to, theoretically, be concievable well before the appropriate discoveries and actually informed hypotheses have been made.

Simple response is that there's no way to tell. Given that a 'law of nature' is a formulation made by the human mind, I would deem it possible. But this says nothing about the things that have necessitated or invited the formulation of the law in the first place.

"Deducted" means "to subtract." As in, "My rent was deducted from my bank account." The word you want is 'deduced.'

After deducting the natural laws from logic, what's left? Isn't logic itself a natural law? Are you claiming logic meta-exists, transcending all other laws?

I am thinking, therefore I am completely certain I exist.

non-skeptics: 1

skeptics: 0

>>2781

That's an analytic truth, nobody really cares about those. What skepticism concerns is with how you know that you have truth. Truth here concerns the world.

Truth requires that you know the form of truth to be obtained already, and that you have a method of coherently grasping that truth and justifying it. Those are two contradictory positions. How do you know what truth looks like in order to even begin asking how to get it?

>>2781

How do I know you are thinking? How do I know that I am the originator of these thoughts, they could be holistic experience of external stimuli of which the true nature I could never know, as well as it's logic or lack thereof exist as more then our experience alone, and that indeed it is also wrong?

>>2781

What do you mean by I?

Any sort of self beyond thought is surely reliant on things subject to sceptical doubt (e.g. memory of past thoughts).

Nothing can be truly known, not even this.

>>2139

all activities related to child porn, except for "performing" in it, or recording it, or anything else that actually requires you to either abuse a child or be an accomplice to the abuse, should be legal, as it does not contribute to the abuse of children.

if i watch a 6 year old girl get fucked, it does not cause her to experience the fucking all over again, nor does it cause another 6 year old girl to get fucked as well, if i post it up online, even if i charge for it, it will only have the same lack of effect.

in fact, it might actually decrease the amount of 6 year old girls getting fucked, by giving pedos a form of release that they would not get anywhere else, except by fucking a 6 year old girl.

the important part is that we maintain the illegality of fucking 6 year old girls, whether or not it is being recorded by a camera.

>>4870

>as it does not contribute to the abuse of children.

Does paying for it not contribute to it?

>>4872

then just illegalize paying for it.

>>4870

the main reason i personally support this, is it removes the one kind of contraband from the internet that everyone supports keeping illegal.

and because of this, the government can use it as cover for their attempts to censor the internet.

and you know, rape hysteria is how they do it offline, the only reasons they use adult women, is because little girls are untrustworthy puppets.

>>2144

>Right well I'm not a professional but it's certainly immoral to have sex with someone who can't really be aware of the consequences or emotionally mature enough

What is "all women", Alex.

As per Jim, the pedophilia hysteria is suppressed concern for who sexually mature and fertile women are sexing, which arose because openly expressing the latter concerns became low status, and then illegal.

>>4847

I want the opposite.

>>4847

Nietzsche is THE pinnacle.

>>4847

Nietzsche details why you should not do such a thing in his own books. Are you sure?

>>4854

He criticized religion in several places, but I can't think of a book where he turns into Hitch. So how about Hume?

>>4857

>He criticized religion in several places

But he always noted that the rabble had to follow religion because it was good for them.

Like yeah he criticized many things but it wasn't always a "dump this" outright. Bad/Good things have a scale and religion isn't outright bad.

symbolism?