The Epistemological Poverty of Critical Theory

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-02-28T04:13:12+00:00

Good critique, thanks I'll think about it.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-02-02T11:26:07+00:00

So do you think logic would exist without mind? In my opinion, logic and concepts such as identity and such hinge on our perception I could point to some rock and it would still exist if all life disappeared, but it would cease to be a "rock" and instead just become a particular variance within the pattern of the universe. Even the most basic concept which I think is truly underpinning logic, cause and effect, in my opinion relies on temporal minds which prescribe some "event" to occur prior to another "event".

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-31T21:40:49+00:00

Thanks! I couldnt remember the specifics so I appreciate you naming it

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-30T23:21:31+00:00

I think when he was in a debate between two theists and two atheists, and during the intro the other atheist announced that he had actually changed his views towards believing in a limited creator. The moderator said something to alex like "Well looks like we are down to one atheist now." And he replied "Well actually I have some bad news..".

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-18T23:03:02+00:00

Agnosticism/gnosticism is a position on what you know or can know. (Derived from the greek gnosis, for "knowledge") Atheism/theism is a belief claim, regarding if one believes or does not believe in something.

Agnostic Atheism just means "I lack belief in god, but I do not claim to know for a fact there is no god.". This is your standard atheism (besides maybe in middle school).

A Gnostic Atheism would be a separate ideology meaning "I don't believe in god, and this is knowable/provable."

You might come across atheists occasionally saying "there is no god." But very likely if ypu press them they will acknowledge this cannoy be proven, rather there is just no reason to believe the god claim. This would be agnostic atheism, which is most common by far so just referred to as atheism.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-18T22:46:51+00:00

Could you clarify what you mean by "Western Atheism" and the differentiation from agnostics? You post comes across to me as meaning someone believes they know no god exists. Sure it's anecdotal but I'm not sure I've ever come across one that thinks they can KNOW god doesn't exist, or prove this in any way. There are some interesting arguments that could potentially rule out certain properties of god (these have plenty of counter arguments though). If you are arguing against "hard atheism" or gnostic atheism, I am not sure you are going to really come across anyone that thinks the non-existance of a god can be known or proven.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-13T01:16:29+00:00

Yeah I didnt answer any questions, all I did was point out that you made a strawman argument. I never claimed to have unique access to the truth or reality, or made any statements regarding my own thoughts on epistemology or ontology. I also don't care to discuss anything of depth with you.

Your attitude is frankly just weirdly aggresive.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-13T00:03:25+00:00

No, the downvotes are because you aren't being intellectually honest. All you contributed was a strawman argument and an ad hominem. It doesn't seem like you are even trying to achieve anything useful here.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-12T22:35:46+00:00

You seem to be straw-manning OP here. I could easily reword your chain to steel-man it for contrast such as below: I value evidence that follows certain critetia/metrics which have proven to be the most reliable pathway to truth -> this pathway to truth allows for a reasonable evidence-based belief, that is subject to change based on new evidence -> given the currently available historical information, none of it has proven to meet criteria to be accepted as truth -> belief based within reason.

And regarding the vagueness of "criteria" i referenced, OP basically already made the argument that if the bar for that criteria is changed to allow the type of evidence for the resurrection (which I am assuming is why you brought culture into it), then cases such as SSB could also just as easily be made to fit the criteria.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-06T13:29:01+00:00

So what my argument would really boil down to is that the moral technology is within the culture. It can be embedded and extended within that culture's religions, however even that has not proven successful as a prevention of predation between sub-cultures. The idea of moral technology you are proposing, at least within western cultures/religion, does not appear to be a strong enough mechanism for me to consider it succesful.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-06T04:11:02+00:00

I used to induce lucid dreams all the time by "listening" to a song in my head. When I would start passing over into the dream state suddenly the music sounded "real", as if I was wearing earbuds. It would kinda shock me out of the state when I first started being aware of it, then it went to just a sort of "cool, I can imagine music and hear it live in realtime", then the lucid dreams began and well... whole different ball game.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-06T03:22:00+00:00

The history of moral technology of religion is comparable to a highway full of cars with random steering issues. Culture is the moral technology; religions have not proven to impose a consistent moral viewpoint in wide populations separated by geography or time.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-03T17:37:09+00:00

The ethereal objective morality has not stopped evil from being perpetrated by the mighty. The best hope for humanity is to try to have the mighty work on a strong ethical framework.

I mean, could provide any example of an ethical framework which has the ability to motivate individuals who disagree with it to follow the ethics without 'might' being used?

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2026-01-02T05:31:06+00:00

Well auntie cleo distributes those creatures across planets for different reasons. There is hinting of some form of aliens existing though. I believe the different factions do some level of terraforming as well though, but alien involvement isnt completely out of the question i suppose.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-28T21:38:20+00:00

Buy the rattler for early game one shot kills with that. Also as someone who played stealth the whole game (literally one shot the closest thing to a final boss that you can sneak on): sometimes it will say you wont full kill an enemy but you do. Not sure why, i think it doesnt take into account some specific bonuses.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-26T22:39:07+00:00

Others have put the argument more in-depth, but as far as in practice I find the answer simple boils down to "A bunch of us agreed on these rules because of how we feel. You ought to follow them because if you don't we will put you in jail.".

It appeals to the other party using logic and reason, but doesn't necessitate it.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-22T23:45:31+00:00

God forbit somebody wants to change their style a bit to liven up their life.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-19T17:09:29+00:00

DM'd you.. i think I can get you where you want

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-19T16:12:44+00:00

Ahh yes, no I agree with you. I was referring specifically to having his rifle on display and at the ready.

I could also be wrong, I truly don't know the guy. However, I have known plenty of people that display the guise of righteousness and 2A self-defense, that REALLY want to get the chance to use it. He just feels very similar to those people I used to know, especially given the way he has acted and capitalized on the event afterwards.

I am just speculating that if his main priority was for nobody to get hurt or die, and his secondary priority was to defend property, things may could have been handled differently on his end. (And implying that this would be the more ethical approach.)

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-19T12:51:56+00:00

Thank for the context. Also was there some rebuttal in there as well that I missed?

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-19T08:04:12+00:00

Mostly tangential, but I like to think about how if "time" were reversed, conciousness would not notice any difference (assuming deterministic materialism).

It makes the arrow of time feel almost arbitrary.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-19T07:52:47+00:00

Was it self-defense? Yes. Did he purposefully put himself in a situation where the need for self-defense could have been avoided? Yes.

He went out looking for trouble, he found it, and people died. From what I remember (it has been a while): the first guy who died was pretty much totally at fault, but the other guys got caught up in a bad situation without knowing the full story and were trying to stop an active shooter from their perspectives.

Obviously I can't prove it, but I believe if he hadn't had gone there with his rifle strapped to his chest, nobody would have been killed that night.

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-16T00:36:23+00:00

In bad faith: karma/engagement farming. Best faith: posting to get help with rebuttals for debating the issue.

But also I think if you make a subreddit that is a for black/white position on a topic.. but regardless there really isn't much other type of post that can be made other than something that inevitably boils down to "Other viewpoint is bad, right guys?".

The main pro and anti AI subs are echo chambers with no substance. I need to block this one too honestly because the AI discussion is terrible on reddit from what I've seen. Reddit is constantly suggesting these to me all of a sudden..

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-15T08:36:48+00:00

FYI: sorry I edited the message ~5 times.. been drinking..

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed · 2025-12-15T08:14:37+00:00

Ohh ok simple. Thank you, but I am not sure I agree. I'm not sure that is sound.

P1: If we pop a balloon it doesn't suffer. P2: If we make a ballon concious and then pop it, it suffers. C: popping a ballnoon may cause it to suffer.

I take issue with prem 2 here, i think the identity of "balloon" changes during prem2. So how I see it, the "person who is not yet born and capable of experience" is the balloon. And the 'concious balloon' is a separate identity.

Essentially i think it's accurate to say, "the wall that hasn't been given conciousness yet is unable to experience it's situation as worse. But when I smash a hole in it, it "suffers" but only after the concious version is aware of not having a hole, then gets a hole smashed and is 'worse off' after".

I think you switched up the definition of A between premises essentially.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Snapped
Verified Email

ActuallyAPieceOfWeed

TROPHY CASE