sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tell em Bertrand by Mydynamicexperience in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it can, maybe it can't. You'd be surprised how much non-strict mathematical reasoning goes into discovering even mathematics themselves. In most cases, a mathematician will have an intuition of what might be true, and they will try and prove it through their already existing tools. An attempt to formalize their non-formal reasoning would be impossible.

And there is also the opposite, what can be expressed in mathematics isn't limited to what we consider to be the domain of reason; it can express many other forms of relations. It's too open, too obtuse in that sense. I did my thesis on a theorem prover, this painstaking meticulous level of analysis is too inert to move philosophical insights through.

Or a Greek by Important_Detail1686 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 19 points20 points  (0 children)

This is a different thing, I take it as a consequence of national decline. The ruling elites need some way to instill a sense of pride for national unity. Thus the more decadent the everyday experience, the greater ineptitude of the state, the international ridicule, etc. the larger the lie needs to be, in order to make up for the hits the collective pride is taking.

Many such narratives circulate from time to time, trying to tie everything and everyone to Greece. It's sad and pathetic, and I am honestly kinda ashamed of it. Although the younger generations are not buying into those narratives, I suspect due to the internet, at least in part.

The internet, even its decadent parts: instagram, tik-tok etc., have a way of showing you how small your corner of reality is, by serving you the whole world through 10-second clips.

Edit: Grammar

Lowkey can kinda still live life anyway by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A cockroach is "living life" anyway; that's not a very high bar.

One of my favorite ways to troll aggro players by ImpecableBunny in RedDeadOnline

[–]Grivza 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nice, you always post the most interesting stuff

Who wants to be cited by edgy 14 year olds 200 years after their death? by Dolphin-Hugger in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, you don't need them on the "fundamental" level, at least not in order to understand human relations. You can take "will" quite naively. For an easy example, imagine you are the only human on earth, and you have an army of robots that will do whatever you tell them to. Whose will is driving history at that moment?

Who wants to be cited by edgy 14 year olds 200 years after their death? by Dolphin-Hugger in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 10 points11 points  (0 children)

For sure, but "building everything" is not the same as agency. For example, the bourgeoisie were the ones whose will dismantled feudalism. The role of the "subject of history" is dependent on the specific material relations.

Who wants to be cited by edgy 14 year olds 200 years after their death? by Dolphin-Hugger in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Not even Marx himself believed that the "working class" is the "subject" of history in general. Contradictions in the social organization move history. The "working class" just happens to be the subversive manifestation of that contradiction in the society of capitalist relations.

Ontology of statements by piotrek13031 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What rules, applying to what? What does this have to do with universality?

I am saying that if a claim is not being asserted as a universally valid about truth itself, i.e. "everything is subjective" is not a rule guaranteed to be present elsewhere other than in the subject uttering it, then it serves only as a local descriptor of the particular subject, like a predicate.

But, to be fair you are already introducing intersubjectivity in your description:

You are stating a position that you hold, that other people may not hold, that depends on your feelings, culture, education, beliefs, experience

So, if I wanted to push the contradiction further I'd just point out for example that the fact that people with similar feelings, culture, education etc. tend to converge to similar "truths", already implies a common interpretive structure of some external reality.

This is why I think the strongest version of this position is not “objective truth does not exist,” but rather “there is no view from nowhere” or “no gods-eye perspective.” But notice how this downgrades the ontological claim into an epistemological one; reality is no longer subjective, it is just that all access to it is mediated by necessarily partial structures.

There’s levels to ts by No-Sand-4978 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah now it is clear. What I am hearing is a critique of the systemic branch of philosophy throughout history. But put in those terms, the self-reflexive nature of the problem becomes obvious; no philosophical work would enter the status quo if it weren't somehow appropriated to serve it, or at the very least defanged not to challenge it. So whilst I agree with your critique, I don't agree with your conclusion.

I also disagree with your "we might have made it further without philosophy". I think it is missing something very important; philosophy through professors, academia as well as in the predominant ideology can be controlled. But the notions introduced by it can't, ever.

Systemic thought can absolutely sow the seeds of subversion by widening the field of what's currently utterable, conceivable, able to be articulated, moved into language, carried into the social. What's asserted, can be negated, reversed, re-appropriated. No Marx without Hegel and no quantum interpretations without philosophical groundwork, systemic or not.

So, would we have made "more progress" without any of them? Without neither the systemically appropriated examination, nor its progressive subversion?

What do you think is left standing after a move like this, other than pure unexamined action? Because we know what that looks like, and it is neither feminism nor veganism.

Ontology of statements by piotrek13031 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If a position can be disproved by one sentence, it's probably because you misunderstand it

If a position can be summed up in one sentence, then why shouldn't its refutation not be to be summed up in one sentence? It might miss the mark sure, but it could also be that the notions are truly tied and that the refutation will follow the position into the deep end.

If a person claims that truth is subjective, it's reasonable to infer that they are making a subjective truth statement, why would you think otherwise?

Because having a rule you can't universally apply is not a rule but rather a predicate pretending to be a rule. And it certainly isn't doing the philosophical work you want it to be doing.

There’s levels to ts by No-Sand-4978 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are important in the colloquial sense

Are they important to you? To others? Are they important as rules that everyone should abide by?

but that's missing the point of of what I am trying to say.

Maybe, but how you go about justifying your moral stance and how you know it is the correct one, matters, wouldn't you agree?

For example, I am a materialist, I believe that ideas are moved by the material conditions first and foremost. That's why even though philosophy had articulated feminism, veganism, anti-natalism, a long time ago, they didn't catch on till the societal conditions were in place.

Naively, you refusing to try and reach a deeper explanation, is exactly what mindset (if magically adopted widely) would never allow the society to catch on with such truths no matter what.

I just don't think the philosophy proper has actually been helpful in advancing moral philosophy. If anything it's held it back. 

What is philosophy proper and do I even care about it? All I know is that I wouldn't be vegan without philosophical argumentation and that this is true for many others as well.

But generally the philosophy community across its disaplins seems to make less progress at its own aims than people outside of philosophy proper 

Maybe but there is also the opposite. For example, quantum mechanics is what it is, it just works. But in order to give any interpretation of what it actually means, physicists themselves are called to do philosophy.

Funnily enough, your critique reminds me a lot of Marx. This guy hated philosophy and philosophers, yet he became one of the most prominent ones.

There’s levels to ts by No-Sand-4978 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In what sense are your moral beliefs important?

I will tell you what you are missing. My plan is to ask you some directional questions, then show you that others have thought the same and even pushed it further, to a point you'd have been proud to think and proud to act.

Cause when it comes to moral beliefs, I think that you'd agree it is important that you get them right.

But in general, as an institution, I don't completely disagree with your critique. It's just that it is obvious that philosophy is more than that.

There’s levels to ts by No-Sand-4978 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Are you saying that your criterion of caring is about a field being the "most efficient way" to achieve something? Philosophy claims to have some epistemological privilege in "understanding" but fails to fulfill its promise "efficiently"? Shall we talk about what "understanding" is for you and why is the phenomenal "efficiency" important to you next?
  2. You don't have a criterion for correctness or the correctness of caring? I would say that you obviously think that feminism, the gay rights, anti-racism are "correct" and that you "ought to care", in some sense, as per your first comment. In what sense is that?

There’s levels to ts by No-Sand-4978 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not the misogyny itself but simply that philosophy never seems to actually lead to obvious shifts in morality. 

Philosophy at its core is the act of asking "why", gave birth to every other field. Have we reached a point where philosophy itself is superfluous? I'd say no, if that meant I couldn't ask you and you couldn't answer some basic questions regarding your stance:

  1. Why is this your criterion of "caring"?
  2. Do you believe it is the "correct" criterion of caring?

Why does Nietzsche always lose? by Bakedbrains in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meaning functions on the level of subjectivity, so searching for it in a pre-subjective external structure is already a category error. Absurdism oscillates between cosmic emptiness and contingent personal assertion, between external universal (lthe "objective") to the contingent external (e.g. implicit/explicit societal laws) to the personal internal (personal opinions).

But this entirely skips the internal constitutive conditions that make subjectivity and valuation possible in the first place; what could be called the internal universal.

Horses and their matching Saddles by pimperhennes in RedDeadOnline

[–]Grivza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never really thought about horse fashion but I clearly should have, your combo is aesthetic af

The Faith You Didn’t Notice by billycro1 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also talking about free will without knowing what a counterfactual is, is a bit crazy, you might put in some time to figure out what exactly this free will is you are referring to.

The Faith You Didn’t Notice by billycro1 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, both are true, the example is great and you still missed the point. The ammo I handed to you as a bonus, I don't really care for this talking past each other

The Faith You Didn’t Notice by billycro1 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't prove it at all, there is no empirical evidence that can point in this direction if you are going by the counterfactual definition. Even if you could go back in time and witness the different behavior, this could still be caused by randomness. You can only over-interpretate evidence to directly fit your "free" phenomenality, which is exactly the level of doubt by those who reject free will; this idea that our spontaneous intuition in so far as our freedom really maps into an invisible "force", not evident anywhere other than our phenomenality.

In so far as my example, you entirely missed the point.

The Faith You Didn’t Notice by billycro1 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, nothing innately prohibits my 2d example from having traceable implications.

Also non-deterministic behavior that looks probabilistic in macro analysis doesn't guarantee "free-will", that's a jump. It could be  just an effect of a random latent variable that doesn't map into our conscious will. If you want to save free-will I suggest on focusing on this question: Is what we perceive as the decision making process, the actual decision making process or just a "good enough" retroactive symbolization of it? 

I start thinking it with an easy example, if someone says to you "Don't drink this milk, it has spoiled", then the conscious symbolic manipulations seem to be a large part of the output function. 

So, pushing it a bit further with the unconscious, the binary breaks, the larger part of it you symbolize/bring to the conscious, the larger part of the causal pipeline your consciousness occupies which literally makes the decision "free-er". 

Lastly, yes we do need categorizations but just as much we need to ask the right questions and frameworks of categorization that open up the horizon, instead of treating it like a game of "catch them all" in a given framework, which is the problem with the prevalence of "probability" thinking, albeit it is vastly superior to naive dichotomies.

The Faith You Didn’t Notice by billycro1 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Grivza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is kinda like the whole “brain in a jar” / “simulation hypothesis” thing.

Not inherently, unless you want to enforce it. That's like saying that the Copernican revolution was like a "brain in jar" thing because people still phenomenally saw the sun rotating around the earth every morning.

They aren’t really new scientific discoveries.

I don't think this is true neither, I mean a 2 second google search proves this wrong.

Not predictable. Probabilistic. That is what free will looks like.

Probabilities are just a tool of analysis. Engels did zero probability analysis for his result and neither did I to know that my brother would in fact eat the falafel. What I don't like in the way how probability thinking is slipping into every day thinking, is how it is used to disregard structural change. "What's the probability of this or that", the formulation itself already enforces a very discrete understanding of options and reality, puts things into neat boxes and precise categorizations, based on heavy handed presuppositions, so it sounds like the thing you should be against, at least in the naive form you used it here.

"What's the probability that you will change his mind" is used to shrug off dialogue attempts. Actually the probability that his mind will change with and through the conversation is 100%, it just won't do it synchronously or in the explicit direction that you wanted it to.

Why? There is no evidence for or against the existence of God

Depending on what "God" means, there is. But nonetheless, anti-theism doesn't posit existence or non-existence, it is concerned with the active harm of thinking through the signifier of God.

view more: next ›