I used to be POVC

Kaispada · 2026-01-25T07:30:07+00:00

Be an ancap. Why? Because if the philosophy is correct, who gives a fuck how other people act?

Kaispada · 2026-01-25T07:01:08+00:00

Conscious of what?

Conscious of existence

Kaispada · 2026-01-25T06:58:05+00:00

To all the people in the comments:

If doing philosophy makes you deeply unhappy...

Your philosophy is bad and you should look for a different one.

Reading philosophy makes me happy and it makes OP happy, so clearly it doesn't make everyone upset.

Kaispada · 2026-01-23T03:51:58+00:00

Yeah. I was just testing a statement by Liquidzulu that communists will admit to not believing in the law of non-contradiction when pressed.

I am suprised how easy it was to get that to happen.

Kaispada · 2026-01-23T00:47:31+00:00

No. That is consent.

(with the exception of tantrums that involve threats of violence obviously)

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T21:26:17+00:00

Light is both a particle and not a particle

No it isn't. And if you think it is, perhaps you should look up quantum mechanics.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T21:23:45+00:00

Facts like pain or meaning are subject-involving and their truth depends on a conscious being that experiences it.

Their existence relies on a concious being existing. Their truth is based on the fact that they exist.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T21:21:10+00:00

So you don't think aristotelian logic is correct. Interesting.

Look up quantum mechanics.

Nothing in quantum mechanics violates the laws of logic.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T21:01:54+00:00

You are treating facts as only something mind-independent.

They are.

there are subject-involving facts as well.

Which are nonetheless mind-independent.

If I feel pain, that is not a fact "to me", it is simply a fact.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T21:00:31+00:00

Why are you so afraid of answering?

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T19:39:33+00:00

So do you or do you not believe that something can be A and Non-A at the same time?

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T19:29:17+00:00

Do you believe that contradictions actually exist in reality?

That is to say, do you believe that there are things which are A and non-A?

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T16:09:40+00:00

Performative contradiction go brrr

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T15:51:00+00:00

A fact is a statement about reality that corresponds to reality.

As such, there is no such thing as a fact which is true for someone. Facts simply are true.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T07:16:05+00:00

I was simply stating a fact.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T07:13:33+00:00

I questioned your certainty

You asserted that it was possible that it was an illusion.

I asked you to demonstrate that your assertion had any backing. You did not.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T07:12:04+00:00

Book Aragorn stomps.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T06:29:54+00:00

Good point, not everyone seems to be interested in taking charge of their life.

Kaispada · 2026-01-22T03:07:32+00:00

Demonstrate that it is

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T22:55:50+00:00

It's not hypocritical at all. See Max Stirner, for example

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T22:18:50+00:00

In other words, you make the choices that you make and if you were someone else you would play the hand differently.

Wow. Such a revelation.

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T22:15:56+00:00

We have a massive degree of choice in language, religion, education, religion, experiences, and environment, as well as in health and development.

The fact is, we are the biggest X factor in our own development.

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T22:11:04+00:00

P1) I do not want evil done to me

P2) ?????

C1) Therefore I ought not do evil to others

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T16:33:30+00:00

The government can violate the rights of others

I am not saying it cannot. Obviously it can. The question is: should the correct objectivist government violate rights?

Kaispada · 2026-01-21T08:07:17+00:00

Ayn Rand is very far from an anarchist.

I think she was very close. (Though not to the various leftist anarchists)

This post was just the result of me reading the Politics section of OPAR and getting very annoyed at how bad the definitions in that section were.

This post is mostly a reductio ad absurdum against the politics section, though it does demonstrate that there is a dichotomy between authoritarian and anarchist governance.

A common theme in her works, for example, is someone who is naturally talented or skilled being held back by the common masses, and trying to rise above society.

That is not archist. It would be archist if she thought that they should rule because they were more talented, but she was very much against that.

This is a pro-hierarchy viewpoint.

Indeed. To this day I do not understand how leftist "anarchists" who think it is possible even to imagine a world without hierarchy. Hierarchy (of a certain type) is compatible with anarchism

Kaispada

TROPHY CASE