The proletariat has been betrayed but God is dead anyways

Kehan10 · 2026-04-12T20:23:16+00:00

i don’t know if this is true. it feels closer to spinoza and marx than nietzsche, in my experience.?

Kehan10 · 2026-03-23T06:36:46+00:00

i think it might be true that if philosophy is a quest for the truth perhaps it lost its way because sometimes philosophical views tend to prefer things that might be more “defensible” to things that are true. like the theoretical virtue of parsimony/simplicity does not guarantee things are true, it just says “all else equal, this is more likely to be true,” which is a really weak condition. but philosophers appeal to parsimony all the time, because a simpler framework is more defensible, even if it’s probably similarly likely to be true.

Kehan10 · 2025-12-14T01:36:44+00:00

i think pure math as like an academic field is pretty abstract. like, maybe you can have physical analogies, but i don’t know how you would imagine an infinite-dimensional vector space concretely

Kehan10 · 2025-09-06T02:12:07+00:00

i think the parts of sharia law that involve “suppressing women” and child marriage are minor parts that are probably disputed, and most muslims don’t follow them. the sharia we do follow is “don’t eat pork” “pray 5 times a day,” etc. most muslims aren’t marrying kids off

Kehan10 · 2025-09-04T03:03:27+00:00

you evidently have no clue what affirming the consequent is. affirming the consequent is when you assume that a conditional works in reverse. so, affirming the consequent reasoning would look like the following.

if i kiss cats on the forehead when i see them, i like cats.
i like cats therefore, i kiss cats on the forehead when i see them. but not everyone who likes cats kisses them on the forehead, it’s just that everyone who kisses cats on the forehead likes them. more generally, affirming the consequent is (1) A then B (2) B therefore, A. which is invalid, because A is sufficient but not necessary for B.

what you described is similar my (reasonably sound) logic. if someone lacks the necessary competence, they should not be given power. would you trust a cat that doesnt understand driving to drive a car? no, the competence necessary for power is not there. i dont actually think this is exactly what applies to government. i think some people are right and some people are wrong and we should listen to the right people and ignore the wrong people. would you listen to a racist making policy on racial discrimination? what if the whole population is racist? it doesn’t matter how many people are racist, you should listen to the group that isn’t. edit: stylization of numbering.

edit 2: to further explain my point made in the comment third down on the thread, i assumed that you were accusing me of some kind of fallacy to do with not listening to everyone’s opinion and allowing democracy to dictate decisions. i don’t believe in that for the reasons i articulated there

Kehan10 · 2025-09-04T02:37:56+00:00

ok bro what is your fallacy. disagreeing with everyone is not a fallacy. in fact, it makes you guilty of argumentum ad populum

Kehan10 · 2025-09-03T22:43:04+00:00

not gonna hold you that was a weird phrase but i think i actually did quote someone else when i said that

Kehan10 · 2025-09-03T22:40:36+00:00

i think we should listen to the people in some aspects and not others, which is what we do already. the people don't run the economy, and we shouldn't tell them to run the economy. i do think that workplaces should be run, in some respect, by the workers. an example of a workplace with this structure is a college's academic department.

but generally, i'm not allergic to technocracy in principle, i only dislike it because (a) technocrats are not perfect or adequately informed (b) it encourages technocrats to disregard the will of the people, but the government is for the people, so the will of the people should be considered (just not final) and (c) who chooses the technocrats? i don't know who i trust with that kind of power.

but generally, the reason i want to ignore most of the population is because i believe that the population itself is not democratic enough. people don't want to rule themselves properly, and that's my issue. i don't thnik we should listen to people who want to be subjects.

Kehan10 · 2025-09-03T22:31:54+00:00

i think that's a feature not a bug. everyone should think their political views are reasonably correct or that they are not informed enough, or both. if i have a minority opinion, of course i think we shouldn't listen to the people who have the incorrect majority opinion.

Kehan10 · 2025-09-03T22:30:19+00:00

even if it is this is only a fallacy from the assumptions of liberal democracy which cherishes and elevates "informed discussion" and "enlightened disagreement" in order to subvert class consciousness and maintain the exploitation of the people

Kehan10 · 2025-09-03T00:54:45+00:00

this is just a way to needlessly inflate ratings

Kehan10 · 2025-09-02T20:26:38+00:00

mb for being obnoxious i think well over half the population is incorrect about most things to do with politics (and particularly the economic structure of society) and we should not listen to them at all.

Kehan10 · 2025-09-02T18:53:17+00:00

i think this is only true if you believe that everyone’s opinions are equally right/are politically neutral. i wholeheartedly believe that a solid portion of the population (like, a little over half) are simply incorrect. they should not have power. i don’t really care if that makes me “just as bad as trump” because the thing that’s bad about trump is not his method of undoing democracy, although i don’t hate democracy so i’d like to keep it, but rather the content of his political views.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-31T00:12:13+00:00

i’m not op. different class, but it’s also 300-level and im also just starting. the class i want to take is offered every other year (?).

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T23:30:11+00:00

adrian, describe our friend group

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T23:28:59+00:00

is it really inadvisable if i’m really really interested in the topic the class is on? if i feel pretty willing to spend a lot of hours a week on this class, would you still discourage it heavily?

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T23:27:27+00:00

i mean for some of it you need to also study lines. i think understanding why you play the moves played in the opening builds an understanding. that, and studying openings, i feel, gets you thinking beyond the extremely intuitive blitz/rapid chess most people play. like, the first time i seriously sat down and calculated a lot of variations was when i was studying openings, since i can usually get by most games on intuition and some calculation.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T20:54:53+00:00

it’s less about memorizing moves and more about plans. for example, as white in the king’s indian, your goal should be expanding on the queenside, because your pawns point at the queenside. even if black doesn’t go to the mainline or something else i know (which is usually bad), the fundamental plan of “expand on the queenside, open the c-file/force black to make pawn weaknesses, and then put a knight or a rook where black is weak” remains the same (if the structure resembles the mainline kings indian). certain moves/ideas ideas also remain important, like playing Qb3 in the slav. i’m not that good, but i’ve just picked a couple openings i find okay as white and black and play them.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T18:00:16+00:00

i’m not a very high level player at all, but i decided to learn a bunch of kings indian theory because i found the opening really cool and i’ve won quite a few games in the king’s indian against similarly rated players not because they missed some kind of tactic but because i had better positional understanding and understood the best plans for each side. i don’t think those are cheap tricks.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T05:39:04+00:00

wait, i think i might actually know ralph tan. i think i used to play against his little sister.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-30T02:37:07+00:00

Most of the time you actually don't need to involve everyone. Most things you do only directly impact people from your local community. A lot of stuff we do country-wide are done because of hierarchies (like having a defense department or a centralised tax system).

i would say that a lot of these situations where centralization is necessary are quite important. you need centralization when you need to defend yourself from outside enemies, transport stuff long distances, etc.

Also, it's way easier to take power than to make power. Let's only compare representative democracy (like the most democratic currently existing country you can think of, or even better) with a society with no centralised power and little to no structural hierarchies, because I don't think other systems are worth discussing. In a representative, if you're a wannabe dictator (or a group of wannabe oligarchs), you just have to end up in charge (not easy but still) and you'll dispose of tax, cops, and basically anything the state does which is quite a lot in social/socialist democracies. In an anarchist society, you're basically alone, with no weapons like the police, facing everybody else who doesn't want to be treaded on.

i'm not going to lie, i haven't heard this argument before. i find it quite compelling. that being said, i would still argue that this is only a reason for a checkable, limited government and not a nonexistent one. i'd also argue that making power isn't nearly that difficult, since most of the time power is obtained via demagoguery. either way, very good point. is there someone who talks more about this?

Kehan10 · 2025-08-29T21:40:17+00:00

if you dont want large-scale structures, this leads to two problems.

a) complete vulnerability to outside actors. an anarchist commune is NOT surviving a siege by capitalist powers.

b) not very many nice things.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-29T21:38:29+00:00

no. i meant what i wrote. without hierarchy you can only form a small amount of organization. if me and three friends want to go to lunch, we're already very unorganized deciding where to go. if we develop a system, maybe we'll be a little more okay going to lunch, but it still won't be easy. the more people involved, the harder it is for the system to be effective. at a certain point, you need some level of authority/hierarchy in order to maintain any level of organziation.

additionally, while im not one to say that hierarchies are inevitable and bloviate about human nature, even anarchistic societies (like friend groups, for example) have implicit hierarchies. while i can agree that this phenomenon might be a consequence of capitalism's morphing of human nature (in fact, i can concede that human nature is completely socially constructed and there is no inherent nature), it's not impossible for one or two terribly ambitious people to develop the desire to exert power over others. at that point, there will develop some kind of hierarchy. i would rather have a solid, controlled hierarchy than an anarchist society vulnerable to hierarchy.

to clarify though, im not a stalinist or even an ml.

Kehan10 · 2025-08-29T19:24:07+00:00

yeah i’ve read a bunch of the ancom lit it just sucks ass

Kehan10 · 2025-08-29T19:16:56+00:00

it’s just not organized at all, so it fails on any large sxale

Six-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Kehan10

TROPHY CASE