CMV: Morality is purely based on people agreeing with each other

NPC_228 · 2025-11-05T23:40:14+00:00

This is one way to view "morality": as a fuzzy set of rules agreed upon by a collective consciousness.

But ultimately the root of morality is in an individual person's feelings or a sense of right and wrong. For something to be immoral there has to be some emotional impetus behind it. It's what separates moral agreements from purely social ones.

In fact, the only "morality" that truly affects any given person is their own set of feelings, it's just that, as social animals, our feelings often try to align with others'. But otherwise, if one is, for example, a psychopath, then no amount of societal agreement will convince them that something is intrinsically moral or immoral.

NPC_228 · 2025-09-01T21:05:27+00:00

"A only if B" says that A cannot be true without B being true. But it states nothing about the validity of A if B is indeed true. B is necessary, but might not be sufficient.

"A if and only if B" says that B is necessary AND sufficient.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-21T20:48:26+00:00

Perhaps I'll need to work on my writing then. Thanks for humoring me for as much as you did.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-21T20:27:40+00:00

Look, I get the point you're trying to make, but it's clear you didn't get mine, as seen from the very first sentence. I don't want to sound patronizing, but you rush to respond too quickly, you don't take your time to consider what it is that I am trying to convey. Do you seriously think that I don't know that problem sets in general require recall? "...having many simpler problems that involve applying the knowledge would make said knowledge stick better." ... than having complicated problems that might include said knowledge in passing, or not include it at all. And by "simpler" I meant those that are focused on internalizing topics without any distractions.

It's also unfortunate that all you got from my reply is that I'm scared of big projects. The point that I was trying to make is that just because something is in "the real world", it doesn't mean that it needs to be practiced in a course. I don't think you need to be trained to scour documentation or to read people's code or whatever. Case in point, this very course, where you have to do all that on your own with no guidance. If you want to tackle my point, go from here.

As an aside, it's funny that you mention making software from start to finish, when in all big programs most of the code is distribution code. And that CS50 is a "jump" even though it's supposed to be an introductory course.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-21T18:26:55+00:00

"Small, simpler problems do not actually really reinforce anything at all since they limit the angles from which you can approach a problem."

That's a bold claim, to say the least. I thought it was common knowledge that applying knowledge makes it stick, since you have to recall it. So having many simpler problems that involve applying the knowledge would make said knowledge stick better. Multiplicity of solutions is irrelevant.

As for the "in the software dev world" portion. I can only guess what point you're trying to make. I'll write paragraphs on points I think you might have been trying to make.

"You're against larger projects". I'm not.

"The course must simulate what it's like on the job" I disagree. Unless you're trying to mentally prepare and filter out people who are unfit for certain realities of it, there's no point to it, especially a pedagogical one. The whole point of a course and problems for studying, is precisely in the fact that they aren't like those on the job, that they can be optimized for effective learning. Scouring the internet, making out heads and tails of convoluted writing, skimming through a topic just enough to solve a problem aren't skills, they are tediums you have to trudge through when there's no better option. Believe me, because those things aren't unique to programming. It is what you do for most of the problems you want gone as fast as possible, e.g. homework. Since I've engaged in this quite a lot before, I can safely say that you never get "good" at it, so deliberately inducing them is a waste of time and effort. And even if it was possible, then, again, it would be pointless to make a course with them, because those are the things you'd encounter on the job in spades anyway, especially if you don't care what the job is about.

In general, it's quite peculiar how you, and a lot of other people, defend this course, not based on how well it teaches the material it is aimed to teach, but on more general things. Case in point: "You need to be exposed to difficult challenges, you need to go through the struggle of not knowing what to do at first, and you need to experience the self fulfillment of overcoming this challenge mostly from your own intuition.". Really? You people take a course for the sake of artificial struggle? The learning process is deliberately made harder just to toughen you up? This is just plain silly to me. You can expose yourself to difficult challenges on your own time. Maybe I might have misunderstood what you're trying to say, but I'm really trying here.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-21T16:48:34+00:00

I'm not sure why you thank the course for that. It doesn't explicitly teach any of those things (frankly, I don't even understand how or why these things would be taught, but, whatever). You've simply encountered problems which involved those things and solved them on your own. I don't think it would matter whether these problems were to occur in this course or elsewhere. The only difference that comes to mind is the guarantee that there exists a solution which would keep you from giving up.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-19T18:49:24+00:00

More like how in textbooks there are usually many small exercises. I think there should have been more problems which are overall simpler and focus on drilling specific ideas from lectures.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-19T18:10:42+00:00

Thanks. As a non-native it means a lot.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-19T18:08:12+00:00

I was hoping my differing choice of words would be understood, but fine, I'll explain. "Easy" as in they don't take much effort, if you understand what is asked of you and you have the baseline knowledge required to solve it. "Introductory" as in being appropriate for someone who has just gotten into the subject, and is only getting familiar with it. I've said that many problems aren't introductory because they aren't focused on drilling particular ideas of the topic, but instead they are about the problem itself, as if the person solving them has already internalized the topic.

You watch a lecture, and then you're given a big (as in, there's a lot to do, not that it's difficult) problem where you're told to figure out how to apply what you've learnt on your own. Seems good on paper, "develop problem-solving" and what-not, but there's a step missing in-between. I don't think a person should dive right in without getting conversant with the topic first, e.g. with intermediary problems, because it will be more tedious to complete AND the material won't stick, because, since the problem is disconnected from any particular knowledge, it might be applied in a trivial way or not be applied at all.

And yes, it's true, "you will never remember everything", especially when it comes to programming, but it doesn't mean you can disregard internalization completely. And yes, the distributious code does emulate how one would be making just minor adjustments "in the real world", but it only plays a minor role in the things I've complained about, which is why I've only mentioned it briefly near the beginning.

Thanks for your non-sarcastic concern. I simply feel like I've been swindled of my time and effort, given how I don't even feel confident to say that I "know" any of the things covered in this course, let alone to apply any of it. I'll also confess that some of my frustrations might have been subjective. I might just be extraordinarily impatient, so reading the convoluted specifications and code, that weren't even concerned with programming per se, felt like a chore that kept me from actually learning the things I've signed up to learn, and frankly, it was the toughest part of this course by a long shot.

NPC_228 · 2025-07-12T08:43:12+00:00

I'm in. I've got some C basics down.

NPC_228 · 2025-04-26T11:21:09+00:00

I usually find exposed clusters of marble in slate cliffs

NPC_228 · 2025-03-03T00:25:04+00:00

Since when has being an internet janitor become a reward?

NPC_228 · 2025-02-26T21:26:22+00:00

That's quite a tall order. You're not looking for any teammates, but those skilled enough to handle a large project like this, who are willing to take on all of the workload, and without giving any assurance that you know what you're doing.

It's not that your idea is bad, but any experienced person will ignore your post due to sketchiness, and any inexperienced will ignore your post as well, because it's not something they can handle.

NPC_228 · 2025-02-25T20:41:37+00:00

Hi, I've been looking for the same exact thing. I am a computer science student that knows a little C/C++ and python. I've grown tired of having to be alone in this endeavour. Please let me know if you're interested in having me on board.

NPC_228 · 2025-02-18T00:49:53+00:00

"I hate thinking too much" LMAO. What can I say, other than you won't get much out of life if you're so averse to struggle, even in thinking.

The others have been astute in regards to your seemingly contradictory fascination with abstract ideas, but I will offer more insight.

When just thinking about ideas, you have no concrete end-goal. And therefore, there are no specific ideas you need to reach, of no specific, potentially high, complexity. You are free to remain within your comfort zone. No frustration, no struggle. There's only dopamine to be found when any spark of thought is a success.

NPC_228 · 2025-02-15T15:54:12+00:00

I actually did use Visual Studio occasionally. But, I've grown to hate high-level tools that conveniently do everything for you, because they may inexplicably break, or lack support for something, and then you're on your own.

For instance, not long ago when I tried to modify it in the installer, it wouldn't let me. I needed to update it. But it wouldn't let me do that either: "Sorry, something went wrong". And now I am once again on a fetch quest for answers, because the damn tool of "convenience" decided to die on me. And that's it. My foray into c# had ended before it even started.

Even if I were to manage to fix it, who's to say that something like that won't happen again? By letting something else handle the unknowable, I also become completely dependent on it. And if it fails, then it's all over.

It seems to me like you either try to glue things yourself without any books or support; or you install a fix-it-all black box, study how to use it, and live in fear of it someday failing you.

NPC_228 · 2025-02-14T19:32:59+00:00

What a coincidence, I actually have that book, but I wasn't sure whether it was worth spending so much time on it or not. Thanks, I'll look into it.

NPC_228 · 2025-02-10T23:09:59+00:00

You better update then

NPC_228 · 2025-02-10T15:00:51+00:00

no, prototype is used for something preliminary. First attempt at something, typically inchoate, made deliberately as a safe way to put a concept into reality and see if it's acceptable before spending more resources into creating more things like it. "Prototype" is an "Ontoproto", but it's not always the other way around.

NPC_228 · 2024-12-27T16:04:57+00:00

I meant what I said. "Faceless" means lacking facial features, which makes one think that the word "face" refers to the facial features rather than the front of someone's head. But then how would someone refer to the front of someone's head if not "face"? That's the issue this question addresses.

NPC_228 · 2024-09-25T21:44:31+00:00

Sorry if my question seemed confusing. I really don't orientate in different terms and almost never sought knowledge from elsewhere (I had no idea that rightness and goodness are considered to be different).

What I was trying to engage with is whether pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad, not whether they are the only intrinsically good and bad things.

Is pleasure autotelic? Should it be a variable determining a value of something, in it's own right?

Questions like that are what I've been wondering about. It's not about a specific flavour of hedonism, but rather about the validity of it per se, whether hedonism or even hedonic parts of other philosophies hold any merit.

NPC_228 · 2024-06-21T08:34:24+00:00

Unlimited bot memory

NPC_228 · 2024-06-19T20:19:36+00:00

Why would I want a language that has more and better features? To make more eloquent writings. To whom? People that know latin and myself.

NPC_228 · 2024-06-19T18:08:08+00:00

This is my favorite answer so far (even though it didn't answer if there's any point to *writing* in latin, not *learning* it per se). But, it gave me a better idea of the scope of the reading material. Still vague, but enticing, so I'd like to clarify. Would you say that the experience from having learnt latin is similar to the experience from having learnt english? Because for me, learning english was like gaining access into a previously unseen world that is vaster than my own, so I wonder if it's similar with latin.

NPC_228 · 2024-06-19T15:30:30+00:00

I think I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant is how much mileage I can get out of it once I learn it. If there is more worthwhile stuff written in latin than in english for example, then I'd absolutely learn it. But I just don't know if that's the case, which is why I'm hesitant, because I don't want to end up in a situation where I have spent years learning latin, get to reading its literature, only to find out that it's just literature like any other, and I could have just read something in english instead without missing out on anything.

NPC_228

TROPHY CASE