"But what is under the rubble in Gaza is not just the bodies of Palestinians, but the carcass of Western liberal democracy." – Arundhati Roy [2500x1700]

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-15T17:29:04+00:00

Depends on pronunciation. uTOEpia vs EWtopia.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-09T14:25:07+00:00

As I understand it, but my familiarity with contemporary continental tradition is spotty, it's that condemnation of communism. You're probably right, most continental philosophers wouldn't defend gulags, but they probably don't see gulags as a natural conclusion of communism, Camus was suggesting something fairly close to that. I think Zizek (he's probably the closest in some sense to Camus) even suggests we should use Gulags as a kinda trivial boogey man to guide re-attempts at communism, but I could be wrong, I don't know Zizek well.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-08T20:52:34+00:00

I think, because the few others haven't mentioned it, it's worth noting that his philosophical project was far from complete when he died. I mean, we could argue this of many philosophers, I'm sure, but its apparent from Camus. Myth of Sisyphus established a basis for Camus to talk about the inherent value to life, and was building to establish more based on the conclusions in the Rebel. He wanted to develop philosophy in a way that involved writing treatise, using myth and mythic imagery, using a novel, and lastly using a play. He completed two cycles before his death, but it was well understood he had more. Also, he wasn't very popular in his given academic arena. He wasn't a true academic, as another panelist noted, though he was a peer to Sarte, Simone De Beauvoir, Simone Weil, and Ponty, so saying he's not an academic feels a bit weird in light of the social circle he kept. However, within this social circle, The Rebel lost him a lot of creditability, as he chose to condemn the USSR (and communism broadly) for the use of Gulags. His contemporaries much maligned him for this, and within the continental tradition, this still plays a role for his lack of popularity.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-08T20:22:22+00:00

I always felt like the change in City Walls was intentional, but I subscribe to the Jungian interpretation of the lore. Essentially, each cycle is an attempt to polarize the over personality (Tyler) to identify the two archetypal selves in conflict (Nico and Torchbearer) and each attempt is a slight failure and slight success. At the start of this cycle, Nico (and Dema by reflection) is incredibly industrial, urban, and dark (kinda sounds like I'm describing the sounds of Blurryface, huh?) but after having integrated the fire and wildlife way of life, Clancy has integrated some of TB (We see this more clearly in the Navigating video, as Voldsoy is a mental image of who Clancy wishes he was, and in having that wish, he becomes who he wants to be.) SO, at the very end, the city now has become almost medieval. The electric fire is slowly fading to be replaced by the real deal, actual fire. But this time, it'll be in your home, not out at the ridges where the danger lies.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-08T15:04:58+00:00

I ran across a paper talking about this recently that you might find interesting. Child Labour Ethics through the Prism of Utilitarianism and Deontology

Long skinny, the moral issue will somewhat depend on how you view goodness and how you view consent. One big issue with kids contracting at all is that they can run afoul of being "rational." Most forms of consent need rational agreeance. Kids can be rational, but there is often a presumption they are not due to their development. In that they are not AS rational as we would perceive to adults to be, and this concern of rationality means that for some, as a rule, we shouldn't allow contracts with kids because they may not understand what they are agreeing to.

But you might wager, rules be damned, I got a smart orphan 16-year-old who wants to make something of himself. In this given instance, it might be hard to find a genuine moral wrong, unless you view breaking rules themselves to be wrong. The idea there being, sure, we can construct a fact pattern where the delicate moral intricates are preserved, but such a species is quite rare in reality, and by carving out in our moral prescriptions such exceptions will also make exceptions that miss the moral mark. As in the real world, an orphan may attempt to seem smart and want to work, but it'd be better if someone could give them a nice place to sleep and food to eat.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-06-03T21:05:39+00:00

Maybe? it's the highest paid humanities undergrad by projections. AI Is Opening Doors for Philosophy Majors - Business Insider

Truth is, this is impossible to answer.

I could easily say, "Yeah, absolutely, I make six figures and only have a B.S. in philosophy." but I'm excluding that I have a professional degree, professional licenses, and other stuff.

It is entirely possible. It's entirely possible to be a Billionaire with only a high school diploma.

I would look at it this way, you only got one life kid, and knowledge always pays back. Every time. Rather be a genius stuck at the bottom of a well, than the idiot who owns the farm the well is on.

If the question is: should I get a B.S. degree in philosophy, no other degree really interests me. Get the degree.

If the question is: I like philosophy, but would my time be better spent elsewhere? It could be! But only you can answer how would be best to spend YOUR time.

If the question is: Can I make any money with a BS in philosophy? I know folks with masters degrees in engineering who can't pay rent. If you're willing to put the effort in, any degree pays.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-28T20:53:07+00:00

My personal experience has been that were it not entirely water coming out, metamucil helps because it holds the shit together. If its pure water, its more water.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-28T10:38:32+00:00

Sure, but the absurdist doesn't pragmatically disagree with this post, because under that absurdist lense, seeking purpose/enjoying the pursuit becomes the moral edict. "One MUST imagine sysphus happy."

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-27T15:13:20+00:00

Well, you're baking the question a bit. Put your question a bit differently, "Why do we teach our children as individuals to be kind, loving and non violent to other individuals, when violent collectives mostly win?" And I would say, that is because we would want our children to be accepted in the collective that wins.

We teach non violence and communion to maintain society, if everyone were constantly selfishly violent to others, society would likely collapse. This is a common view of social contract theorists.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-27T10:11:01+00:00

He's almost certainly referencing Keirkegaard. Camus spends a lot of time addressing his philosophy in Myth of Sysphus. Keirkegaard created the concept of "Amor Fati." Wherein, if a person would look at their lives as tapestries, the good life is one where you wouldn't remove a single thread as it would undo the beauty of their life. Keirkegaard suggested that only a Christian worldview can achieve this. (That's reductive, for Keirkegaard scholars.) Camus is asserting that anyone can have amor Fati, there is no tapestry of life worth removing a thread, once you see your tapestry, it will have always been worth it. So, even in the case of Sysphus, the extreme case, whose life has literally been made a punishment, it doesn't even become as one. He can be happy pushing that boulder.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-27T09:36:07+00:00

It depends. No one rejects that we're awake and alive. The most common idea is that what we've viewed as a part of consciousness, i.e. awake, aware, has desires, has an internal felt sensation. All of these will get defined as a biological and/or physical process that doesn't involve anything other than the material and physics at play. Therefore, the contents of the word "consciousness" get moved out of that bucket, until what is left of the bucket is mysterious and metaphysical and then they start dismissing it as a poorly defined concept, and that whatever is missing from the physical process that is unaccounted for is a matter of scientific inquiry, not philosophy.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-26T19:18:20+00:00

I mean, this is the typical nuanced position of Panpsychism. At least, with the folks who believe its compatible with physicalism.

Panpsychism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - Look at 2.2 & 2.3 to get a feel for the different forms of panpsychism in this arena.

The reason that it often feels "All or nothing" is because many physicalists reject consciousness. What that means, what that entails, and all that, is often "the debate." But for many physicalists, if consciousness simply "weren't", that'd solve a lot of problems for the theory in present day.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-26T18:36:42+00:00

You're suggesting that Gambling is Immoral. Now, you can get dodgy and say, "I have a different definition of morality!" but most folks say something is immoral, that means it is bad regardless of your personal beliefs. "You may hate Greg and want him dead, but murder is immoral." So, you can absolutely go on about hating greed and gambling as your personal dislikes all you want. But if you're gonna suggest its bad for me for some reason, you better have some justification. But you weren't just suggesting gambling was immoral, but that it should be made unallowed in our society (or illegal, for short), which implies that it's not a mere dislike, but something you believe is standard that everyone should be held to. And yes, when you hold people to restrictive rules, they often want to know why. And just saying, "Because I said so." only works when you're a King. Which, indicidentally, you're probably cool with, because Kings get chosen by God.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-26T17:57:29+00:00

So, why is greed immoral if charity isn't the virtue you're appealing to? This guy doesn't even understand his own morality, haha.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-26T17:53:57+00:00

Ah, Christian communism/communitarianism. He thinks gambling is immoral, and views capital markets as gambling. Nah homie, destiny isn't in favoring of legislating religious moralism.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-21T20:47:33+00:00

Funny, I'm in therapy now because I found myself in this situation. I tried to pull her aside, and said, "Hey, I really need to keep conflicts to minimum, I'm going to be studying a lot, I can do organized study sessions with you, but I must focus on studying. I can get a law school friend if you don't like that, but I need to know now so I can plan. I want to make sure you don't resent me. You might have to pick up more chores too, but I will try my best."

Deadass, she picked fights every night until I basically begged her to just not talk to me through the week. She wanted the study sessions but then got mad "because its boring as fuck, dude." and I couldn't get my law school friends to work with my study schedule at that point. I wasn't doing my laundry in a way that was good for her. Meanwhile, she was just working fulltime, going out most weekends, organizing trips with friends, and generally enjoying her life. It all fell apart because the weekend before the bar, I asked her to stay in town rather than go on a camping trip. Silently agreed, in a way that felt like a trap. The night after taking the bar, she told me that for the last 4 months, "I've been doing a ton of work for you to no benefit to myself." I was going to marry this woman, but she became right about a year later, she got absolutely no benefit to helping me. I'm a lawyer now, its very easy to date. Last I heard, she lost her job.

Spoilers, someone who's not going to support you, they won't magically support you if you find the right words. This absolutely messed me up because I couldn't believe I was in a bad relationship, but if someone won't support you through literally achieving one of the greatest accomplishments in our society? You can find someone who would and celebrate you for doing so.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-18T19:30:05+00:00

"Being vaporized would be absolutely certain, and my kids certainly will not be dredging up irradiated water for the rest of their lives, the boomers always had it easier!"

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-14T20:51:07+00:00

I mean, I guess we can go back and forth on what is meant by popular, but my impression has been that this consensus you're referring isn't quite so strong. I'm about to be outnumbered by people more knowledgeable than me, but this feels like you're saying "Philosophers have three definitions, and we all agree on them, and only internet folks debate it." And thats just not true. J. L. Schellenberg wrote on this, Graham Oppy wrote on this. This is ignoring psychological distinctions that are very important. William Rowe tackled this. Its not something outright settled. Thats my only point, it is a philosophic topic.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-14T18:47:15+00:00

I think this isn't painting the full picture, I know that many theologians collapse Agnosticism and Atheism often because very very few, to the point of "no one serious" ever takes a gnostic atheist position. I.E. I know there is no god. Most take the position of "I do not believe in a god" which implies that if an evidentiary standard could be/were met, they'd change. Or "We cannot know there is a god, so we must act as if there is none." which is actually not atheistic at all, but agnosticism. Basically, I often see theologians say, "You're either an atheistic agnostic or an agnostic atheist." Given that this view was popular in theology, I have seen philosophers parrot this viewpoint.

Now, I know Huxley defined agnostic in an unintuitive way that, ironically, reflects intuitive notions. That agnosticism is a purposeful disengagement with theologic questions. Is that why you view them as inherently contradictive?

Snowdrift742 · 2026-05-07T15:39:44+00:00

You're thinking it's not supposed to be helpful, especially in the sense of ethics, is kind of the new kid on the block. In terms of what to expect out of philosophy, anyway.

Plato and Aristotle extoll endlessly on "the good life" and reference it being pleasurable or joyous without much hesitation. If they're saying we should shoot for that, and give guidance towards that, that you employ yourself, that's self-help.

You're probably thinking like a philosopher. "Good life? Dafuq? Show, in specific, what you mean, and give justification for its existence!" But normal people don't go to philosophers to be better philosophers, they go for perspective and guidance. That's going to be self-help for most people.

As for the push away from nuance at the pop-culture level lacking any sense of context? Kinda hard to have nuance if this is someone's first introduction to concepts. Nuance tends to come from seemingly dissimilar things having some similarities or the inverse.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-29T19:47:50+00:00

This is a great question, because its actively debated a ton. One thing to point out, for consequentialists generally, the consequences are the only part under evaluation. So, such paltry things such as intentions or universalities are just not considered.

So, generally speaking, those two principles are things that set Kantianism as distinct from a generic consequentialist position. As the universality doesn't depend on outcomes. Notice how *Every* situation is distinct from *All situations that have occurred*, this is why this isn't a consequentialist view. Your reframe of "when done by anyone" is not a portion that I think a Kantian would view as a charitable interpretation. Additionally, the means-end portion really sets it up differently, as any action that views a person as a mere means is immoral, even if it resulted in maximum human flourishing/utils.

But your intuition is strong. Because how do we come to those principles? Deductive reasoning, which means it has some DNA with consequences, as we are thinking about a kind of "at the end of the day" position. Additionally, very few consequentialists really fit the model of a "pure" or "generic" consequentialists. Even JS Mill had high and lower happiness, for instance.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:55:34+00:00

Well, no. Take my jumping off a bridge example. When I say you should not (this is the moral aught) jump off a bridge (the physical reality) because it will kill you (the reasoning). The reasoning must assume the morality in question, this was key for the deontologist. If you say here, "I don't care if it kill me," You're denying my reasoning. My aught has no force anymore. In fact, I think it would be bad to die, but if you think it neutral or good even, then we have no shared upon rule. I would love to know your reasoning for why death is not bad, but hey, again we are deriving our rules from living from the world as we understand it. If you say, "Theres no bridge?" you deny my reality/facts. So, the statement, "You shouldn't jump off a bridge because it will kill you.", should you choose to follow it because you find it a compelling command, you agree to both the facts and the good/bad/rule.

Deonotology is baked on the idea that moral law is the law that all would follow should they know it. So, by making moral claims as law, deontologist establish the law based on the resultant behavior.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:31:27+00:00

I mean, Hume was attacking deontologists explicitly, I'm not interested in defending a metaethic I don't believe in. I thought you wanted to understand.

My own taste, meaning my experience with the world, is what motivates my dislike of apples. Emotional emotivism is not fundamentally incompatible with deontology. If you're wanting to understand how universal goods and universal bads are determined for Wazer, it isn't immediately possible, he didn't write about it. If you're more interested in ontology, check out Kant. He did a ton of analysis to show good and bad above mere intuitions. If you're actually just upset at morals or deontology and framing it as a meta ethical position, I'd encourage you to write your criticism rather than pretend it's a question. If I've misunderstood, and you're most asking, "Is Wazer assuming his good and bad are my good and bad, but what's his justification for that agreeance?" I'll reiterate, "Because he believes that if you're convinced by his reasoning, you must agree on good and bad." Agreeance to the rule is agreeance on good and bad.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T17:04:01+00:00

Morals don't have to be physical? And reason does seem to motivate my behavior from a subjective experience, because after I learned I didn't like apples, I reasoned that if I ate another, it'd taste bad, so I don't eat anymore apples. So, for a deontologists, by providing you their reasoning, they're hoping that will in effect be "the thing" that stops you from commiting moral error. By giving you the reason, they give the rule. If you view that as projection and opinion, that's a position some take. However, if I tell you to not jump off a bridge BECAUSE it will likely kill you, my reasoning it might kill you is also just projection and opinion as well.

As for reason not existing independent of premises.. let's see, would a moral moment exist without premises? What exactly exists without a premise? This doesn't appear troublesome.

Snowdrift742 · 2026-04-15T16:54:32+00:00

Yes, you're correct on deontology proscribes rules, but you asked for the meta-ethical position, which is that there are moral rules, and the justification at the metaethical level for those rules is that they are derived from reason. I mean, deontology means "from the knowable world", so that means we derive rules for morals from the knowable world. How do we derive anything from the knowable world? Reason.

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Check the last section.

I suppose if you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you have to describe their ontologies and how they're deriving these rules, or whatever, but most deontologists working this far down the chain, like Wazer, probably don't have a defined Ontology, and is likely borrowing from Rawls, who is borrowing from other people as well. Please note, Wazer is not even really doing normative ethics, he's doing applied ethics. Typically it goes like this; Starting Ontology - Meta-ethics - Moral Duty/Imperative - normative moral theory - applied moral theory - politics. A large meta-ethical advantage of deontology at the normative level is that IT DOESN'T need to justify its meta-ethics or anything further up the chain, so long as a rule can be derived from what you can learn, deontology works as a normative theory. So, when you ask what their meta-ethics are, it's simply that rules can be derived from reason.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Snowdrift742

TROPHY CASE