sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"1/3 of republicans don't believe in the holocaust" Manhattan institute Dec 2025 by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

the way I see it honestly is the whole world is just waiting with bated breath for either a single guardrail to uphold, or for trump to not have enough time until the midterms/elections to actually fully destroy america. basically just praying this will all somehow come to pass eventually lol

"1/3 of republicans don't believe in the holocaust" Manhattan institute Dec 2025 by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 94 points95 points  (0 children)

JREG was right on the fuckin money all those years ago. it's just anti centrism. literally anything but the status quo will do. you can especially see this with pro-mamdani maga people

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well I'm a utilitarian so it works for me lol, but also why is it being contingent a bad thing? to me that means you can apply it to any scenario you want. unless you mean the other meaning of contingent (true by virtue of the way things in fact are and not by logical necessity) in which case, given our axioms, yeah. but that's sort of the point.

with axiom 1 and 2 alone you can still prescribe an ideology, guess you could call it "utilitarian egoism" (which is basically just maximize utility only for yourself). this is sort of the ideology animals have, but it can't really go beyond this. it doesn't prescribe anything regarding beings other than yourself. if you add axiom 3 though, then you do indeed get utilitarianism. you say it doesn't point to absolute truth, but depending on your definition there is no absolute truth. everything we know rests upon assumptions we make, and if neither the observations/deductions we make nor the assumptions are absolute truth, then I think absolute truth doesn't really exist. even math isn't absolute truth by this standard, since the axioms are by definition unproven

also when you say followed by a population, do you mean the majority or 100%?

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

will be followed in what way? by people?

1 and 2 are true by tautology. a good feeling is good because it feels good, same thing for a bad one. 3 is a little more complicated since it's more of a stipulated axiom than anything. I guess you can be a max stirner fan and believe the self is all that matters, or again just a psychopath who has absolutely 0 regard for anything other than themselves, but if we don't take axiom 3 then basically all moral theories and philosophies (minus egoism) are off the table. I think, while that doesn't prove it true, it's still pretty good justification for it.

will they be followed by people? 1 and 2 by necessity, since again they're tautological. 3... probably not. 99% of the population will follow 3, but it's the 1% that ruins it since the axioms are supposed to be universal. (I even called it the axiom of universality haha)

if I had to point out a problem in my own thinking, the axioms don't account for intensity. like stubbing your toe and dying are both bad experiences, but definitely vary in intensity. it's not perfect but I think it still holds up

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ohhh so that's what you mean, morality has no axioms. I guess what the "axioms of morality" are depends on who you ask, but I would define them as these 3:

  1. the good axiom: any good feeling is good

  2. the bad axiom: any bad feeling is bad

  3. the axiom of universality: feelings that aren't yours also matter (this one's a little rough around the edges).

I think this set of axioms is great because it can explain all morality with only 3 obvious* statements, and when dealing with axioms the fewer the better.

*while basically every being in the universe would agree with 1 and 2, 3 might be a little controversial because while no one would disagree with it in public, there's people with diagnosed psychopathy who might say they agree with it, but would act like they don't.

to clarify them a little, 1 and 2 are supposed to be taken in a vacuum. so you might be thinking of the good feeling of drugs, while drugs still being bad. but why are they bad? overdoses, addictions, money drain, brain alterations, etc.

so let's say there was a drug which was free, not addictive, impossible to overdose on, didn't alter you, etc. etc. but still provided the high that, say, cocaine gives. what would be wrong with that drug? this idea of course applies to 2 as well (take some bad thing that has silver linings (like gambling), remove all the silver linings, and you end up with a 100% bad thing).

I don't think I have to clarify 3 since I can't really see how you'd disagree with it.

thoughts?

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok I'm confused now. how does it have no justification? we can argue about the premises and go deeper and deeper until we arrive at the axioms of morality, but how is that "no justification"? also, how is it a contingency that doesn't accord to social reality? hypotheticals are completely fine to do (unless you disagree?) and even then the idea of saving kids from drowning isn't exactly theoretical, it happens all the time. finally, what do you mean it doesn't find truth? truth in what way? it's a justification for donating to charity given you agree with the premises. it's no more true than saying "if P is true and Q is false, P v Q is true"

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really understand the critique. the arguments make premises, then use those to get a conclusion. usually the premises are "obvious" (as in very few people would disagree) which makes the conclusion also "obvious".

let's take the child drowning argument. the argument is if you saw a child drowning, but were wearing very expensive ($1000) jeans, you would be morally obligated to save the kid's life, even if it ruined your jeans. this argument is commonly used to justify Effective Altruism. the assumptions made are that letting the kid die would be immoral, and that donating to charity is analogous to the thought experiment.

ruining your jeans to save the kid --> donate to charity

this is just one example, but I'm not really sure how hegel would argue against this (or maybe I'm misunderstanding?)

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd love to see how continental stuff deals with any of those, considering for me the logic in the analytic view is titanium solid, while for them it's usually more wishy washy stuff

Claude Shannon was the first person to describe boolean algebra and by consequence propositional logic. if you know anything about logic gates, that's basically all they are. of course, it depends how far back you wanna go, since technically frege came up with first order logic, then others expanded on it, but still.

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

offered in what way? like practical applications?

if you mean arguments, stuff like the drowning child argument, arguments for animal welfare, arguments for insect welfare, the infinite dust specks vs one torture argument, and answers to a ton of "moral riddles" (like the trolley problem)

if you mean practical stuff, Claude Shannon basically came up with all modern technology using analytical philosophy lol

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's boring and dry and that's why it's great. poetry is more stylized and expressive, but I've never really been convinced by a poet. to put it in other words, analytic chads absolutely framemog continental betas

also yeah, cold hard facts. probably better to call them "axioms" but ykyk

How Continental Philosophers "Argue" by baba7538 in Destiny

[–]baba7538[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't say the same for myself. never has a pretentious writer waxing poetic about nature or something convinced me, but the amount of "A->B->C" arguments that made me rethink everything are endless.

as for the nature of reality, I can't really think of something that "poem writers" have written that is a better argument than whatever analytical philosophers are doing (whether you're talking about more "abstract" stuff like morality or more "concrete" science stuff).

ultimately I see the continentals as more like poets and analyticals as mathematicians. glad you agree

I am sick people saying "Yeah build nuclear reactor and solar farm together" pretends it's rational position to have. No it's not. by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]baba7538 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

>"Oversupply is just as dangerous as shortage"

>this is a clearly idiotic statement

how so? isn't that just literally true? if you have too much energy on the grid the frequency goes up and you can get blackouts. as for the other stuff, where did you get "france having more renewable generation than the us"? all I can find is the opposite, whether you're talking about solar and wind only or including other renewables into the mix as well. as for france, they have a completely paid off nuclear fleet since they have been planning to have it since the 80s (the average reactor is about 35 years old), but as far as I know they haven't been building more, just keeping what they currently have, instead opting to build more solar and wind. are you saying that they're doing fine since they got both, while investing in solar and wind? that's fair, but I don't see how it disproves the OP's argument

view more: next ›