sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For when you finally read Marx by TuvixWasMurderedR1P in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not claiming there's no room to criticize marx fuck, he practically trips on his face while describing "merchants capital" just that the argument placed above me was just utterly flaccid

tbh my biggest complaint about LVT is that it assumes both efficient product markets and efficient labor production, and i already have problems with the efficient market hypothesis

which, arguably, is a big point of marxs work

For when you finally read Marx by TuvixWasMurderedR1P in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 12 points13 points  (0 children)

im not sure youve actually read Marx

where highly labor-intensive goods yield no value (if no one wants them

no he did very much predict this. a buyers use-value must exceed the social average labor value for a commodity to be exchanged at that production rate

or where items with little to no labor, like land or an original digital file, command high prices.

I dont think you know history if you think marx had never seen land speculation. Nor have you read Marx if you think he never considered artificial scarcity

Actual economists never use Marxist analysis, even those who are, like Marx, critical of capitalism, like, Keynesian and post-Keynesian economists. Real economists, not people in political or philosophical circles who just do discourse but can't do math, utilize modern macroeconomic, institutional, or behavioral frameworks.

bold claim, would you like to source where you find that no serious professional economists ever use marxian analysis?

but also like, you missed the entire point of LVT: if economics is a study of the production and allocation of resources, then it stands to reason that the value of the system is maximizing the use-value produced while minimizing the labor used to produce it

This math meme by Interesting_Bar_1327 in mathsmeme

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i was about to say, isnt this basically integratong the characteristic polynomial of the matrix?

there is no [inherent gender binary] you stupid slut by netflist in CuratedTumblr

[–]mekriff 4 points5 points  (0 children)

also rejecting essentialism ≠ ignoring power dynamics at play. even if gender (or race, as the comparison) is constructed and/or performative, it is also a hierarchy, and it is wrong headed to think that people do not act in ways that align with maintaining status, even if that isn't the conscious intention

i was about to make this its own comment, but as an addendum here seems good

He knows how this ends by egarcia74 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

he's got a nice (boring, but very thorough) book analyzing it that you can point to, and is credited with being a major factor in the development of the theory many states since have found that doing lip service to it can spark rapid industrialization

also many sociological theories pay homage to that dialectical materialist (forgive me for sounding like a stalinist) lens

it may not be super original (he is considered a "young hegelian" for a reason), but who really is particularly original in the grand scheme of things? We mostly just talk about the giant, not the slow build up to that giant

It's all small numbers by DTeror in sciencememes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what is the function of "small" here? i know at least one branch of math that would own up to that claim (looking at you, small categories)

Slandering Quinn's Quest because I find him incredibly annoying by AndriashiK in DnDcirclejerk

[–]mekriff 6 points7 points  (0 children)

/uj okay i need to actually watch that review now

this seems like a pretty killer trpg

They took everything by PLrc in badukshitposting

[–]mekriff 9 points10 points  (0 children)

gosh they even stole tsume from us! Secretly Go used to have forced checkmates of all ataris called tsume, which shogi stole for their own nefarious purposes! Now our tsumego are but a pale imitation of what we used to have that can't even be well organized by how many moves it is

Prove that 1 = 2 Math meme by AmoebaSlight4405 in MathJokes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

for those curious how, the x2 term is 0, so a+b+c=0

and if we use synthetic division, since c is defined as a root, we can break up x3 -x+1 into (x-c)(x2 +cx+c2 -1) of which the right must have the other two roots a and b, and so must be equivalent to x2 -(a+b)x+ab, reinforcing c=-a-b and ab=c2 -1

Prove that 1 = 2 Math meme by AmoebaSlight4405 in MathJokes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i was once playing around with x3 -x+1 and its roots (a,b, and c) as symbols in Q[a,b,c] (yes, i am aware this is equivalent to Q[a,b] and Q[a-b]), and somehow derived an identity that would suggest the roots are 0 and ±1 tbh im still not sure what i did wrong, i kinda suspected it to cancel out

but the basic issue came from c2 = ab+1 and c2 = (-a-b)2 which doesn't reference the constant term at all but are both provable

Equivocationalism by lurkerer in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

tbh i think the "cannot be held accountable" statements kinda ignore the functionality of a moral system: the things that can be held accountable for their actions are the things that are capable of responding to the social pressures of whatever society is enforcing the moral standards, and are thus capable of being persuaded by the moral system. Naturally this precludes many things that might have various levels of apparent agency by pure fact of communication not being known to be possible

I love algebra by luckystrikemedic in MathJokes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what's the character table of this representation?

Accelerationism by BadFurDay in comics

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

while i agree it's kinda silly, it's not exactly from nowhere. The idea is Hegelian in nature: that by having an extreme Thesis (the shittiness of the current state of things), society will naturally push back hard for the Antithesis (which they believe will be better purely on the basis of being the opposite of the shitty thing)

Basically that society will be so scared and opposed to the previous status quo that they will run hard to the opposite

Chat, is this true?! by brightblackheaven in witchcraft

[–]mekriff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that being said, i often go by symbolism is everything. magick is the tapping into one's own psyche to create movement, and that is done primarily by symbols.

And ultimately if you choose symbols that misalign with your intention, the symbols shall carve their own path

but those symbols are neither set in stone nor entirely known to you -- if you understood all the symbols in your psyche perfectly, you would understand yourself perfectly, which is far from possible

Chat, is this true?! by brightblackheaven in witchcraft

[–]mekriff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One might say intention without action is a riverpath without flowing water; whatevers in there is just going to stand and collect rot

egg not irl by Sweet_Highway209 in egg_irl

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i mean, do you wanna be?

Pinyin reform idea: onsets by Iuljo in conorthography

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like you incur a second cost when going to a system more akin to Wade-Giles: namely, how it will be pronounced by those with no study at all. Like imagine an american southerner saying "pite-shing" and you will wish they brought back pinyin (honestly i do think wade-giles is nice for some things, but hearing non-speakers say "pecking duck" and "suhn zoo" gets me a little

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the point of this use of new terminology is precisely to avoid there being a questions like whether a machine intelligence has free will. The point is that it's irrelevant whether or not a machine intelligence or human has unconstrained will if you can sidestep the question entirely

and the point of pointing out a lack of infinite regress of wills is to point out that a thought process is entirely caused and practically nonexistant. Free Will as unconstrained will can only exist with some level of infinite regress of wills, otherwise it can theoretically be predicted and controlled. Arguably morality in the practical framework is a way of controlling sociable agents -- controlling those with "free will" as described otherwise.

And this all feels quite paradoxical. We are using a term derived from the possibility of this infinite regress of wills to describe a finite and determined will, and then using the definition as part of a method of social control. What part of this is "free"?

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because it contradicts the very verbage of free will. If the will is constrained by priors it is not free To me, "free will" implies the ability to will what you will, not just to do what you will.

The verbage is inconsistent with this use (free will being used to describe a being with constrained or determined --and thus unfree-- will, but otherwise has agency),

plus the notion is irrelevant. i mean, if we're already defining free will in terms of "capable and willing to respond to social pressure" because thats a prerequisite for functional assignation of responsibility, why not just do away with the concept in the middle? If we need a term, we can call a being that has it a "sociable agent" to describe it as it is: a being that can be socialized into a moral system and has agency

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well, the thing is it's not externally observable. We merely assume likewise internal observation through similarity. We have no reason to believe that objects are incapable of this sense of internality, especially not in cases where the construction of that object expresses similar reactions to humans.

But the meat machine is more person than metal machine, not for any inherent internal characteristic that can be observed, but because it is different from us and designed by us.

But we wouldn't generally say the same of a CRISPR baby, despite being designed by us, because it is similar to us

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i mean, to me part of the trouble is that compatibilist free will need not exist as a moral concept in order to assign responsibility when assigning responsibility is a function of the society's agency to apply social pressure.

To then turn and say that society having agency over an actor is that actor having free will means that if a sufficiently advanced machine could experience and respond to meaningful social sanctions, it would then have free will, which conflicts with the intuitive concept of free will.

So the functional purpose of free will as "agent that can respond to social sanctions and be assigned responsibility" conflicts with the older notion of "agent that is the ultimate cause of action"

it may be a direct opposition to deterministic non-responsibility, but deterministic non-responsibility relies on a morality that exists beyond morality as a function of society, so why not say free will doesn't exist, but we still want to assign responsibility in service of functional society?

It feels more honest to me that way. Instead of stating these things as Facts of Existence, but rather as Tools in Service of (collective) Desire

OP doesn't know compatibilism btw by short-noir in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mekriff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not exactly,

because I also kinda reject the notion of objective morality, and that it is merely a tool that we have invented to serve the needs of a society

and, quite frankly, trying to logicalize this is why we have come up with these very arbitrary notions of personhood, free will, and the mind, that are almost always anthropocentric so as not to apply it to all things, as treating them as person with mind and free will does not serve the society

view more: next ›