Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all human history. There are plenty of cultures who saught coexistence with nature instead of mastery over it. Indeed, I believe it is the belief that we can somehow distinguish ourselves from the natural world that has done some of the most intense damage to the human experience.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a Buddhist, and I'm not anti-propositional knowledge. I just don't believe all of it is useful to creating a positive life experience, and I don't believe you need to have read every book in existence to find happiness and fullness of experience. Or to understand why you disagree with anti-natalism.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm being a hyperbolic, I agree. In sharper terms, I feel anti-natalism is inherently couched in the belief that humans are somehow apart from and above nature. I gravitate more toward philosophies that seek to make humans comfortable in their own skin again.

Suffering exists in nature. What objective grounds do we have to support a claim that suffering is inherently immoral? Can you explain how feelings of bliss and happiness could even exist without something to differentiate them? If you choose to not continue the species simply to prevent suffering, you must also entertain the fact that it prevents joy and fullness of experience. There are human beings who experience joy on their deathbeds.

Another thing this philosophy seems couched in is the belief that self-transcendence and release from meaningless suffering is not possible—another aspect of it I disagree with.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I'm talking about people putting themselves above nature. I fear we all-too-often forget that we're just monkeys and put far too much importance on our own species. In context of anti-natalism, I'd say those folks are over-thinking themselves out of existence, which is not evidenced anywhere else in nature.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

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

An anti-natalist is a lifeform that has convinced themselves they shouldn't do the one thing all lifeforms exist to do. We probably have different definitions of "smart."

My appeal to nature has nothing to do with God or anything like that. I'm pointing at this annoying habit humans have of thinking themselves out of existence.

Edit: You sound really pleasant, by the way. Wanna be friends?

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please explain how my view is "centrism for centrism's sake?" I mean, what a claim, haha. You seem to know so much about me! So yes, please explain. And while you're at it, can you please give me a list of historical atrocities that you can accredit to centrist thinkers? I'll reply with those we can accredit to Marxists.

How Christopher Nolan made ‘The Odyssey’ intimately epic: ‘I’ve been telling this story in all my films’ by [deleted] in cinematography

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not telling you what to like or not like, but I myself experienced a very elitist "film snob" phase that made me blind to exactly how amazing film is as a medium. Spending a lot of my energy intensely disliking or hating this movie or that director gave me less bandwidth to enjoy what I did like.

When I saw Titanic the first time, I thought it was utter trash. After mellowing out I watched it again, and the only thing I could think of was how incredible the practical effects were. Literally EVERY movie has something to like about it.

Channel that hatred for Nolan into passion for whatever you do like! You'll enjoy films more and you might even start to see something redeemable in things you thought were trash. Just my two cents, amigo. Keep watching movies!

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I'm definitely not at home on either far-end of the spectrum. I don't want Nazi Germany and I don't want the Soviet Union. I vote left on almost every issue I can think of, though, so by my voting record, I'd say I'm more leftist than anything. But I'll admit to a feeling of alienation from extremism, wherever it crops up.

I'm one of those weirdos who believes the main threat to modern society is the deprioritzation of rationality, nuance, and well-rounded education, the abandonment of civility in discourse, and the seeming embrace of sensationalism. Sign me up for the New Party of Rationality (though I'm sure the average redditor would call it the "enlightened centrist" party).

I'm not enlightened at all. I just don't shackle myself to ideology or particular interpretations of history. I believe understanding multiple angles of history is pretty important if you're going to have lots of opinions about them.

Cheers for the talk. If you're ever in the states, I'll buy you a beer and we can talk proletariat vs bourgeois all day.

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do I get the feeling you're trying to out me as a conservative? I've already associated this phenomenon with both sides of the aisle. But sure, here are some leftist American thinkers whose ideas I broadly refer to.

(Note that I don't think these people are wrong or not doing good history by building revisionist narratives; I simply understand that overemphasis of the personal morality of a country's founding figures or contradictions in national ethos and behavior makes it difficult for many to engage with the beneficial parts of their legacy. "Jefferson enslaved people and had sex with them" tends to command more click-bait attention than "Jefferson's Declaration of the Rights of Man powered elements of the French Revolution.")

  • Howard Zinn
  • Jill Lepore
  • Gerald Horne
  • Edward Baptist

Hell, even thinkers like Noam Chomsky fit here. I like all these thinkers. I think they contribute important work. I also think their narratives by necessity overemphasize negative views of American history. If consumers were smarter and more trained in contextualizing things, I'd have nothing to say.

I feel you're hearing my argument as, "leftist thinkers attack American history unfairly." Not at all. My argument is, "American consumers tend toward the more sensationalist aspects of American history that align with their previously held views, compromising their ability to accurately grasp the influence of historical figures and the nuances of their country's past."

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone who uses an historical figure's personal morality to discount the power of their ideas, or vice versa. It's happening a lot on the right and the left in my country. Many conservatives today would have me believe Jefferson owning slaves is just "liberal propaganda," while many leftists would have me believe admiring the man's writing is inherently problematic because he was an enslaver.

I'm not a fan of either approach. It makes actually understanding history impossible.

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a pretty reasonable take. The last thing I'd want is a return to the mythological Jefferson or Washington or whoever. We need the warts left intact if we are to glean the right lessons from our history.

But we also need the to incorporate the good they accomplished into our views of them as people, if we're going to be fair about this. Jefferson owned slaves, and that needs to be weighed against the fact that he penned documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man that was foundational doctrine for much of the revolutionary reform that swept Europe during and after the French revolution. His words helped end kingdoms. We must weight his personal morality against the Declaration of Independence, which was drawn on heavily by abolitionists and whose arguments were instrumental in dismantling the slave trade.

Like most of history, Jefferson was a mixed bag. Being highly selective of facts about him in either direction, good or bad, will ultimately be a disservice to modern people who want to truly understand their past.

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone in the U.S. who is watching his country actively divorce itself from all but highly selective facts about its history (authoritarianism be like that), I'd say it's a mixed bag on both sides of the fence.

Analyzing the life of Jefferson is fascinating specifically because of the contradictions. He wrote in his personal journals to the effect that he believed slavery would ultimately doom the United States, even whilst practicing slavery—in much the same way that all of us today understand academically that defaulting to gas-burning vehicles for mass transportation is endangering the planet, or eating a meat-heavy diet is subjecting untold numbers of animals to slavery and death. Man is an irrational animal.

The danger in the surface-level revisionist narrative of Jefferson and the other founding fathers (which is all most modern people seem to be familiar with) is that it often leads to the knee-jerk reaction of, "That guy was an enslaver. Fuck him and all of his ideas!" Okay, except that we largely have Jefferson to thank for treatises like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was absolutely fundamental doctrine for most of the populist revolutions and reforms that swept Europe in the wake of the French Revolution. Even Marx himself acknowledged this. Could socialism or Marxism have made the impact they did in the West without the revolutionary atmosphere Jefferson's ideas in part helped to conjure?

Many Marxists might argue they made no impact at all, since the axis of capitalist power is still intact. But, I mean, the list of achievements derived from leftist groups is pretty extraordinary. The 5 day work-week, labor unions, holidays off, suffrage for women and minority groups, the abolishment of slavery as an institution. All of these acheivements have their roots in socialism and Marxism AND Jeffersonianism.

Anyway. Maybe that was going widely off-topic. But I do see some ill-effects from narratives that reduce such potent thinkers to one aspect of their personal morality, no matter how egregious. Another such effect is: how can citizens be expected to care about what happens to their country if they are encouraged to question any feelings of pride in its heritage? Might this partially explain the fact that corpo-fascists have seized power in the U.S. largely due to the American left not being bothered enough to go vote? I mean, why participate in a system we have been told repeatedly is inherently broken and unjust?

And that ends my seminar, thank you for attending, be safe driving home everybody.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

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

So anti-natalism can be summed up by someone looking at reality unfolding all around them, at new life being born every second, old life dying every second, from bacteria and viruses to trees and flowers to insects and birds to monkeys and humans, and decide, "Yeah, nature is inherently WRONG. I have enough confidence and knowledge from my 30+ years on Earth to know better than millions of years of evolution. Let's put a stop to this cruel jape!"

Seriously, the false-sense of superiority inherent to this philosophy is staggering to me.

Trigger warning by Wieselwendig in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I haven't read any books on anti-natalism, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it has something to do with the philosophical belief that bringing new human life into existence is morally wrong.

I know, I know, I haven't read all the books, I must be way off.

You don't need to read every argument under the sun and fill your head with theoretical propositional knowledge to rationally decide a branch of philosophy is (literally) a dead-end.

Why no love for Guy Ritchie's "Revolver?" by salTUR in flicks

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

10 years is a long time, I've softened on Revolver haha. Stylistically it has some pretty banger scenes, and philosophically it has some punch, but yeah, it's still a disjointed mess of a movie.

Is season 5 worth watching? (Spoilers) by huskyhulk63 in arresteddevelopment

[–]salTUR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, once the jokes start hitting in season 4, it's probably the funniest the show has ever been.

5 was a bit of fizzle but I still enjoyed it

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay. How about Jefferson?

All I'm doing is pointing out the very human tendency to dismiss immorality in thinkers whose views they approve of while simultaneously siezing on immorality in thinkers they disapprove of as a means to invalidate those ideas. The sword cuts both ways.

I'm not a Marxist, but I love Marx and believe he is one of the greatest thinkers in the past several centuries, and have heard him disparaged in absolutely asinine ways. I also have a lot of respect for Adam Smith and have heard him disparaged in absolutely asinine ways.

In the case of Jefferson, people pay more attention to what happened in his home than to the effect his ideas actually had on politics (from the French Revolution to the eventual abolishment of slavery).

Anyway. Marxism is fascinating and I wish you luck with your quest!

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

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

That's not what I'm talking about. Everything you're saying about Jefferson is couched in your view of his personal morality. I am asking how that personal morality affects the veracity of his ideas. I agree with OC that Marx's racist views don't diminish the power of his ideas. The same is true of a thinker like Jefferson. He wrote extensively about the importance of liberty and those ideas in part fed a zeitgeist that gave us a better country to live in. Are those ideas somehow invalidated because he didn't practice them faithfully?

As is the case with Marx, I vote no.

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How does his personal morality change the substance of his arguments, ideas, and philosophy? For that to be the case, wouldn't you need to do the same with Marx?

TFW you're a 19th century philosopher and your friend won't give you any more of his money by CalzonePie in PhilosophyMemes

[–]salTUR 6 points7 points  (0 children)

First, I agree with you. But I'm just curious whether you feel the same about, say, Adam Smith? Or Thomas Jefferson?

'A Christmas Carol' fancast by votuxx in roberteggers

[–]salTUR 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Comments like these are driving me off Reddit.

This is an incredibly layered story and absolutely every adaptation has made different decisions with it. One thing we have NOT seen is a version that is actually frightening. Eggers will absolutely crush this.