That is interesting. I was a psychology major, so I’m more familiar with Freud than Nietzsche. Didn’t realize he predated Freud by decades!

I haven't really read anything by Freud, but I'm a fan of Nietzsche. I've heard in a few lectures that some of Freud's ideas bear a strong resemblance to those of Nietzsche, but that he denied having read him.

Interestingly, this article seems to corroborate this, and further suggests that he was intentionally lying. Maybe he should share the title a little.

And here I thought Sigmund Freud was the “Father of Psychoanalysis.” Author maybe needs a different title to bestow on Nietzsche. Also didn’t realize that Nietzsche predates Freud by such a wide margin.

Thank you for your reply! I would assume incorrectness because that is my own personal philosophy. I view my own paradigm as something that is incorrect due to a number of things: a lack of information, flawed reasoning, lack of universal truth, etc. Also, people disagree with philosophy literally all the time, but most systems don't go through such a revision process. If someone disagrees strongly enough, they will release their own revised version of the older work.

Like I said, this would be purely academic. I'm not too worried about how things play out in practice. It should not be too political, that way all voting remains individual and anonymous. I don't know what the subject of the system would be, it could be anything, but my initial thought would be to pursue philosophical truth (whatever that means, but not real world stuff). The project is a lot less about the state of the text and more about the direction it heads in. Over time, I think it might demonstrate how incompatible logic is with this world. It feels like open source philosophy to me and I love it.

edit: a friend just told me about Nomic, a game invented by philosopher Peter Suber in 1982

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Yeah, no shit? Kierkegaard is the father of Existentialism.

"a system of philosophy or political philosophy that assumes its own incorrectness"

I don't know if anything like that does or could exist, but public choice theory comes to mind as a system of reasoning about politics (which is not the same as a political philosophy!) that assumes that political actors are self-interested.

Regarding your iterative democracy

It is an interesting idea, but think about the things it has in common with contemporary representative democracy, and how poorly some of that stuff tends to work out in practice. Most laws and regulations are subject to notice and comment periods and subject to progressive amendment prior to becoming law. The idea being that interested parties can submit analyses and proposed revisions so that the law ends up better than it otherwise would. But what happens in practice is the "logic of collective action" comes into play: concentrate benefits, diffuse costs. This is how you end up with these laws that start as "No factory may emit xyz noxious chemicals into the water supply" and end up as "No factory may emit xyz noxious chemicals into the water supply unless it is a factory that processes potatoes": Frito-Lay (or whoever) has a big incentive to spend resources proposing and pushing for that amendment, and when it comes time for that politician to be accountable to voters they can point out that "I fought for environmental regulations that protect America's farmers!". The people who bear the cost of that amendment do so incrementally, almost invisibly on the individual voter basis. So they don't have a strong enough incentive to put together an interest group that counters Frito-Lay in this made up example.

Now I know that is not quite what you are proposing, but to me the most critical part of "assuming its own incorrectness" is for your proposal to take into account the fact that people are not going to behave like Plato's philosopher kings in practice. So how do you account for interest groups, collective action problems, self-interested political actors, etc.?

To a point, I agree with you. It's very difficult to be an ethical consumer of anything under an exploitive capitalist system.

For me, it comes down to two things.

1. Art is different. You may connect with you computer or with your clothes, but art is intended to engage you emotionally. Art is also generally sold, at least in part, on the reputation of the artist (starring X!). Apple is not trying to have Steve from Bangladesh as a reason to buy the product in the same way that Knives out is trading on the name of Daniel Craig.
2. Just because it's basically impossible to be an ethical consumer doesn't mean we can't try. With art, it's generally easier to know (at least, currently) who is a massive POS. I'm sure this computer was made with some incredibly inequitable conditions, but tracking down which companies did which is difficult. On the other hand, a Woody Allen movie is trading on his name, and the accusations against him are public knowledge.

This is all to say that we are meant to have a deeper connection to art, and as such I don't think it's unreasonable that we try to hold it to a higher standard. Additionally, since Art trades on the name of the artist, it's reasonable (to me) that the artist's conduct plays a larger roll in the appeal of the movie.

I'm having trouble taking the article seriously when Johnny Depp is the introductory example after being all but absolved of the Amber Heard debacle. It would make a better introduction for a treatment on the problem with the court of public opinion.

Please don't mistake this for a defense of people like Cosby, Allen, and the like.

I don't see how you can make your first assertion and then go on to making your last assertion. The error in the last proves the first.

>"guilty" of having been in an extremely toxic relationship

That isn't a crime. It's a strange thing to dislike someone for.

>both of them were violent

I watched the trial and saw no real evidence that he was. I saw faked evidence (doctored photos, made up bruises), which strongly suggests it never happened in a way that no evidence at all would not: people don't to fake evidence of something that actually happened. Conversely, I saw his blood on the floor. That wasn't faked.

>he aired his dirtiest, stinkiest shittiest laundry for everyone to see

Yeah he had to clear his name. That took guts. It's also a result of him being honest during the trial (of drink and drug misuse). That honesty was commendable I think. I'm pretty sure self-medicating when you're being abused like that would be quite common.

You do you but that seems a very strange and judgemental take on the whole affair to me.

>I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator.

I think it's fair to say Mein Kampf wouldn't be half so toxic if it wasn't for its author (for his actions and infamy) and yes if Crime and Punishment had been written by Hitler it would be tainted.

>a worse piece of art

What does that mean? How is that not 100% subjective?

If my best friend tells me not to be friends with someone because of shitty things they’ve done i’ll consider that info for sure. However when it comes to art and the artist, i think people who’ve done shitty things can make beautiful art as well. It doesn’t mean i support the shitty things they’ve done . I just like art. I know some people who will stop listening to actual good music because of (possibly false) allegations . I think thats silly tbh . Museums have old paintings of artists who’ve done awful things back in the day, yet people still line up to go see them .

So nothing is morally right then?

Before you read any further, do you know of anyone who's proposed a system of philosophy or political philosophy that assumes its own incorrectness? Many acknowledge the need for change, yet they systematically resist change. I propose a system that welcomes and encourages it. A purely academic pursuit to see where a logical democracy could take us. If anyone has done anything like this, I want to see it!

The iterative process for improvement needs to be refined, but I do have some barebones ideas. I mentioned it would be democratic, so that's why I'm on this subreddit. If someone has a proposed amendment, they would formally submit their argument. The author of the original rule (or some sort of anonymous official) would then respond, and a philosophical debate would commence. The debate would be unlike today's democratic debates, and more like a game of correspondence chess. Several days could go by to ensure a proper philosophical response. After some time, voters could read the transcripts and choose a side. Ideally, votes are cast by independent and anonymous individuals, hopefully certified in logic in some way, but voting is meant to be accessible. It's clear this could all blow up way too fast, meaning an always growing queue time, but amendments would still happen, and I would be very curious to see the direction the system would head In.

In undergrad, I took some early modern philosophy where we studied descartes, leibniz, hume, etc. They were all about bootstrapping their own system of everything. I don't know what contemporary philosophy looks like, but I’m guessing that metaphysics going out of style means today's work doesn't have as much of a systematic structure. I could be very wrong on that. As a math major I found these systems very compelling in theory, and as a life goal, I want to write my own system of everything…

I know that my system would be just as good a starting point as any. If people think this is a cool idea, I think existing systems that are good starting points and a better rule structure should be proposed. Maybe a starting point is this rule set? The US constitution?? This is way way bigger than me and I don’t know where else it could go down

I find this interesting but hard to really evaluate. Pretty much any time I see a philosophical thesis that is chalk full of words/phrases like "capitalism", "modernity", "praxis", I think it is helpful to try to rewrite your thesis in as simple and straightforward language as possible and see if a) it still makes sense, and b) it isn't a trivial truth.

You'll see this issue even with famous philosophers (usually French philosophers that aren't read much in philosophy departments but worshipped in some other humanities). They'll say something like "Under late capitalism, the wisdom of modernity falls into the crux of folly, for only if we deconstruct capitalist production itself can existence be retained in the post-structural sense" and it's like oooh it sounds so deep but when forced to state the point simply it's just an obvious simple thing like "some forms of industry are bad for the environment".

Quick reminder, everyone, don't feed the trolls.

Brb, gotta go let my wife know I apparently don't love her cause I hate my pedo uncle.

Thats unfortunate, but movies and other media projects fail all the time for a plethora of reasons, Im not responsible for helping them succeed in the first place. Additionally most of these other people rarely get paid based on how well the products sold.

Does the level of trust you have in the person telling you that the new person is mean and the worst not play a role in your decision-making?

If your most trusted friend, who's always been straight with you, told you the person is a dick, would that not carry more weight?

I wrote this, I am not a very enlightened person on the subject, I would like to know what you know about this subject         "Modernity, the First World War, the Second, the Cold War, the historical events that marked the era. After the proto-capitalist industrial revolution there was a margin of coherent and understandable productive thought of progress, Nations of left and right accelerated their processes, philosophers raised new rigid sediments for new praxis, even crazy physicists developed the darkest advances of realities difficult to understand for human logic. But what happened where we are today no memory of the past They all became colorless portraits After modernity there was an oblivion A flash of no reason A disconnection and an entrance to the matrix Capitalism evolved like a virus and took over the planet It's not a criticism, it's a reality. Our ways of thinking were molded to the new status quo Bringing oblivion to war that now is so foreign When it was?

I'm sadly not working in the medical domain, so I don't know anything past my 5min internet search (which yield results such as https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/library/pedia/effectiveness-of-lockdowns) it seems that the core issue was not one of diagnosis (they were right in determining that a severe reduction of contacts between humans would reduce the spread) but one of failure in policy-making (medical experts failed to consider that voluntary confinement would be enough to reduce the spread, and that government mandates would not significantly improve the situation while having some severe drawbacks on non-medical subjects). Which, all being said, is not surprising: most medical experts don't have ALSO an expertise in policy-making, and like most peoples, scientists tend to overestimate their skill in domain they're not expert in.

Though, even if they were experts in both, I'm even cautious about calling "following the experts" as being "following the scientific consensus", as one of the prerequisite for the scientific consensus to work as intended is time, which is lacking in urgent situations like a worldwide pandemic.

[And I won't comment on the effects of funding methods in science, as while I understand that the peoples spending money want to ensure that the money they invest is going to bring them even more money, it has many perverted effects on scientists' ethics.]

Thank you!!!