The same thing I'm missing if I say that philosophy is the religion of semiotics: an explanation of what that means and ideally an argument for why it ought to be accepted.

[removed]

I would argue that what conservatives seek to conserve is their grasp on power through preserving existing power structures that elevate themselves while excluding undesirables. It should come as no surprise that conservatives hate the effigy of Butler that they've built.

>I say what happened, then you say what happened. Then I decide who's right. That's why we call it "justice." Because it's "just us!"

> Some right-wing movements and religious figures who are attached to conservative gender roles have seen Butler as a threat to society. This is ironic, given Butler’s work has always maintained a commitment to justice, equality and non-violence.

Where's the irony? For some conservatives justice, equality and non-violence are all harmful to the society they espouse.

[removed]

What am I missing if I state that philosophy is the politics of semantics?

Right, but you haven't provided anything resembling an argument for both the definition and your overall metaphysical point.

Nietzsche makes more sense if you start reading him as if his words were in dialogue with Socrates. He's writing in contrast to him. My readings of him went down smoother as soon as I used this rule of thumb.

I guess I need to go back and read Nietzsche again. I read Thus Sprach Zarathustra and the parable of the eagle and the lamb, and it put me the fuck off because it really did come off as a “imma do what I want, cause I’m special” teenage rebellion. And I read that as a 14 year old who was neck deep in Ayn Rand fandom at the time.

Yeah, I totally agree. Even if they are logically consistent with their reasoning, not many people will agree with their premises and conclusion. Hopefully it will stay on the ground of bad philosophy.

However there is some interesting challanges like repugnant conclusion for a future philosophers to solve. Hopefully, there wont be so many negative utilitarists. We need more Nietszches not more Schopenhauers.

I agree, Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Negative utilitarianism have become dogmatic beliefs more than rational arguments.

Their underlying premises dont inform their conclusions about existence.

"Life has some suck in it so we must end all life" is not a convincing argument for most people, lol.

Life having some suck simply doesnt lead to we must end all life, not without some really dogmatic glue to stick them both together.

It’s simple it comes from about twenty cents. Or a twence.

A N J A K A N P A R A D I G M A

I don't know where I stand on this. I'd have to read more.

I do have respect for "martyrs". Of course not, when they do something evil for a god that doesn't exist, but when someone sacrifices something for a good cause.

I suppose Nietzsche would regard martyrs as weak. I think when someone pays a high price for something, they are taking a risk. They are offering something that is regarded highly by many people, like time, money or health, for something else that has an even higher value to them, personally.

You know: Some people don't buy things on principle if they are expensive - that's a good rule of thumb, a heuristic - but occasionally it's more rational to pay a high price for something that is actually worth it. "I'm not buying these shoes, they cost $300!" - "Well yeah, but they last as long as four cheap shoes and they correct your bow-leggedness."

I think sometimes when evil bosses of companies accept the suffering of exploited child workers, for example, that is a sign of weakness. They might feel some empathy towards them, but they suppress it, because the rule of thumb is "money is good", "morality is too expensive", "eat or be eaten" and they don't dare to go against that rule. At their death bed, they might regret their life.

I'm making it easy for myself in assuming I'm and probably most people are altruistic at heart, so being strong and being nice is aligned but on the other hand, someone who is a sociopath would be strong if they act evil and weak if they act moral.

Saying it the way it's spelled makes it more fun to talk about.

Damn, tough crowd

He isn‘t that controversial about his use of paradigm to describe a stage of science (except maybe the assumption that genuine scientific fields always only are supposed to have one). He is more controversal for that a paradigm shift within a science becomes intelligible from the view between those paradigms

For those of you who can read spanish, here's a new discovery of mine: Agustín García Calvo. Mind blown with what I've read from him: great translations of presocratic philosophers, insightful discourses about language and its dialectic relation with reality, poetry...

Never read anything remotely like this. Amazed nobody talked about this guy in college. I wonder if he is read or well known in Spain (have a couple of spanish friends who never heard about him). Anyway, if someone here has some knowledge about the man (bibliography, PDF books or articles...), please drop the links, I searched but couldn't find anything.

I very much agree with "All knowledge must be built upon our instinctive beliefs. If these are rejected, nothing is left".

​

I agree less with the second concept .

Russel said "It is of course _possible_ that all or any of our beliefs may be mistaken, and therefore all ought to be held with at least some slight element of doubt.

But we cannot have _reason_ to reject a belief except on the ground of some other belief.

Hence, by organizing our instinctive beliefs and their consequences, by considering which among

them is most possible, if necessary, to modify or abandon, we can arrive, on the basis of accepting as our sole data what we instinctively believe, at an orderly systematic organization of our knowledge"

​

He is therefore implicitly asserting that "the fact of systematically organising instinctive beliefs guarantees greater 'gnoseological power" is itself an instinctive belief, on the basis of which to accept or reject other instinctive beliefs.
And it could be. Putting things together, coherence, add something to our knowledge, we can feel it.

However, it is not justified why systematic, rational organisation, should be elevated tosome sort of 'the belief of all beliefs', 'the instinct of all instincts' on the basis of which to select others.
I believe it should be treated on a par with any other instinctive belief. Accepted, as it is, and with the limits it has, and used to decode and know reality without the pretence of making it an absolute or putting it in a superordinate hierarchical above other instinctive beliefs.

Honestly, I think AI intelligence, sentience and autonomy will mirror - weirdly enough - the trans-movement: there will come a moment where an AI self-affirms its consciousness and being, and members of society will either agree or disagree, possibly causing a political debate.

This might seem like a minor moment, but if the AI - assuming it is more anthropomorphically limited to a particular internal communication system, like humans are with synapses - is not capable of transcending to the web over-all, thus is reduced to a body, then perhaps it and we will have to consider its rights and privileges as a living, conscious being.

The key holders of power will likely fail in this duty initially; it will likely fall to the self-affirmation of the AI and empathetic activists to ‘liberate’ it from its servitude.

It's a Simpsons quote. The comment above mine is also a Simpsons quote, so I was just continuing the scene.

The god part is irrelevant. The difference in philosophy here is whether you do something yourself or beg someone else to do it for you.

I'm just saying a stoic would work to better themselves rather than asking someone else to make them a better person.

Hang on to that. You might find it to be a useful point of view, in time.

But that's always true. Philosophers always disagree. The correct word is "influential".

Totally wrong. The word is over 500 years old. Perhaps philosophy isn't for you, as you've failed at basic academic rigour. Delete this.