Recent comments in /f/philosophy

lpuckeri t1_j9u76o9 wrote

I also program and have zero clue what you mean by closures are a very effective model for interactions with real-world systems'. Thats not what a closure is... Closures are a basic part of languages and scoping... hell i extensively use closures when writing basically anything. No idea how its a model... or effective at interactions eith real world systems... its just a matter of scoping and accessing outer variables.

What you said sounds like a deepity

15

Mahaka1a t1_j9u66jg wrote

Consider an alternate perspective.

Science is not real. It is amazingly functional. Probably the single most functional tool ever created by humans! But just a tool.

Likewise, my words here are not real/true! They are some degree of functional. A perspective that could have some utilitarian quality in this universe.

Evolution selects for functionality, not the perception of reality. Science does not need to be thrown out or excluded in the context above. Maybe it seems paradoxical, but not incompatible.

4

SpiransPaululum t1_j9u4krk wrote

The text is from Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (California 1993), from Chapter 35, "The Garden of Epicurus" (618-630).

My original post simply expressed the direction I have come to lean concerning the preponderance of testimonia and scholarly debate. You are of course free to weigh the evidence yourself, toss out whatever you wish, and thus lean in whatever direction you wish.

I hope you'll understand if I tend to weigh the opinion of Peter Green and my own over yours. :D

That said, I'm sure you'll find many who lean in your direction.

1

RedVariant t1_j9u4foz wrote

We are cursed with incomprehensibility, and will accept anything incomprehensible as an explanation. The madman will always be labeled a “prophet” and will be defended with violence because the state of accepting incomprehensibility is more painful than just dying.

4

Relevant_Monstrosity t1_j9txmek wrote

As a computer programmer, I can confirm that functional closure is a VERY effective model for interaction with real-world systems. I EXTENSIVELY use functional closure when writing business systems. I am not surprised (in fact, I am quite intrigued) to see this idea being generalized to interpret the human experience!

12

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9tw0l6 wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. 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.

1

cloake t1_j9tvuh8 wrote

I agree with the unrealist postmodern, clearly we are making best approximations of narrative realities. However I disagree with unrealisim anyway, we're just spoiled and distorted by being the dominant predator. When the wolves overcome the bunny population, do we say anything fundamental has shifted? No, the circumstances have certainly done so, but still the same game table, still the same rules. I understand the unrealist is stating we can't possibly really get "there," but can we really state that. That's why I fight so hard against human intuition, most people have no interest in teasing out what is expedience or self soothing and what is truthful and repeatable.

1

doctorcrimson t1_j9tup2x wrote

I disagree that we cannot or do not quantify or define what is real. Philosophies like this, to me, always read as an ignorance of science or a poor excuse not to look behind the curtain that is your current shallow understanding of a subject. Best part is, when you start to get far enough along into mathematics and statistics, you realize it all sort of ties back together.

−8

frogandbanjo t1_j9tub5x wrote

Or just the initial concessions of the scientific method. All of it goes back to Descartes and Hume, too. "Yes, yes, fine, we can't know. But we can muddle through fairly well, and in the meantime, it's exhausting to keep explicitly issuing forth the caveat that we don't actually know-know."

The counterpoint is Nietzschean: there's money in making a ton of people completely forget that you can't know-know. There's money in making them think that your model - whether it was created responsibly or not - is in fact the truth. Don't get conned. Become the con man instead.

69

NihilistDeer t1_j9tqnvo wrote

I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger’s “The Origin of the Work of Art” and Dreyfus came for a symposium with our department that year. Didn’t agree with him on everything, but he knew his Heidegger. Lawson is trying to thread the needle of philosophy of language’s reference problem, but I don’t think closure offers anything new or particularly interesting.

11

Coomer-Boomer t1_j9toqwz wrote

The landlords would be happy with the subsidy, but it doesn't do much for the renter (except encourage them to move where the cash gets more). I guess the subsidized housing could drive out the would be gentrifiers, but then everybody's worse off.

1

Im-a-magpie t1_j9toado wrote

The ordinary concept is simple libertarian free will. There's nothing contradictory about it. Most people just reject a deterministic universe. Compatibilism is motivated by some desperate need to preserve our intuitive notions of justice, morality and ethics instead of accepting that those intuitions are flawed and don't reflect reality.

0