Hey, here is a though I have been having, it about art, and the "age old question" of what exactly it is, and this is definitely a relevant topic now with the emergence of freaky good ai art, the best of which isn't even popular at all right now by the way.
My thesis goes something like this: art Is everything that reaches for god. That's it...
I can go into detail of why I think that but with just this definition, how satisfactory do you find it?

If it's a true utopia we, by definition, will survive it won't we?

A) I literally did right under: Thank you for proving me right by not interacting with the quote or second guessing yourself because your own interpretation of what I said was more important than context.
b) Nope. If I have to reinterpret beyond the literal meaning of her words, she's a hypocrite. If she wants me to take her words at face value, Bil's a liar. Do you have an alternate explanation or are you witnessing the NPD driven desire to shit on inconvenient truths even if you can't think of a counter explanation.

Nope. It's holding her to her own standards. Thank you for proving my point.

[removed]

Just trying to tinker with the argument from the incoherence/shelfishness of human nature. Not guaranteeing it will fit a whole. Sadly.

And of course it is hedonistic, well, atleast materialistic because that is the question about. After the system is maximally rational, so that no one's position can be improved you can do b) give away your share if your religion tells you to. It does interfere with what is rational for the individual in particular.

Nono, worry=selfish sensation=Nono in stoicism :D. Only reason.

You’re welcome, I’m also an amateur at best so I hope I was able to help.

That's because they aren't beliefs. The characteristics of "political beliefs" most closely match up with the concept of policy. Political policy, however, implies that they are malleable, and though they are and do frequently shift, politicians would prefer that you see them as more concrete than that so that they have a social buffer to fall behind to resist the public erosion of those political (largely party) policies.

Okay i think i am able to understand it somewhat, what i see now is we can somewhat worry about the "what if's" of future but to worry about the "what if's" of past has no point as we can't control it and can't be changed.

And thanks for the time to explain it to my dummy dumb brain

Yea that sounds a bit hedonistic and not very utopian to me idk. I think the right approach would be to “create” people that don’t want to act unethically in the first place. Rules wouldn’t even be necessary then.

Nothing matters, just as everything. What comes to you comes to you. Stoicism believes In determinism, the choices you’ll make are the ones that you’re supposed to make and there is no right or wrong about it (the physics).

But since stoics do believe in a chain of cause and effect and logic should be used to predict it. But not to your own good, the ideal teaches altruism. You have (conditional) control about the decisions you make, not about the causal chain though.

“When someone throws a roller onto an inclined plane, he does indeed provide the external impetus for movement; but the actual cause of the roller rolling down lies in its shape, that is, in its own essence”

You can’t predict the future. Maybe you’ll regret no matter what you do.

So back to your example with the liver transplant. Stoic ideal would say to give the money away for the good of society. But you also need to accept that you aren’t the stoic ideal, you are selfish and maybe will regret your decisions. So before thinking about “what would a stoic do in this situation” the focus should be on becoming a stoic? I’m not an expert tho so take what I said with a grain of salt.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We don’t have a system that is maximally rational (maximum efficiency and justice) so that departure from it could be evidenced as pareto suboptimal. Obviously breaking the rules of the status quo further increases your position in so many cases. It is just an arbitrary way of living at best,

Incorrect - some people believe that "help each other make it to the end" is a good idea, but once people start throwing the word obligation around, or speaking in confident false dichotomies, some people get nervous, and I'm one of them.

> The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.

Isn't it surreal that this is pretty much not even on anyone's radar? I mean sure, people complain about this shit endlessly, but things like you mention could be addressed, but never are.

Personally, I think there are unwritten rules in the journalist class, that these sorts of questions are never asked in a way other than so they can be addressed with a prepared sound byte.

> I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward.

Well you stepped right into the other two.

> We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward.

OH, if it's harsh enough, it's the first. If it's not harsh enough, it's the second. Currently, we're doing the 2nd, which is really the right choice.

> If you take the time to examine your beliefs and construct your own view of the world and how you see political structures best helping us, there should be no hypocrisy or conflict in your ideology.

This is assuming a pretty extraordinarily high level of intelligence on behalf of the individual. A short visit to /r/politics might give you an idea of the quality of humans we're dealing with here.

> give a sort of minimum wage visa to anyone willing to work, and then hire them.

RIGHT. And we DO 2 parts of your 3 part plan already. Read up on H-2A visas. H-1Bs essentially too. Are you not listening to me? When we do these two parts of your plan, what we get is what we have. Right here and right now. Meat-packers and hotels simply go get someone cheaper.

[removed]

[removed]

> Ironic considering what she said is that when you read someone say something, you should have a strong definition of words in your head and not conclude "Oh they can't possibly mean that."So either she's a hypocrite or you're a liar.

a) Can you quote the text where she said precisely this?

b) That's a lovely false dichotomy, but I think you may have missed at east one other possibility: you've misinterpreted the message.

> Yeah this is narcissism, thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent.

This is ironic.