[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Yeah, that's true. It's definitely a roadblock to this idea that I find fascinating. I just have trouble removing the "maximally great" aspect of God because of the ontological argument is so compelling to me. Thank you for your input.

[removed]

[deleted]

>You exclude by definition a personal morality,

But morality surely consists of my behaviour that affects others. If we both want to thrive, then our joint goal is thriving. If I aim to give the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to myself and all those affected by my actions, then it's a cooperative win-win and everyone is thriving to the maximum available extent. This is a "personal morality". See: ps. 33 & 42 of my e-book, "Perfect Compassion".

Tomasello posits four moral concerns: me-concerns (selfishness/self-interest); you-concerns (compassion/empathic concern); equality concerns (fairness); and we-concerns (following and enforcing group norms). These exist in any cultural group, and the first three don't vary much from group to group. Only group norms vary significantly from group to group - and the strictness and punitiveness/humaneness with which they are enforced. The individual is free to follow their own version of morality, which nonetheless is likely to be influenced by their in-group.

Kropotkin was I believe the first to write about the ideas of mutual aid and interdependence.

We ain't talking about if your parents love you, were talking about caterpillars

[deleted]

[removed]

It seems like the article's problem is with the fact that they are being called "conspiracy theories".

The real problem seems to be with theories that (1) have very little or poorly-related evidence and (2) rely on some form of partisan or tribalist hate for their uptake.

It is true that conspiracies seem to figure prominently in this class of theories - for understandable reasons.

However, perhaps we should just propose to rebrand the class.

This comment intends to express no opinion as to the actual status of any specific theory that some may brand as "conspiracy theories".

Truth is extremely overrated. Nobody can explain or define it, people use it mostly as a projection surface for their interests or ideologies. When you see "The truth about ..." then it's most likely bullshit. If you have to use it, then use it as a property of statements. For example: "This statement is not true because...". But "the truth"? That's some meta-level bs. And even with statements it often is not applicable. Statements are often too vague, they have circular logic, paradoxes and so on. Then truth as a concept just completely fails. It's just not very useful*.

*edit: except in mathematics, logic and so on of course

I’d have thought if it’s true that ‘nothing is true’ then it’s also false that ‘nothing is true’. It seems like a self-defeating position to me.

I liked the speculative genealogy at the end of the article.

I wonder why, instead of phrasing it as a genealogy the author does not make that account the definition of truth.

"truth" is an expression of assent to a partner's verbally expressed position.

Of course, it robs most of the authority out of the word, but given that the context is an argument that denies truth altogether, I think that's excusable.

>the experience of free will (what we mean by free will)

This is controversial to some. Yet what I argue what we mean when we say free will is our phenomenological experience of free will, rather than an objective free will. This is why I separate the two.

And whether a being is free determines whether they are a member of a moral community, bound to moral law. I discuss it here. This is what I mean by freedom setting the boundaries.

>Truth is a contract that something is true

I really like that phrase. It suggests an objective social understanding to an alternative subjective emotivist understanding of truth. Can you give me any references or is it your own?

[removed]

No, they do not.

So you do care about something?

Nah just following the whole thread because it’s interesting and you’ve commented a lot.

If it was obvious it wasn’t obvious to me otherwise I wouldn’t have said it. You’re trailing my comments a bit too much.

Calling someone foolish prior to understanding their point of view seems unnecessarily narrow-minded.

I do agree that they certainly weren't objectively evil but their actions should be condemned. We do need to learn from our historical mistakes and learn from them. The US bombing of Japan in WWII is often justified by the potential for saving lives. In reality all we did was vaporize two civilian targets with our brand new toys. It's possible it did save lives. It's also possible that it did not.

I mean to be fair he did

The article is about Tao so going into the conversation with a mindset to be ‘right’, ‘wrong’ or ‘convinced’ just totally misses the mark. It’s about gaining new insight and understanding not flexing the strength of your mind or ideas (original or borrowed) against those of another.

Tao often describes itself as ‘A Void’, so against what are you disagreeing? If it’s the person in the comment section though then that’s kinda off topic.

Really good write up, historical context is so important to understanding these ideas.