Recent comments in /f/philosophy

kfpswf t1_iz9oei2 wrote

Reply to comment by LuaC_laFolle in Philosopher José Antonio Marina: 'The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic' by FDuquesne

>What is the most frustrating for me is watching almost everyone sinking in this quicksand trap, inteligent people also,

Intelligence is a vast category of human skill. Just because someone is good at one subject doesn't mean that they will be good at others.

The main issue with humanity is, and always will be, tribalism. This is embedded in human psyche just as much as belief in god is. Dealing with this issues requires the art of self-contemplation, being able to see your own flaws and pitfalls of reasoning and beliefs. Now that is something vast majority of humans are not ready for as that will literally efface any cocoon of an identity you may have built throughout your life.

37

strangeapple t1_iz9o6iu wrote

Reply to comment by signor_bardo in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

>So hierarchy is socially constructed and inherently evil, and most people are either consciously oppressive or passively duped into internalizing oppressive ideas.

Pretty much. I think hierarchy might work for animals in small packs, but for us humans I believe it creates unmeasurable amount of anxiety and suffering. If we, as a society, truly saw other people as our equals, would we still look down upon homeless as lesser people? The trap is psychological - the more invested we become in an idea of becoming better than the so-called 'lowest' the more we see someone challenging this idea as a threat, or a contender, to our self-worth. If it makes you feel any better am a total retard.

1

IAI_Admin OP t1_iz9nte1 wrote

Reply to The world and other minds | Idealism leads to solipsism. Coherentism, rather than foundationalism, has better chance of reconciling solipsism with the apparent existence of other minds. by IAI_Admin

In this short interview, philosopher Jan Westerhoff discusses what illusory experiences can teach us about the nature of reality. He considers philosophical efforts to explain the representational nature of both veridical and falsidical experiences with idealism, and discusses the ethical implications of an idealist metaphysics. Westerhoff argues that rather than holding that mind comes before matter in a foundational account of epistemology, coherentism offers and more satisfactory approach. He then discusses his own work on solipsism and considers its emergence in both ancient Indian philosophy and contemporary analytic philosophy, and concludes that if correct solipsism must explain the apparent existence of other minds.

3

iiioiia t1_iz9magw wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

Can you provide ~proofs for these two assertions of fact (not opinion)?

  • Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't.

  • We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.

1

iiioiia t1_iz9ly4t wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> Incorrect.

Also metaphysics.

> > > > Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality

> > > > Or > > > > Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception > > >

Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.

Can we ascertain the entirety of it, with zero chance of error?

What if two people make conflicting claims about a portion of reality?

1

Cetun t1_iz9lt8q wrote

Reply to comment by bildramer in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

>For all that she speaks in a reasonable and measured way, she endorses bad faith tactics. She straight up admits this - Malcolm X was good because he made MLK seem reasonable in comparison. Seeing nothing wrong with this kind of mercenary realpolitik is not conductive to getting anyone to ally with you.

That was the biggest problem I had with her analysis. In his last book before he died Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? MLK specifically said he agrees with the principles of the Black Power movement, he had no problem with their message and privately endorsed it. He understood why it was needed and agreed with it's message.

He was an extremely astute political strategist though and understood political capital and how to gain and utilize it. His problem with the Black Power movement was that it induced white backlash, something he was worried about before the Black Power movement. White middle class support for his causes was absolutely critical to their success, the Black Power movement didn't scare white middle class people to flock to MLK as she posits, it induced them to flee the progressive position altogether. The choices weren't MLK or Malcolm X back then, there was a plethora of conservative and moderate positions that the white middle class could be scared off to. The idea that Black Power bolstered MLKs popularity is just false.

8

signor_bardo t1_iz9l0gk wrote

Reply to comment by strangeapple in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

So hierarchy is socially constructed and inherently evil, and most people are either consciously oppressive or passively duped into internalizing oppressive ideas. Whereas enlightened intellectuals, such as yourself, know better than everyone and will slowly usher in an age of peaceful anarchy where the world will run smoothly without hierarchical structures in a technocapitalist world state.

Did I get you right?

0