arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/r/ - miscellaneous

CONTENT NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment

formatting options

File
Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit. https://archive.arisuchan.jp/q/res/2703.html#2703

Kalyx ######


File: 1506567172160.jpeg (256.43 KB, 632x532, philo.jpeg)

 No.908

Based on prior experience, I get the impression that Alice likes philosophy. Talk about ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, or my favorite, metaphilosophy! Gratuitous namedrops for the purpose of showing off your obscure knowledge is strictly prohibited demanded.

I'll start y'all off with a question. Paraphrasing Wittgenstein, are all problems of philosophy in fact problems of language?

 No.921

How peculiar is it that Zeph creates an /x/ - paranoia board and not a /philo/social science board? (philo/social science is I mean I never perceived the lainchan ,and now arisuchan, community of being full of irrational people spouting unfounded ideas. Let alone enough to dedicate an entire board to the topic.

We get /x/ — paranoia and /z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics
how about simply meta — humanities and science? That would include both categories without prioritizing some fields (like unfounded beliefs and 'the dismal science') at the expense of everything between metaphysics and logic to the physical-, life- and social-sciences. Yes, "geopolitics" and "sociology" are included in the subtitle under the heading of "/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics"; I saw that.

What I've picked up from this community is that in consists of overlapping demographics, dominant ones being scientific (applied science like technology included), sci-fi indulging, psychonautically explorative and generally a very heavy are of counter-cultural sentiments. Cyberpunk itself is a cultural critique. So who is /x/ and /z/ supposed to pander to? Is it meant for elements contained within the demographic of /sr/?


Anyways

Why is the theory of physicalism not more talked about? Since materialism is a "scientific" theory of philosophy resting upon incorrect assumptions, then it would seem that physicalism would be the theory we would rely upon within the present. This, to my knowledge, isn't the case.

Idealism seems to still be dominant, overall. Why this is seems to be it's strong pull of vague appeals to instantaneously gratifying belief-systems that don't necessitate demonstrations of their rigor to correspond with physical reality. We got the classic religions (Hindu "Chakra", Abrahamic "Faith") and some powerful political philosophies of the recent period (liberal "rights", fascist "vitality"). What they share in common is their rest upon unfounded idealizations that are vaguely pointing to a sense of mystical empowerment.

I claim that physicalism's inclusion of theories of (scientifically understood) energy could transcend this delusional phantasmagorical haze. With physicalism, it seems, we could be able to garner ontological and sociological results rooted in an more really empowered autonomous individual.

 No.922

>>921
>With physicalism, it seems, we could be able to garner ontological and sociological results rooted in an more really empowered autonomous individual.

my dude, do you know what physicalism says about "autonomous individuals"? It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of individuals. Ideology has a human audience, right? You'll be working much harder than the commies or nazis ever did, trying to idealize physicalism for the masses.

at funeral:
>sobbing I miss her so much
>normal person: don't worry, she's in a better place
>you: well, really, when you think about it, there's no metaphysical "self", or soul, at all, just a bundle of qualia referencing other such–husband tackles you

in front of a poor person:
>man, why's it all gotta be the way it is?
>normal person: you're being exploited by rich bastards
>you: well, really, when you think about it, isn't all nature some form of exploitation? even the cells in your body will cannibalize each other in a process called 'autophagy', which is a Greek word, by the way. So, assigning a value judgement, to me, frankly, seems unfounded and emotivisti– you get tackled

 No.923

>>922
>my dude, do you know what physicalism says about "autonomous individuals"? It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of individuals.
Do elaborate. I find it hard to believe that a philosophy relying on science would deny the existence of individuals; as they exist. Individual persons individual tomatoes individual cells, individual atoms. Quantum mechanics doesn't work on "individual levels" but that's also not what we're talking about when we're talking about autonomous individual human beings, unlike a non-autonomous life-forms like roses which are stuck to the soil by roots.

>first example

…My dude that's already me at a funeral, of course I don't say such things out of respect for my spontaneously religious relatives emotional well-being for the time. But as months go by I will give advice corresponding to such a mindset, such as "Now that parent x is gone, maybe one should put time into being there for parent y, while they're still here".

>second example

This I don't agree with, since science already assigns certain values, which you'd already agree with if you're a physicalist. This isn't nihilism. Values are placed. The importance lies within how values are placed. Are they founded upon something reasonable? If not then discard them. Within biology/ecology symbiosis (Greek: living together) can be used to describe various degrees of close relationships between organisms of different species. Our role here would be to point to a way of relating that is the most reasonable for our species. Primatology and evolutionary anthropology would then help the argument in favor of co-operative (mutual, commensal), instead of exploitative (amensal, parasitic, predatory) human relations, from a species-perspective. So the second example would probably look more like:
>man, why's it all gotta be the way it is?
>normal person: you're being exploited by rich bastards
>me: not only that, but there's a historical tendency for the ruling classes within the recent history (the last 10 000 years) to promote it's own exploitative social behavior into systematized logics. They have been very hard to fight off due to these relatively small, parasitic ruling classes use of states, or the centralized monopolization of force, but as history has taught us the right conditions give rise to the opportunity to fundamentally change social relations. Right now there are networks of people relating co-operatively. If you, like many under the category of the exploited, want to put an end to your own exploitation and that of your associates then find these networks and nourish them. Only with your physical contribution can the odds of ending systemic exploitation decrease. Let the era of autonomous communization flouri- get tackled by cop
>Cop argues in court "threat to public order", "incitement to violence" and "threat to national security" all while continuously calling me a terrorist
>Gets double life sentence and am put to work for no pay in a private prison
>Agitate in secret and stage a secret slow-down strike for three months followed by a violent revolt as resources appears to be cut from the failing business prison
>Open all the prison doors
>Get on the floor
>everybody walk the dinosaur

 No.924


>>923
>hard to believe that a philosophy relying on science would deny the existence of individuals; as they exist.
sure they exist; as legal constructs. in physicalism individuals are second class citizens. notably, they don't have natural rights.

>science already assigns certain values

not science itself, but maybe ideologies which appropriate science (e.g. social darwinism)

>Values are placed. The importance lies within how values are placed

exactly, because it's not science placing the values. it's (You).

>Are they founded upon something reasonable?

>something reasonable
>reasonable
You're obviously not an unintelligent person, so I think you know the can of worms you've opened here.

The rest of your example is something I agree with politically, just not something I see as having any relationship to physicalism. There is danger in taking up the robes of science to preach an ideology, even a good ideology.

 No.927

>>924
>in physicalism individuals are second class citizens. notably, they don't have natural rights.
The existence of second-class citizens is, by definition, predicated on the existence of first-class citizens. Also, having a metaphysical position that implies the existence of natural rights is not the only way to believe that people should be treated a certain way.

I'm not >>923, just popping in to get pedantic about meta-ethics.

 No.928

>>923
>This I don't agree with, since science already assigns certain values, which you'd already agree with if you're a physicalist.
Well, that's just straight up wrong. Maybe we can work through this Socratically.
Why do you believe that physical facts directly imply certain ethical facts? How do you draw the relation between an ought and an is?

 No.930

>>927
>The existence of second-class citizens is, by definition, predicated on the existence of first-class citizen

I agree, my metaphor was sloppy. In physicalism individuals aren't citizens at all. They're pareidolia. Like the face on mars, just spooks.

>not the only way to believe that people should be treated a certain way


This is also true. But I feel like any ethical system will end up making equally expensive assumptions. Even egoism is impossible in physicalism since there is no basis for a self (except as a mental spook or boogeyman).

 No.931

>>930
>In physicalism individuals aren't citizens at all. They're pareidolia.
No part of the definition of physicalism demands that all things be analyzed in the most unfitting way possible. I can be a physicalist and still consider the fact that, even if they're a constantly shifting and changing conglomeration of atoms and energy, my friend is still a person I can talk to and perceive as a single thing, which is a perfectly reasonable analysis I can make without ignoring physical laws.

>But I feel like any ethical system will end up making equally expensive assumptions.

All ethical systems make assumptions. So do all metaphysical ones. That's just a side-effect of the Skeptic's Paradox. What do you mean by expensive?

>there is no basis for a self (except as a mental spook or boogeyman)

Stirner said as much himself. That doesn't invalidate egoism, actually.

 No.932

>>924
Saying "unintelligent" should ring the same alarms as "reasonable" did.

 No.933

>>931
>perfectly reasonable analysis I can make without ignoring physical laws.
But it's false consciousness, wouldn't you think? Nothing stops you from going through the motions, but in the end you're just chatting with ELIZA.

>What do you mean by expensive?

Cf. "resource intensive", another dev metaphor.

>Stirner said as much himself

"I have taken up my cause without foundation", he also quotes, because again, there is no basis for egoism without a self. The creative nothing is ontology in its death throes.

>>932
very true, ad hominen has no place on a Soviet anime cyberpunk board.

 No.938

>>933
>But it's false consciousness, wouldn't you think?
soykaf, boy, you just opened a whole new can of worms. Alright, here we go…

>but in the end you're just chatting with ELIZA.

Consider the following statements:
P: "I am conscious."
Q: "You are conscious."
R: "ELIZA is conscious."
For me to claim P, I perceive my own consciousness, which is recognizable to myself as an experience I have.
For me to claim Q, it gets more complex. I have to make a series of inferences, all of which are very well supported by scientific knowledge, but all of which have the minute potential to be false. I will have to start from P, and then observe myself and my actions. I decide, "I'm human, and I act a certain way while conscious." I can then infer: "A human acting this way is conscious." Then, I turn to you. "Hey, you're human (inferring, because you look similar to me and other humans I know)" and you act in a similar way that I act when conscious." From that, I infer that you are conscious. That's certainly a qualitatively different process from proving P, right? Now here's the big question:

How do you prove (or, for that matter, disprove) R?



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]