Appeals to truth and falsity aren’t enough to resolve disagreements and divergent beliefs – It’s time we recognised our alternative and different ways of holding the world are not decided by truth and falsity, but by the character of the intervention they make possible.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

>  If we purchase a spade, we don’t have a true or false spade, but a more or less effective one for a given purpose. 

This kind of says it all. Truthiness and falseness are properties of statements, not modes of being. Of course you cannot have a “true” or “false ” spade, because “spade” is not a meaningful statement. “The spade exists” or “the spade is useful” are, and are thereby falsifiable.

weezy_krush

IMO this cut and paste quote does the author a bit of a disservice. The words after the hyphen have important alternative meanings as defined within the article that are not necessarily invoked by a casual reader.

pokerchen

I think this article just changed my life, but maybe not for the main point it was making.

We all get so frustrated talking to people who seem to perform hair-pulling acrobatics to avoid the most objectively apparent truths, but we don’t stop to consider that most are simply using words to clumsily communicate feelings and desires they don’t fully understand themselves.

In other words, we THINK we are having a debate on evidence or logic, but we are really just engaged in a emotional struggle for dominance or desire, masked in clumsy terms and veiled in loosely connected ideological catch phrases.

All this comes together in a person desperate for a feeling of identity and importance, but due to lack of self-awareness just comes out as: “The earth is flat because commercial planes don’t fly over Antarctica”

christhebrain

This outlines my concern about filtering fake news. Firstly, the rules that define truth, fact, and supposition are subject to bias. Secondly, facts aren’t ultimately what resonates, rather, it’s the interpretation of facts that matter. And lastly, the interpretation is really the fundamental message, with the facts being neither here nor there, but a cherry-picked prop to adorn the message.

It’s important that we aim to understand the underlying message, which may be attempting to be communicated in a number of bizarre ways, and address those fundamental concerns directly.

MarkOates

This article is “might makes right” with enough words and complexity to make it plausibly deniable.

Philosophy is great, but the real world is going to punch you in the face if this is how you present your beliefs.

I love words like “postrealism”. How about just “notrealism” or “alternative realism” maybe.

Cheeseblock27494356

Filthy Frank: The Perfect Example of Pessimistic Nihilism

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

If only I had been introduced to Papa Frank as a young man, I’m certain I would have based my entire life on his teachings.

Sumfuc

**Abstract**

The philosophy of pessimistic nihilism is explained through Filthy Frank’s character. I know it, it’s a cross over no one asked for, but here you are. The video covers the perspective of a pessimistic nihilist and the example being Papa Franku. The video also covers aspects of Camus’s Absurdism and Nietzsche’s Ubermensch and how they tried to solve the problem of human condition (nihilism).

Infinitisin

Filthy Frank reflected attitudes that I felt were already rampant on social media, especially among my peers. Just about everything was “lol I wanna die” and dank memes.

Let’s not pretend that pushing the line of comedy is anything new, or that mixing the low brow with the high brow is anything new. Try not to read too deeply into things.

AssToTheDiscussion

Joji > Schopenhauer

SagerG

Wow I did not expect to see Joji in this sub lol.

FiguresInTheDark

To know that we know: A presentation of Ingham and Luft’s theory. I wish to discuss whether this could be described as “meta-epistemology”, or “epistemology of epistemology”.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Epistemology of epistemology is the theory of the theory of knowledge. So knowledge about knowledge about knowledge. Which is knowledge about knowledge – which is just straight up epistemology.

You only get lost in the weeds in this way, the weeds of thinking the epistemology of some particular kind of knowledge is differemt from the epistemology of some other kind of knowledge, if you don’t understand epistemology in the first place.

jsticebeaver

One must either know the term epistemology, or they just do not understand its meaning to create orders of distinction where none was merited.

gilthead

It was an interesting article. What’s the difference between meta epistemology and epistemology of epistemology?

The theory (or the description of the theory) doesn’t explain how the knowledge can be confirmed, it only categorizes the states of knowledge.

AgreeableService

I’ve always wondered at the philosophical or psychological implications of a 4th position in terms of knowledge, as it relates to Rumsfeld’s quote:

> Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Can anyone point me to the texts in which Slavoj Zizek discusses the “unknown knowns”?

SlightlyVerbose

Did these theorists give any credit to Socrates for the notion of unknown unknowns? This topic famously begins with him!

optimister

To know that we know: A presentation of Ingham and Luft’s theory. I wish to discuss whether this could be described as “meta-epistemology”, or “epistemology of epistemology”.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Epistemology of epistemology is the theory of the theory of knowledge. So knowledge about knowledge about knowledge. Which is knowledge about knowledge – which is just straight up epistemology.

You only get lost in the weeds in this way, the weeds of thinking the epistemology of some particular kind of knowledge is differemt from the epistemology of some other kind of knowledge, if you don’t understand epistemology in the first place.

jsticebeaver

One must either know the term epistemology, or they just do not understand its meaning to create orders of distinction where none was merited.

gilthead

It was an interesting article. What’s the difference between meta epistemology and epistemology of epistemology?

The theory (or the description of the theory) doesn’t explain how the knowledge can be confirmed, it only categorizes the states of knowledge.

AgreeableService

I’ve always wondered at the philosophical or psychological implications of a 4th position in terms of knowledge, as it relates to Rumsfeld’s quote:

> Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Can anyone point me to the texts in which Slavoj Zizek discusses the “unknown knowns”?

SlightlyVerbose

Did these theorists give any credit to Socrates for the notion of unknown unknowns? This topic famously begins with him!

optimister

Machiavelli’s paradox turns on the point that he advocated evil and accurately diagnosed human moral psychology. A good person can follow his advice if they distinguish between high and low trust environments.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Abstract.

Niccolò Machiavelli advised that princes should murder their opponents rather than confiscate their land since the dead cannot think of revenge. And he famously advocated that a prince should cultivate fear over love because fear proves more reliable. He was a teacher of evil. Yet, he proved a remarkably accurate observer of human moral psychology. Is there any way a good person could *follow* his advice? The article resolves this paradox by advancing a distinction between high and low trust environments for action.

Phylaras

The internet is a low trust environment

PiratesTale

The Prince is an interesting piece of work. A large portion of it is written either ironically or as a thinly veiled insult to the Medici family.

The introduction of high vs low trust environments when considering how to follow Machiavelli’s advice though is very helpful.

Though I’d argue that The Prince is Machiavelli’s work specifically for a low trust environment. Which can be inferred by the context of which it was written. Machiavelli had been exiled from Florence by the Medici family which had taken back control of the city. In his exile he wrote The Prince and sent it to the Medici’s basically as a resume for them to hire him as an advisor, and as a show of good faith that even if they didn’t trust him they can still have his advice in the form of The Prince. Because he stilled cared deeply for Florence, and figured it was at least better to have it run well than to have it run poorly. Florence was in a very precarious position, and The Prince is his solution to what to do in response to extreme political instability.

However throughout his work he still advocates for Republicanism, arguing it to be the better and more stable form of government. So while The Prince can be read as advice on a low trust environment, it’s clear he has a very different vision for what to do in a high trust situation.

Machiavelli’s point is that what you need to take power is different from what you need to keep power, which is different from what you need to do to rule, which is different from what you need to do to rule prosperously. So the use of an analytic lens of high vs low trust is a very interesting way to think about and then apply the different types of advice Machiavelli is giving.

Leona_Ignis

I never thought Machiavelli advocated evil, and I don’t see how. The Prince is however the most influencial work of realism that made philosophy take empiricism into consideration instead of being all idealistic. Machiavelli advocated however for a more realistic view of a good ruler at that time.

Vladhein

I dig the contextualization, and would tend to agree in general.

It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, but while I think as a whole he does recommend some ‘evil’ behaviors, a lot of his advice is sound in some particular context. For example, “flatterers should be shunned”, I think, is incredibly sound advice, if and only if you are accurate at distinguishing flattery from genuine complement (which I think many people are not). Even in this example, “high versus low trust” is a pretty reasonable generalization: you can trust a genuine complement; you cannot trust flattery.

While I’ve never read anything explicit on the subject, I’ve always enjoyed considering the dynamic between The Prince and Nietzsche. In many ways they make the same explicit statements, ‘dominate the weak’, more or less, etc. However, I find Nietzsche to be *much* more satirical than Machiavelli, not only in language and presentation, but also by the fact that Nietzsche was notorious for being Jesus-like nice to people in his personal life.

gay4chinchillas

Male or Female Genital Cutting: Why ‘Health Benefits’ Are Morally Irrelevant (Journal of Medical Ethics)

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

My take, “health benefits” are not “morally irrelevant” in the case of genital cutting (or any similar situations).

It’s just that the health benefits as currently understood do not outweigh the breach of bodily autonomy.

If, for example, it rendered one immune to and incapable of transmitting STIs or somesuch (or any arbitrary health benefit you can think up), that would be another matter.

They don’t however, and only (debatabley) provide benefits equivelant to decent personal hygiene

viper5delta

Hmm, so is it because it’s a procedure that’s not necessary for preserving life? Young children can’t/don’t give consent for surgeries they receive. The difference between “health benefit” and “life necessity”? Same would go for piecing a newborn’s ears too.

Tiny_Reaction

“Liberalism permits different ways of living, but that does not make liberals moral relativists” -Tom Hurka (Toronto) on liberal permissiveness.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

The author tries to give too much credit to today’s judgmental people. The relativism isn’t well thought out or consistent. It’s assigned by which team you root for, and the fans are lazy about comparisons.

The hinge points are time vs geography:
Leftists are relativist to a fault about people of different cultures today, rationalizing horrific norms. But they’re also extremely harsh on our ancestors (or even people who tweeted two years ago), holding them to this afternoon’s most stringent woke standards.

The right wing hive mind is the reverse. Transgressions of the past are absolved, even the clearly awful, but their ears perk up like a desert fox for anything off about another culture.

Can you make an actual point by comparing overgeneralized “hive minds”? I don’t know but I haven’t left my house for a year so it’s all I’ve got, thanks internet

Perfect_Dogmadoge

I agree for the most part, at least insofar as I agree that liberalism doesn’t necessarily mean moral relativism, even if it seems to judge cultures very differently in many aspects. However, I disagree somewhat that the following:

>finding nothing morally wrong in most consensual private acts

is an accurate description of liberalism vs. conservativism. If the “acts” there are economic and not lifestyle related, you could essentially flip who it applies to on the political spectrum.

EDIT: typo

The-Yar

I recently had this debate with a very leftwing person. She said something about Islamist countries should be left alone and it’s arrogant imperialism that makes westerners think we can say what’s right and wrong. I brought up the consequences of being gay and how women are treated, she doubled down: “that’s their culture, who are you to say?”. I could not get her to commit to anything being universally unethical until I brought up rape. She said that should be squashed everywhere. Then I said, “by your logic, who are you to say a culture that allows rape is unethical?”. My jaw hit the floor when she said “well…I mean I guess if that’s their culture I can’t really say it’s wrong”.

While I’m temperamentally a liberal person and I do believe in some pretty left ideas, I’m consistently frustrated at the lack of consistency I hear from liberals. I don’t see how Hurka arrived at his conclusion here.

gmahogany

This article suffers towards the end when it tries to understand why there’s even a perception of liberals as moral relativists, and this largely comes down to the author’s equation of liberals with leftists. His use of the term ‘progressives’ as a kind of synonym with ‘liberals’ is a bit of a giveaway.

If he hadn’t obscured the fact that liberals and leftists are different political groups, then he might have been able to ask whether the same perception exists for leftists, to which I think the answer is a clear ‘no’. Leftists are often portrayed as overly preachy, ideologically rigid and doctrinaire- the polar opposite of popular conceptions of moral relativists.

What explains this difference? Well, leftists are best defined as a (very heterogeneous) group by a shared opposition to capitalism. Liberals, however, take capitalism for granted, and think within its confines when trying to make political change.

Now, if you think that capitalism is not responsible for the overwhelming majority of evil in the world, you’re going to disagree right here:

Because capitalism is responsible for the overwhelming majority of moral evil in the world, including gross transgressions against the foundational principles of liberalism, liberals are thus hamstrung when trying to launch systemic moral critique of the overwhelming majority of moral evil in the world.

For instance, Bush, and Obama both engaged in extensive overseas military action that had large numbers of civilian casualties. The leftist explains and condemns this on the same basis in both cases: our globalized economic system values the profit of petrochemical and weapons companies over the lives of Pakistani civilians. But the liberal is stuck, because Obama, as a liberal himself, gives lip service global peace and valuing human life. They want to condemn Bush, as a political opponent, but elevate Obama, as a political ally, yet in this (deeply important) case, they’re identical.

The various attempt to explain the difference in their political behavior tend to be tepid, weak, and often outright hypocritical. And, while moral relativism and hypocrisy aren’t identical concepts, they are closely related, especially in the kinds of political uses they’re put to.

So tl;dr: liberals are easy targets for accusations of moral relativism because their ideology contains a fundamental contradiction, and that cognitive dissonance often leads to hypocritical behavior.

loveablehydralisk

Liberalism has done a good job of convincing people it’s a social philosophy and not an economic one. Liberalism was invented to hide the class contradictions between the rich and the poor. Old liberal propaganda posters for example would have a two people on a tandem bike showing an owner and a worker peddalingn together, to sell the idea of class collaborationism. It’s not a moral framework, and in fact is quite frankly immoral at it’s core, as it accepts poverty, hunger, pollution, etc all as problems stemming from individuals and not systematic, man-made, solvable problems.

Merudinnn

Against popular culture – For Adorno, capitalist popular culture manipulates us into living lives empty of true freedom, and serves only to distort our desires. Popular culture is not the spontaneous expression of the people, but a profit-driven industry – it robs us of our freedom.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Kinda undercuts the whole argument when you come out against Stravinsky and jazz.

geekteam6

We should remember that “Capitalist popular culture” simply refers to our own culture, and the high and low art distinction again only refers to the way we distinguish art in our own culture. A simple way to avoid “being emotionally manipulated” and of having “constructed desires” sold to us is to engage in art from outside of our culture. Globalization makes it real easy to get information and examples of almost all the art of the entire world. If Netflix seems too boring and contrived, it’s very easy to turn away and get into Japanese watercolor painting, or calligraphy, African music, Latin American drums, Reggae bass, Chilean poetry (conveniently translated), British underground techno, Marseille hip hop… the list goes on and on.

The point being is that we aren’t necessarily trapped or configured by our own culture. No matter if it is manipulating us or “forcing” us to consume empty forms of art so it can generate corporate profits off of us. In 2021, its ridiculously easy to transcend all that and to look all over the world for examples of expertly crafted art, music, literature, movies, dance, and even other arts we don’t really have here. Like carving masks, hand drum circles, making costumes for festivals like carnival in Latin America, and zen landscape architecture to name only a few examples.

We are always free if we seize it for ourselves, like Prometheus, rather than simply waiting and hoping it’ll be handed to us by our culture.

BassNomad

We had to read Adorno’s views on jazz and pop music in an aesthetics class and it’s the moment I stopped taking him seriously. If you can’t see the underlying racism in his denouncement of jazz, where he claims it’s unintellectual or whatever, you’re blind.

Adorno is channeled through every cancerous classical music comments section, where people wank themselves off for listening to the Moonlight Sonata as background music and complain about Katy Perry and Justin Bieber.

JohnCaged

I would answer that folk culture is the answer to both the consumption-fuelled pop culture and the privileged, gatekeeping high culture. Genuine and unpretentious expression can be found at the local open mic, the farmers market, the places where people come together around art. Don’t let globalization erase the community surrounding you.

ClittoryHinton

because “snake oil salesman” totally originated in capitalist society and not a mercantile one

Early-Vegetable-5355

It’s not the job of philosophy to provide reassurance that, despite appearances, the world does make sense in the way that we hope. Rather, it’s the job of philosophy to make sense of the world on the basis of the way it appears to us.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I categorically reject this idea. It isn’t philosophy’s job to do anything, and the belief that it does comes from confusion between philosophia and scientia. Philosophy merely provides tools with which each of us can individually make sense of the world. It does not provide the answers for us.

the_lullaby

“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world. The point is to change it.” -Karl Marx

Heizu

That was a great read, thanks for posting

-_ellipsis_-

It’s funny since a lot of philosophical positions that are popular in contemporary philosophy seem to err on the side of “providing reassurance that, despite appearances, the world does make sense in the way that we hope”. Like moral realism and the view that there exists some kind of stable human nature is widely held and is often justified by appealing to supposed consequences that’d arise if either of those things didn’t hold.

vaginal_soup

I hate this article. I hate it not because I particularly think that what it says is wrong. I suppose it’s right? But it’s banal to a truly cowardly extent.

Is it about the existence of God? That’s certainly where he starts. Alright it’s about the problem of evil, basically. But then he’s just talking about optimism. But optimism could be anything. Do I have to believe in God to be an optimist? Do I have to believe I live in the best of all possible worlds to be an optimist? Christ, it hardly takes a genius to point out what a pessimistic statement Leibniz’s can be if you add even a homeopathic amount of irony.

“We don’t need to resort to optimism to preserve hope. Hope depends [on uncertainty].” What? Is optimism incompatible with uncertainty? CLASSICAL optimism, sure, the “best of all possible worlds” optimism. But either Woods is just being very unclear about which kind of optimism he means, or he’s just jumping straight into a serious fallacy of equivocation. That classical, Leibnizian optimism is incompatible with uncertainty (which I’ll accept at least for the sake of argument – I mean it sounds right to me but whatever) seems to have convinced Woods that standard optimism, that is just a vague sense that things will turn out aright (or whatever) is also incompatible with uncertainty. What? Why? Why is this so? It’s the central thesis (I think??????) of Woods’ article, and yet he does absolutely fuck all to justify it.

The conclusion seems to be “we have to be willing to believe in the goodness of existence in order to be receptive to any evidence that it is.” That is true only if you take “willing to believe” to MEAN “receptive to evidence.” If I printed out a magic equation that proved that existence was good, and I waved it in front of a pessimist, what is that Woods thinks they’re going to do? Fold their arms and say “shan’t”?

What’s going on here?

Thisisunicorn

We Tend to Believe that the Norms of Our Society Are Right, Flaming Tribalism. We Can Overcome this Bias by Questioning Ourselves – A Utilitarian Perspective.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Abstract:
Just as our senses before them, our moral intuitions appear to be fallible, subject to a host of biases. From a Utilitarian perspective, we focus on the purported mistake of confusing morality with societal norms, a misunderstanding that creates conflict and flames tribalism. We then highlight how easy it is to commit such an error. To conclude, we propose an initial corrective: reasoned self-questioning. By engaging with critical thinking one may be able to recognize the mistake (if he is “morally dumbfounded”) and correct it.

Mon0o0

I have noticed that many (most?) moral philosophers seem primarily concerned with constructing a rational framework for justifying why all the stuff that they already think is bad truly is bad, and why all the stuff that that already think is good, truly is good. If they construct a moral framework that results in something being “unexpectedly” bad or good, it’s treated as a defect in the framework that needs to be fixed (or at least hastily patched). People rarely seem to ask themselves “What are are the odds that I am intuitively correct about the morality of everything?” or consider the possibility that if they perfectly tailor their theory of morality to fit what they want to be moral or immoral, they probably aren’t going to discover any interesting moral truths.

dangerousquid

Hope this doesn’t break any rules in terms of discussion but I think ‘Animal Liberation’ by Peter Singer is quite prescient being published in the 70s, and if I understand the video correctly, is a good topic to include. Singer also takes a utilitarian perspective to the treatment of non-human animals.

QDP-20

Great channel!

QuanticSailor

If this is true, we need a massive civil war and some political cleansing because nothing about this “normal” society is good.

Lou-Saydus