So has anyone ever actually taken The Lain Pill?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
The Lain Pill
So has anyone ever actually taken The Lain Pill?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Are Gibson and Dick's novels good? Read Burning Chrome and a PKD reader and enjoyed both.
>PKD
read UBIK
enjoy!
I started reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and it's pretty good. Very unique sense of humor while being serious and philosophical. It treads on absurd and seriousness
Yes, read them.
PKD is probably the only one on this list really worth reading
All the books on there are worth a read except for the anime. Wiener and Mcluhan are both incredible.
you got bullied a year ago for spamming this shit chart, go away gayboy
No because its gay
https://twitter.com/InfinityObserve/status/1537362944786173952
How relevant even is Wiener to sociology?
Cybernetics, so more thinking about communication and feedback in systems. Not sociology, which is chiefly about ideologically driven analysis of population trends.
Relevant. Look into Luhmann if you're interested in cybernetic sociology.
>Luhmann
My man.
>tr/a/nime
A shame that no title on that list was written by Jung, even though the concept of the "collective unconscious" is name-dropped several times during Serial Experiments Lain.
kys, newbie (see picture related)
Great graph
But the collective unconscious in SEL is an inhuman network that self-generates its own inscrutable purposes, not a reserve of anthropomorphic symbols that map onto regular human life as it is in Jung.
NTA but do you know if everyone ever wrote about the "inhuman network that self-generates its own inscrutable purposes" besides maybe vagueish stuff like Barthe's Mythologies?
>"inhuman network that self-generates its own inscrutable purposes"
yeah that's basically a kind of godless pantheism and what Lain resolves with—localized and personal humanity is discarded and one becomes immanent to the network of all phenomena/consciousness (GitS does this too in a way, both as manga and the film)—hence the inclusion of Spinoza and Kūkai who are somewhat in that vein of thought. For Spinoza that network is still "God" and doesn't care about you individually to the extent of ordering you what to do and persecuting you for misbehavior, and for Kūkai it's the dharmakaya, which while considered to be manifest due to the compassion of Buddha, such compassion can be both inscrutable and inhuman in the sense that it is neither limited to humans nor does it consist of merely giving humans what they desire to make them feel happy or what they think of as "good." Because that self-produced network does not have any sort of dualistic this-vs-that limitatio, in both Spinoza and Buddhism generally good and bad are just affects upon the person and capable of being transformed by the transformation of the individual. One could also bring in Nietzsche or Deleuze's Spinoza.
Wordcelcore
the original lain piller
someone explain this graph to me
Usage of the word "tranime" on this website only started around the likes of 2020. Anyone who uses that word is an ultranewbie
You're an even newer ultragay. Tranime was being thrown around as early as 2010. Go back and dilate you dumbfrick.
>do a quick all-boards search on the archive
>every single """"""old""""""" (old as in, fuccking 2016) use of the word tranime is from fricking /lgbt/
>there's also the post in pic related which was made in fricking '18
Lmao i was trying to expose the lying homosexual and accidentally confirmed as true all of the anons who were saying that "tranime" is horseshit invented by trannies to appropriate the chink cartoons.
Go back to
, lying homosexual.
https://archived.moe/_/search/text/tranime/order/asc/
You are so moronic you can't even search the right archives. Ill give you another chance to redeem your stupid ass. If you can't find tranime posts older than 2018 you must be an invalid. It's a miracle you can even read much less breathe on your own.
Jesus christ, you are legitimately braindead. The link i give in my post literally contains a whole bunch of tranime posts from around 2016-17. Almost all coming from /lgbt/ (the other ones are meaningless shitposts).
Just do us all a favor and frick off back to your troony board already, you're embarrassing yourself here.
Oldgays don't adopt tourist lingo?
Why would they?
Holy shit you’re moronic, troony
>igay filename
>literally proving that it's an anime website
Don't you homosexuals have any self-awareness
I haven't even noticed "tranime" being used but I remember having to look up troon when that became a thing.
Also, the implication here is that /misc/ is somewhat alien to the site, but wasn't /news/ a thing or something like that? I was a btard tbh, did Habbo Hotel raid and all that, migrated to 420chan, then stopped going on any chan site for a long time. Came back around 2014.
I want to say 420chan actually had a literature board while IQfy definitely did not when I was a teenage btard in like 2005. Got me scratching my head now.
>kys, newbie (see picture related)
What caused the great moot resurgence of 2022?
You trannies are the biggest attention prostitutes on the planet. Everything has to be about you at all times.
have a nice day you will never be a real man
I feel like the most lain shit is probably category theory, that schizo shit is just perfectly fitted
I wish I was intelligent enough to get it
reading isn't difficult. All you need is will power and time
anon, category theory isn't just some random YA book. You need more than will and time to get it
Category theory is math anon
Whoa, I've actually read like half that list. Hilariously, I've read like four books by Rushkoff but NOT Cyberia. I'm going to have to check out this Weiner fellow, if he's getting listed alongside McLuhan, Baudrillard, and Rushkoff, all of whom I love.
There's Ruskoff outside of Cyberia? IIRC he is a journo and that's his claim to fame. Anything good?
Media Virus and Coercion are very good. Present Shock is okay, but I felt his point was muddled.
I just realized that one of the books I was thinking of, Philosophy in the Flesh, was written by George Lakoff, not Doug Rushkoff. Got my -offs mixed up.
Yeah reading some of these 1999 Amazon reviews of Coercion is pretty spooky. Might be worth checking out. Although, if you have done some in depth reading outside of pop sources, you should be familiar with the idea that passions are subject to attack and manipulation if one lacks a sense of self-awareness. Technology has clearly amplified this opportunity... though it is never too late to become aware
I think what makes Coercion really interesting is not the "big ideas" that the book is sold on, but rather the personal narrative Rushkoff tells. I would definitely read Media Virus first, because Coercion is very much the story of how the advertising industry responded to Rushkoff publishing Media Virus, and I think without that context you'll miss a lot of the subtler implications of the book.
The point he's making isn't that the advertising industry is manipulative and coercive -- that would be kind of a "well duh" point -- but rather that the advertising industry is manipulative, coercive, and *completely blind to its own operations*. That it's reflexive and unthinking, unconsidered. It's also about Rushkoff's own moral ambivalence and sense of culpability in that he may have accidentally introduced a modicum of self-awareness to the proceedings by writing Media Virus.
It's a very interesting read. It will really make you think about the banality of evil.
Evil is a bit... banal... The very idea reminds me of a passage in Schopenhauer at the moment. Don't remember it precisely but it's somewhere in the two volumes of The World as Will and Representation. There's some island in the Pacific where sea turtles lay their eggs, and when most of the eggs hatch the turtles are eaten by wild dogs. This is common among the lower animals—the bad survival ratio—but the imagery is especially grim, since the sea turtle really goes out of its way to reproduce itself and the main result is a beach full of skeletons. Nature doesn't stop with humans just because we flush shit down a toliet. We have "waste" too. Ever watch a commercial and feel insulted? Especially the stuff for insurance where the commercial consists of some jester-like mascot telling a joke—you learn NOTHING about the product except that the advertiser thinks you'll remember their brand when you think about insurance because they made you chuckle. To them, you're just a sea turtle. It's only evil if you let them eat you.
>It's only evil if you let them eat you.
Eh. I don't like that. If someone jumps me in an alleyway and tries to stab me for my wallet, that's evil. It's evil even if I bust out my dodgy kung-fu training, disarm them, and leave them laying bloody in the alley. Evil is in the intent, not the result.
Is this a good book for getting into le hacking?
Haven't read it but IQfy says it's pretty good.
You're already a hacker, fellow IQfy.
This has only the most superficial relation to SE Lain is mostly a list of textbooks of Pomo troony stuff with a few religious texts thrown in at the end. Devilman? Baudrillard? Frick you.
Go read the og Devilman manga complete with its clubbing-induced transformation sequence and proto-gainax ending and tell me it's not relevant.
It might feel evil to get screwed but the wolf never apologizes to the sheep. That's human sentiment and we're... weird. We—mostly—have the choice not to inflict pain to get what we want. Not everyone sees it that way, and some people end up associating animality with "evil," but we are all descended from someone wicked, which I suppose is one way to read "original sin."
>It might feel evil to get screwed but the wolf never apologizes to the sheep
I'm a Kantian. I think that thinking of yourself as a wolf (end) and other people as sheep (means) is in of itself evil, and any action motivated by that maxim will inevitably be evil.
It's less about siding with wolves vs sheep and just being aware that wolves eat sheep. They don't eat kale. That's not what they do. It's not something you'll talk them into. And if the wolves are "evil" for eating sheep it certainly can't be "good" to be eaten. But for the wolf, it's good to eat the sheep. Not so good for the sheep of course. But the human is weird. He has more consciousness, more empathy, more sense. One could use this to excel at being a wolf. Now, if his prey is another human—if that's who he is exploiting—he ought to feel some empathy. If a wolf eats too much he's not doing himself any good. This doesn't happen in nature; only man eats too much. Is that evil? If the outlier misbehaves, makes himself sick from his power, and extinguishes himself, that's the real evil, not what he did to the lesser others, who are always plentiful, but what he did to the whole by destroying himself.
The problem is that wolves are dumb animals and don't lead moral lives. Wolves and their actions are outside of concepts like good and evil.
Men are not. Men are capable of considering their actions and making choices (this is true even if free will is illusory, as even if free will is an illusion, it is an illusion we are incapable of escaping). Because men must consider their actions, because the illusion of choice is inescapable, men have a duty to consider the rightness (goodness) of their actions and to do what is right and good.
So we're not talking about wolves, we're talking about men. Men who make their living by figuring out the most effective and efficient way to manipulate and distort the truth so as to lie without lying, so that they can manipulate the public into buying things they don't need. The public, and the very concept of truth, become means to an ends: earning a living.
This whole machinery, this industry, is evil because it is rooted in a violation of the categorical imperative, the moral necessity of treating others as ends unto themselves, and not as means to one's own ends, which includes the moral duty to honesty.
But, of course, none of the participants see themselves as evil. None of them see themselves as architects and engineers of the erosion of truth, trust, and human dignity that the advertising industry results in. Their perspective is so much smaller than that, so much more trivial, so completely lacking in self-awareness and perspective.
That's what I mean by the banality of evil. Madison Avenue is essentially a cultural Mordor, populated by a million little Saurumans, but when you get up close to them, they're such dull, ordinary, and banal men.
Not all men are capable. It is pure western delusion and hubris to the true nature of man to assume the capacity for self reflection in the minority translates to informed action in the majority. We are much better off as a species setting our expectations within the realm of realism and pattern driven evidence behavior than the lofty empty ideals of overly educated bloodless fools.
>Not all men are capable.
So? You don't lower the standards just because not everyone can meet them.
>That “moral imperative” is impossible to follow, though.
No, it's just very hard to follow.
No, it’s impossible (given the first law of thermodynamics), without tribalism.
The first law of thermodynamics is completely irrelevant here. As is tribalism. I literally have no idea what you're even trying to argue here. You're just completely and totally wrong. Maybe you don't understand the point you're responding to?
It’s highly relevant. Within the closed system, energy cannot be gained by an agent without taking it from another agent. On a fundamental level, it is impossible to succeed without causing something else to fail.
Tribalism is the only way this paradigm can be brushed over, by dismissing the things consumed as a “non-person”. For example, if you want to eat, you have to destroy something. Most people are comfortable eating hotdogs, because the hotdog isn’t a person. The closer it comes to personhood (for example, if it sprouted a face and said “please don’t eat me”), the closer it gets to being morally wrong.
The problem with tribalism is that it’s utterly subjective. It doesn’t work as a moral standard.
>It’s highly relevant.
No, it's not. Because this is morality, not physics, and there is no energy involved. Your entire premise is...wrong. I can walk outside, plant a seed in the ground, grow a bush, wait for it to produce fruit, harvest the fruit, and eat the fruit. I can do all of that without taking anything from another agent. So clearly I can gain energy without taking it from another agent.
>Tribalism is the only way this paradigm can be brushed over, by dismissing the things consumed as a “non-person”.
...what? Are you trying to argue that anything edible is potentially a person? That apples are people?
>For example, if you want to eat, you have to destroy something.
Well, yes, but an apple is not an object of moral consideration. Destroying an apple to consume for energy it is not an action that involves a moral dimension. You don't have to treat an apple as an end in of itself because it lacks endness, i.e. it's not "a person."
Apples are definitely not people. That's not "subjective." Dogs might be people. Cows might be people. Meat-eating humans might be morally compromised, but vegans are definitely in the clear. Plants are not people.
> I can walk outside, plant a seed in the ground, grow a bush, wait for it to produce fruit, harvest the fruit, and eat the fruit
Every single one of those things takes something from another agent, whether it be the flesh you take from the fruit, the fruit you steal from the tree, or the microscopic particles you shed from your clothes.
> Are you trying to argue that anything edible is potentially a person?
No. I’m arguing that:
> an apple is not an object of moral consideration
Is the mental stunt required to ignore the conservation of energy as it pertains to the morality of causing things to fail. It’s a mental gymnastic because you don’t actually agree with it when it’s rampant subjectivity is turned back on you:
> Anon is definitely not a person. That's not "subjective." Dogs might be people. Cows might be people.(etc.) But anon is not a person.
>Every single one of those things takes something from another agent, whether it be the flesh you take from the fruit, the fruit you steal from the tree, or the microscopic particles you shed from your clothes.
It's extremely obvious you are not intellectually prepared for this conversation. An agent is a sentient being capable of taking rationally considered actions. A fruit, a tree, and microscopic particles are not agents. They do not have agency.
>I’m arguing that "an apple is not an object of moral consideration" is the mental stunt required to ignore the conservation of energy as it pertains to the morality of causing things to fail.
But apples aren't people, anon. There is no "mental stunt" required to recognize that apples are categorically different than people.
>It’s a mental gymnastic because you don’t actually agree with it when it’s rampant subjectivity is turned back on you:
I am not analogous to an apple, anon. To claim that I am not a person is solipsism. To claim that an apple is not a person is demonstrating a basic understanding of what a person is. I don't agree with it because it's stupid and irrational. Apples have absolutely none of the qualities that would qualify a thing as a person. That claim is not subjective or arbitrary.
If I were to descend to the level of thinly veiled ad hominems, I’d venture to suggest that I’ve struck a nerve. Being above that, however..
> An agent is a sentient being capable of taking rationally considered actions
Ah, I’ve been using the term loosely in the same vein as in AI research, which upon a quick recap doesn’t exactly fit what I’m referencing. “System” is the term I should have used, although it might have caused a little confusion (as we were already talking about a system, albeit a closed one). I guess calling them open systems might have allayed some of that. So it should be:
> “every single one of those things takes something from another (open) system”.
> But apples aren't people, anon
Superficial difference doesn’t allow for the moral loophole (unless you’re arguing for the moral correctness of your own destruction) - personhood does. There’s no mental stunt required to recognise that apples aren’t /human/.
> To claim that I am not a person is solipsism
Yes, thank you! You’re correct, your argument is solipsistic in nature. You have none of the qualities that would qualify a thing as a person.
> That claim is not subjective or arbitrary.
I disagree, because it’s stupid and irrational.
You see, anon? Your argument is so subjective that it can practically be used against you, word for word, and yet you’ll still deny it, because it’s being directed at you. Your moral “standard” of what’s okay to destroy and what’s not, isn’t a standard at all! It only works from your perspective.
>> “every single one of those things takes something from another (open) system”.
Which is completely irrelevant to questions of morality. The use of an object as a means to an end does not require moral consideration because objects do not possess agency of their own.
>Superficial difference doesn’t allow for the moral loophole
Agency is not a superficial difference, anon.
>You’re correct, your argument is solipsistic in nature.
No, YOUR argument is solipistic. I'm not denying that you are a person. You're denying that I'm a person despite the fact that I am telling you I am a person. If you refuse to acknowledge my personhood despite the fact that you're engaging in a conversation with me, then you're being solipistic.
>Your argument is so subjective that it can practically be used against you, word for word, and yet you’ll still deny it, because it’s being directed at you.
No, my argument can't be used against me, and when you try to use it against me like this, you just sound like an irrational, insane person.
> objects do not possess agency
Neither do you, though, even if you’re deluded into thinking you do.
>If you refuse to acknowledge my personhood despite the fact that you're engaging in a conversation with me, then you're being solipistic.
Interesting.. But I don’t you believe in this method of assigning personhood. For example, I don’t think you would consider a chatbot a “person” (and therefore morally sovereign), or even the imaginary person I’m putting inside your head right now, who’s saying “hi! I’m a person too! Gee, I sure hope you don’t think about me getting violently hurt-AAA! AAUUGH, FRICK! FRICKING FRICK, YOU BASTARD, AAAAAHHGLL”
Both are conversing with you, and stating their personhood. Are you a solipsist? Or do you accept them?
How about we meet up with my deaf, blind, cannibal friend, who you can’t meaningfully communicate with? You’re cool with him eating you, right? He doesn’t consider you a person, see.
Nah mate I don’t buy this line of thinking. I don’t think /you/ buy this line of reasoning.
>Neither do you, though, even if you’re deluded into thinking you do.
Jesus, you're a fricking moron. You are literally too stupid to discuss this shit with.
>But I don’t you believe in this method of assigning personhood.
Holy frick, you are such an ignorant, arrogant dumb frick. You don't even have the most basic grounding in these issues and it's like I have to explain the most basic of principles to you.
You're a fricking moron. Please stop pretending you are qualified to discuss philosophical issues until you have bothered to get the most basic education.
>Nah mate I don’t buy this line of thinking.
You mean the complete strawman you fabricated because you're a dumb, ignorant sack of shit that thinks he can backwards engineer arguments by guessing at what words mean?
>I don’t think /you/ buy this line of reasoning.
I don't, it's stupid, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.
We're not talking about assigning personhood. I'm a person. I am a human person, with human parents, and a physical body. If you want to play fricking games and argue that I might be a chat bot, you can go frick yourself, you asinine, obnoxious fricking little wienersucker.
Seriously, do the world a favor and have a nice day before you pollute the genepool, you fricking inbred, moronic waterheaded crack baby motherfricker. Just eat shit and die in miserable pain, you fricking turd.
my god anon, no need to get that angry
I am not fricking putting up with buttholes who won't even extend me the courtesy of assuming I actually exist.
>This is merely ideological and has little relationship to anything outside of the human project of playing nice.
That's an absolutely moronic statement.
>Not all moral systems have operated from that premise.
I never claimed otherwise. Moral systems that do not operate from that premise are inherently flawed.
>If in fact we were all moral equals we should not have this problem of needing to conceptualize and implement frameworks of governing our relations with one another.
This statement indicates to me that you do not have even a minimal grasp of what being morally equal means.
>The point is that your "Madison Avenue" types are predator types, like wolves, and they view their customer segments as dumb and plient animals, like sheep.
Yes, that is what makes them evil.
> And if people were so equal in their capacities we would not have this scenario.
Moral equality has absolutely nothing to do with being "equal in their capacities." It only means that when we are attempting to determine what the right action is in any scenario, we do not consider the accidents of the identities of others.
>But all of this is besides the point—good and bad are relative, they are affections felt by an individual depending on who is he is, from the extension of his mind/body/senses/feelings etc.
No. Read your Kant.
>You’re actually pretty close with the whole “if it’s communicating, then it’s a person” thing.
That is not what is being said, you stupid frick. I am not saying "if a thing is communicating, it's a person." I'm saying that I'm a person and if you're not willing to cede that point for the purposes of discussion, then you're a fricking butthole and you can go frick yourself with a chainsaw, because you are too fricking obnoxious and irritating to bother with, you social maladjusted, autistic sack of rude dogshit. Now go frick yourself, you fricking pseudo-intellectual homosexual, because I am done with your fricking asinine bullshit.
Either accept my word that I am real so that we can move on with the conversation or FRICKING have a nice day, YOU OBNOXIOUS FRICKING c**t.
How about a little empathetic deal? That’s what morality is all about, right, empathy? And not about formalised tribalism?
>That’s what morality is all about, right, empathy?
No.
>you don’t like it when the subjectivity is turned back on you
There is no subjectivity involved. An apple is objectively not a person, just as it objectively not an orange. There is no definition of person which would call into question an apple's status as an insensate object incapable of thought, feeling or action.
When you replace the word "apple" with "anon" in the statement "An apple is not a person." you aren't showing my subjectivity or some kind of hypocrisy or special pleading on my part. You're just ignoring any and all reasonable definitions of person so that you can pretend that apples and human beings you are actively talking to are fungible.
It's a stupid argument and you're a fricking moron for making it.
>There is no definition of person which would call into question an apple's status as an insensate object incapable of thought, feeling or action.
I disagree (and willing to elaborate on why), but I’m willing to hear your definition of “person” beforehand.
Also I should clarify:
>That’s what morality is all about
I meant moral /standards/. They’re all about consensus. Obviously morals can be held personally without any need for communication or empathy.
>I disagree (and willing to elaborate on why), but I’m willing to hear your definition of “person” beforehand.
A person is a morally culpable agent capable of making rational choices.
I'm not going to argue with disingenuous absurdities. Either constrain yourself to something like consensus reality or frick off. An apple is not capable of experiencing. You know that, and if you insist on pretending otherwise, then I insist you fricking drink a bottle of draino and stop bothering the rest of us with you obnoxious personality, you worthless frick.
>A person is a morally culpable agent capable of making rational choices.
1. Stop pushing your subjective opinions on others.
2. Apples are morally culpable agents.
3. You can't objectively define a rational choice.
4. Apples make plenty of rational choices. How else could they outnumber humans?
>1. Stop pushing your subjective opinions on others.
Eat a bag of dicks and choke to death on them, you stupid motherfricker.
>2. Apples are morally culpable agents.
You're a braindead sack of dog shit, and if there was any justice in this universe, you would die from painful anal hemmorages.
>3. You can't objectively define a rational choice.
The act of selecting or making a decision based on or in accordance with reason or logic when faced with two or more possibilities.
>4. Apples make plenty of rational choices. How else could they outnumber humans?
I sincerely hope your entire family dies of cancer.
Apples may never be faced with two or more possibilities. What if they're paralyzed? Parapalegics may never have choices.
What if apples always make the best choice? Grow into yummy apples?
> morally culpable
That’s a prescriptive definition, surely? Otherwise you’ve just shifted the goalposts from “person = what I think is a person” to “person = whatever I think is morally culpable”.
Anyway, onto why I disagree. Non-people are, according to you:
> insensate, incapable of though, feeling, or action
In short:
> they are incapable of experiencing
This is ludicrously false, but let’s go through them one step at a time.
> Incapable of thought
What do you mean by this? Processing information? Conjuring unique electrical configurations? Expressing concepts through a language? Even an “inanimate” rock collects the data of countless bumps and dents, expressing them as changes in its behaviour going forward. What about the thinking-machine you’re reading this on?
> feeling
Same shit as above. Worth mentioning though that creatures like tardigrades forgo an entire nervous system.
> action
Utterly ludicrous. Pick up an object, any object near you, and drop it. Now ask yourself: What did it just do? Did it stay floating in mid air, actionless? Or did it fall?
> incapable of experiencing
An interaction (or, experience) is when a system is changed by another system. If an open system cannot interact, it cannot be interacted with (duh). If an object wasn’t able to experience, you wouldn’t be able to experience it (and, from your perspective, it wouldn’t exist).
I think what you mean to say is that objects are incapable of experiencing /the exact way humans do/. Tribalism rears it’s head again.
An apple could be a person. How can you say it's not? You have never lived the subjective experience of an apple, and for all you know an apple may have a deep and genuine view of the world, maybe even deeper than yours.
Apples are people too.
What defines a person? You mention insensate. Grass and trees have some form of senses, and your subjective opinion on which one is more important for defining a "person" is arbitrary and again based purely on your subjective opinion.
>thought.
What defines a thought? There is a groing cross-discipline belief that thoughts are merely "conscious" rationalizations for actions your autonomous body is already taking. Furthermore, some "humans" you might claim are "persons" have a lack of internal monologue. Is this a lack of thought? Are they less of a person? You might say they still have thoughts, but who are you with your subjective opinion to define the cutoff point between the thoughts of an apple and the thoughts of a person. A thought is just a chemical change, and apples have chemical changes too.
You can read a bit about the "conscious automaton" thing by looking up the researcher Benjamin Libbet and some related writings on free will and neuroscience although I can't remember off the top of my head.
>feeling
As with thoughts you can't claim this determines personhood. Some "people" you might call "persons" have no feeling. Feelings are entirely subjective. If you want to claim muh chemicals then apples, trees, and all such things have chemical changes in response to environmental stimuli. Grass is known to give off chemicals with torn apart. How can you, with your subjective opinion, say this isn't pain or despair?
>Action
Parapalegics. But in all seriousness trees DO take action. And how can YOU with your SUBJECTIVE opinion determine what sort of volition is enough to be an action? Apples take a lot of actions.
Please don't discriminate against persons of any chemical/energy makeup.
>Apples are people too.
No, and you're an asinine moron for even attempting to make this specious, absurd argument. You're a witless fricking moron, and you're making a mockery of the entire concept of reasoned discussion. butthole.
I'm not. You can't define a person with using your useless subjective opinion. Besides, your consensus is just one of millions that you have subjectively determined to be the "correct" consensus, and you've certainly rejected my consensus.
Just face it. Breathe it. Live it.
Men are women.
Women are men.
Apples are people.
Fat is healthy.
Her penis.
Stop assigning your subjective reality on things. I can't believe we have to argue with right wing incels on a board for literature and high-IQ pursuits.
>You can't define a person with using your useless subjective opinion.
You have no clue what "subjective" or "opinion" means. You are a stupid, pseudointellectual moron whose arguments are facile nonsense. Shut up. Better yet, have a nice day.
>If there's no God, Kant's categories come from where?
Logical necessity.
>What is the ground of all his a priori recycled Platonism?
I don't understand what you're asking.
>Why is he authoritative and not just another relative voice?
He is not authoritative. Logic is authoritative. E = MC^2 isn't true because Einstein was authoritative, Einstein is an authority because E = MC^2 is true.
>If there is no God, Kant is entirely wrong and it is all the more bizarre to affirm him.
God is irrelevant to Kant's argument. Kant's argument extends entirely from the premise that human mind perceives itself as having free will. Whether it actually has free will is irrelevant, so long as the human mind perceives itself as capable of making choices, the Kant's moral groundwork follows.
>morally culpable is a prescriptive definition, surely?
No. To be morally culpable means you are capable of rationally considering your actions.
>Even an “inanimate” rock collects the data of countless bumps and dents, expressing them as changes in its behaviour going forward.
Jesus Christ, you are such a homosexual. Please get fricked.
>Utterly ludicrous. Pick up an object, any object near you, and drop it. Now ask yourself: What did it just do? Did it stay floating in mid air, actionless? Or did it fall?
Jesus, you don't even know what "action" means. Falling is not an action, you fricking idiot. Actions are motivated. Falling is the consequences of gravity. The object does not act when it falls. That would imply that it has a CHOICE in whether to fall or not.
>If an object wasn’t able to experience, you wouldn’t be able to experience it (and, from your perspective, it wouldn’t exist).
I hate pseudo-intellectual homosexuals like you who don't even understand the most basic of terminology and invent your own fricked up definitions so that you can spin these moronic fricking arguments that do nothing but demonstrate what a colossal fricking moron you are.
But fine homosexual, it's "tribalism" when we deny the personhood of apples and grains of sand. You win, you stupid frick. I'm done wasting my time with a pile of moronic dog shit like you. Please, for the love of humanity, stab yourself in the face with a fork until you die.
>Even an “inanimate” rock collects the data of countless bumps and dents, expressing them as changes in its behaviour going forward.
>Jesus Christ, you are such a homosexual. Please get fricked.
But he's literally right. Each dent modifies the rock in a very small way even if it is a few particles of dust. This modification alters the future of the rock is some other way.
You're just a chudcel that can't stop using pseudoscientific imperialism to delete the lived experiences of apples, rocks, and persons of differing animacy.
>But he's literally right.
Please join your homosexual friend in suicide, you subhuman ratfricking shitstain.
>To be morally culpable means you are capable of rationally considering your actions
Ah, so like your computer.
> Actions are motivated.
> falling is the consequence of gravity
Yes? Gravity is the motivation here.
> muh choice
Once again, nothing has choice - only the illusion of such.
> ranting about pseudo-intellectualism
And yet, here I am, waiting to be convinced, and you’ve done nothing but demonstrate an excess of choler. Maybe it‘s time to consider that you might be wrong (which is a pretty good practice in general).
>Ah, so like your computer.
A computer is not capable of considering anything. Computers are not aware.
>Yes? Gravity is the motivation here.
Actions are internally motivated. Being acted upon and acting are not the same thing. If I picked you up and threw you off a cliff, that would be my action, you would be acted upon. I am truly sick and tired of how disingenuous and intentionally obtuse you are being. Either you're a world-class butthole who is engaging in bad faith out a desire to aggravate and annoy me, in which case you are deeply antisocial and a miserable excuse for a human being, or you are the dumbest motherfricker I have run into all week.
Furthermore, motivation means the reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. Gravity is not a motivation and is not motivated. Gravity is a force. Gravity does think "I guess I'll affect those atoms over there." Gravity does not think anything.
Also, I fricking hate you. You are a shitty, terrible human being, and the world would be better off if you were dead. We could be having an interesting conversation, but your insistence on acting like the dumbest rock in the whole fricking box and pretending you can't understand the difference between rocks and people means this conversation is just a tedious exercise in managing frustration.
Seriously, I'm not being funny, I'm not making a joke. I think you are disgusting, subhuman piece of garbage, and if I could push a button a cause you to be slowly fed into a woodchipper while your loved ones are forced to watch, I would gleefully push the button over and over, like one of those monkeys with a button wired into its pleasure center. The thought of someone holding you down and smashing every bone in your body with a ballpeen hammer makes me giddy. In the span of a few hours and one thread, you have managed to stir up a visceral hatred for you and an absolute desire to see you die in horrible, screaming pain. I would gladly hand you over to the Nazis.
You are awful. Please die.
Computers literally have a list of instructions they follow. They predict their future actions with far better accuracy than humans.
> Actions are internally motivated
No they’re not. Not unless you want to argue that humans don’t take actions, or that motivations like hunger, fun, and companionship are somehow “internal”. If you are arguing that, then gravity is internal to the object.
> motivation means the reason [] one has for acting or behaving in a particular way
> Gravity is a force
You mean, it’s a reason for things act a certain way?
> seething
I’ve heard kind of vitriol from my own mouth, and I know it well. It’s the sound of a dying ideology.
>Computers literally have a list of instructions they follow.
And that's literally the opposite of "considering."
>No they’re not.
Yes, they are, you stupid frick. That's how they're defined. Frick, you don't understand even the most basic terms of philosophy, and you keep inventing your own definitions rather than trying to learn the actual ones. You are such a pseudointellectual sack of dogshit.
>Not unless you want to argue that humans don’t take actions, or that motivations like hunger, fun, and companionship are somehow “internal”.
Oh my god, it's like pulling teeth with you. You are so fricking stupid. Yes, you fricking bag of shit, motivations like hunger, the desire for fun, for companionship, are internal. They come from within you, as opposed to external influences like cold, heat, gravity, etc. How are we even having this conversation? You can't possibly actually be this stupid. You must be a trolling butthole who is just spewing obvious bullshit in an effort to annoy and frustrate me. In which case, get a life or end your life, you antisocial fricking loser piece of shit.
>If you are arguing that, then gravity is internal to the object.
So...you don't understand how gravity works, that's what you're telling me? If I pick up a book, hold it five feet off the ground, and let it go, it's the gravity generated by the BOOK that causes it to fall, not the gravity generated by the Earth? Cool. You are so fricking stupid.
>You mean, it’s a reason for things act a certain way?
No. I mean it's a cause for effects. In this context, reason means the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
>And that's literally the opposite of "considering."
Your brain is a machine of chemicals that follow biologically encoded instructions. Life experiences add to variables in the program which can alter the output. How is this different, incel?
Go talk to an expert on AI. They'll explain why it doesn't exist. Its also completely irrelevant to this discussion, and is a tangent you've gone off on because every other part of your argument is moronic bullshit.
>Your brain is a machine of chemicals that follow biologically encoded instructions
for (You)
>And that's literally the opposite of "considering."
Define “considering” then, because I’m talking about a model for future actions. Explain the difference between
> on start, run function A
And
> once I get my paycheck I will buy a car
> Yes, they are
Ah, so you’re talking about an action that a person takes... which is what’ S in dispute here, meaning that an “inanimate” object would be perfectly capable of taking an “action” if you chose to grant it personhood. You’re unfortunately still the one drawing the arbitrary line here.
> motivations like hunger, the desire for fun, for companionship, are internal.
Then so is gravity. Or more specifically, the gravitational pull applied to this specific object. That comes from within you, just like social pressure comes from “within” you.
> you don't understand how gravity works
No I do, I’m just turning your very human-centric argument back on itself to show how moronic it is. Saying fun (or dopamine, specifically) originates in a single human instead of in its dna is like saying that a book creates the gravity it falls towards.
> In this context, reason means the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
Ah, so to reason is to process data, form meaningful models, and enact logical steps? And a cause is what, a magical thing that doesn’t involve data, lead to meaningful models, or act logically? There’s literally no fundamental difference, but there is one if you selectively decide to ignore how things work on their base level, or rather, if you’re so enamoured with humanity’s specialness that you subjectively ignore everything that isn’t close enough to you.
Honestly I’d kinda love to troll you - what with your violently insecure behaviour you might as well be painting a massive target on yourself. But I’m more interested in actually engaging what little argument you have left.
>You’re unfortunately still the one drawing the arbitrary line here.
Frick off.
>Then so is gravity. Or more specifically, the gravitational pull applied to this specific object.
You are so fricking stupid. You are literally claiming that the gravitational pull of the Earth acting on a book is an internal action because the gravitational pull of the Earth comes from within the book. I can't even begin to unpack how dumb that is.
>No I do [understand how gravity works]
You really don't. You are literally arguing that objects of smaller mass pull themselves towards objects of larger mass.
> your very human-centric argument
There is nothing human-centric about my argument. I actually started this conversation acknowledging that the question of the personhood of dogs and cows was open to debate, because I reject specism (what you, being an ignorant dumbass, call "tribalism," since you clearly have no background in these issues). However, there is no question that morality is an issue affecting subjects, not objects. Apples, rocks, and other things that lack agency are objects, not subjects.
>There’s literally no fundamental difference
Yes, there is. That you refuse to acknowledge that there is no difference between a self-motivated subject engaging in action and an object being affected by impersonal forces lacking motivation only makes it clear that you're either a disingenuous trolling frick or completely moronic.
Your entire argument hinges on the absolute absurd assertion that the distinction between subjects and objects is entirely arbitrary -- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. This is an assertion so absurd, so ridiculous, that it defies all credulity.
You do not for a second believe that the distinction between you, yourself, a person, and a slab of granite of equal weight is arbitrary or that there is no fundamental difference between you. You can pretend you believe that, but you don't, and your continued insistence that you think this is a reasonable position that needs to be address makes it clear that you are a specious, disingenuous ratfricking little b***h who doesn't deserve to participate in human society and should be beaten to death with bike locks. Now, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do us all a favor and shove a lit stick of dynamtie up your ass, you malodorous heap of soiled chimpanzee diapers.
>You are literally claiming that the gravitational pull of the Earth acting on a book is an internal action because the gravitational pull of the Earth comes from within the book.
You’re claiming that you being massively insecure is an internally motivated action, because I (and the others in this thread) are part of you. If you think that’s moronic, then, well..
> You are literally arguing that objects of smaller mass pull themselves towards objects of larger mass.
Nope, you’re arguing that objects of smaller mass spontaneously start travelling towards objects of larger mass.
> Your entire argument hinges on the absolute absurd assertion that the distinction between subjects and objects is entirely arbitrary -- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
And yet, you’ve failed spectacularly to communicate this so-called reason, resorting to heated language to cover your bluff. Every single distinction you’ve provided;
> reason
> actions
> senses
> interactions
> motivation
when examined without the circular a priori assumption that only persons are able to perform them, can be seen in non-persons!
Good job ignoring the issue on what constitutes “considering”, by the way. I’ll “consider” that a tacit acceptance.
No joke here, press A.
>You’re claiming that you being massively insecure is an internally motivated action
No, I have never made any such claim. Being massively insecure wouldn't even be an action, it would be a state of being.
>Nope, you’re arguing that objects of smaller mass spontaneously start travelling towards objects of larger mass.
I am arguing no such thing. I'm not a physicist, and I won't pretend I can explain the process by which gravity works on anything other than the laymen's level, but I do at least understand that smaller objects are pulled towards larger objects by their greater gravity. That the pull comes from the larger object and affects the smaller object.
>reason, actions, and senses can be seen insentient, inanimate, and insensate objects!
No, they can't.
>No joke here, press A.
Even though I know it would be wrong, I would push A so fast and hard it would quite possibly damage my finger.
>No, I have never made any such claim
Yes you have, that’s were your logic leads. Also, by “being massively insecure” I was referring to your slinging insults and swearing.
> the pull comes from the larger object and affects the smaller object.
Sort of, but not entirely. They’re both pulling on each other, but the large object creates a larger “impression” in spacetime, so the smaller object moves quicker.
But that’s besides the point, being that you’re trying to argue that the societal motivation to make friends is somehow inside you, as opposed to an extrinsic force (like gravity!) You’re saying “Nooo, I’m not being affected by my biological programming, I want to eat because I’m internally motivated!”, but that’s like a rock saying “I’m not affected by gravity, I want to move because I’m internally motivated”.
You’re ignoring my points, or countering them with base opinion. I “consider” you pretty much done, sadly. It was fun watching you squirm 🙂
>Yes you have, that’s were your logic leads.
Nope. That's a strawman you're constructing.
>But that’s besides the point, being that you’re trying to argue that the societal motivation to make friends is somehow inside you, as opposed to an extrinsic force (like gravity!)
I am doing no such thing. All I am doing is claiming that people think and that motivates their actions and, conversely, apples don't think, don't have motivations, and don't take actions. But you have to be a frickwit and pretend this is some radical concept that has to be defended and proven, and not just something we take as a given when having a normal conversation.
>You’re saying “Nooo, I’m not being affected by my biological programming, I want to eat because I’m internally motivated!”
No, you dumb homosexual, I'm saying that "biological programming" would be an example of an "internal motivation." This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
> a rock saying “I’m not affected by gravity, I want to move because I’m internally motivated”.
Dude, the whole fricking point is that a rock can't say that because a rock is a fricking object.
Like right now, I'm hungry. That's an internal experience. I *feel* hungry. This motivates me to consider eating something. I am making a conscious choice to finish writing this comment before I grab something to eat. I *might* drive down to a local cafe and get a cheeseburger. I might just grab something from the freezer. The second option would be much cheaper, since I've already paid for the food in my freezer and don't have to expend gas to go get it. But I could use a break from being inside, interact with real people, and get some time on my laptop without access to the internet, which is always good for getting some writing done.
See, this is an internal motivation (hunger) which compels me to consider a range of actions, which I can freely choose from because I'm not a machine operating on a program, and I can rationally weigh my options, make a choice, and then take action.
This is what makes me different than a rock.
You want to pretend you don't understand any of this, that it's a series of extraordinary claims that are so incoherent they require belabored explanation.
I think you should be run over by a truck.
This conversation is over.
>Dude, the whole fricking point is that a rock can't say that
You have (1) new notification
I walk into a room. In the room are two large glass cylinders labeled A and B, a panel with two buttons label A and B, and a note. The note reads:
>Press Button A to convert all organic matter in Cylinder A into an equal weight of gold, which you may claim as yours.
>Press Button B to convert all organic matter in Cylinder B into an equal weight of gold, which you may claim as yours.
>Pressing Button A will deactivate Button B and vice versa.
>Both cylinders will open 10 seconds after either button is pressed.
Anon () is trapped in Cylinder A. In Cylinder B is a steel bucket containing an equal weight of human feces. Regardless of which button I press, I will receive the same amount of gold. Given that there is no meaningful distinction between Anon and a bucket of shit, which button should I pick?
The utilitarian would suggest I should choose the button which will result in the greatest good for the most people, so I should clearly choose Button A, since a bucket of shit is infinitely more valuable to humanity as a whole than Anon, who represents a general diminishing of the greater good, since his mere existence makes other people less happy and the vast majority of people find the bucket of shit to be better company. However, we are not utilitarians.
If only there was some means of distinguishing between Anon and a bucket of shit that wasn't entirely arbitrary. Oh well, coin toss it is...
>E = MC^2 is true
So therefore, evil is real? Ok faithless priest
>>E = MC^2 is true
>So therefore, evil is real?
No, moron. That isn't what was said. Please learn to read or have a nice day.
If you're the same person as earlier you were insisting that good and evil were objectively real and advocating for a universal morality rooted in Kant. Your defense of this seems to be IFLS since you've decided you can keep Christianity without its theology. Atheist Christianity is even more naive and nihilistic than the believing version, so this discussion has run its course.
>Your defense of this seems to be IFLS
No idea what IFLS means.
>since you've decided you can keep Christianity without its theology.
I have absolutely no idea why you think this. While Kantian moral reasoning does lead one to the conclusion that certain Christian moral teachings ("murder is wrong") are correct, it also leads one to the opposite conclusion ("homosexual acts are not immoral").
>Atheist Christianity is even more naive and nihilistic than the believing version, so this discussion has run its course.
Literally, the only person bringing up "Atheist Christianity" is you, buddy.
>A thought is just a chemical change, and apples have chemical changes too.
why are we assuming kant is correct? maybe you're autistic? He's pretty removed from pantheism/non-duality/immanence so I am not sure how he is an authority in this discussion. A dissenting vestigal remain of Christian morality is not anything absolute
>why are we assuming kant is correct?
Because his arguments are logically sound.
>maybe you're autistic?
Maybe you're a stupid fricking butthole.
>his arguments are logically sound
They presuppose something entirely illogical, so what's the point? If it leads to a rejection of the world it can't be very good for anyone but the most sick
>They presuppose something entirely illogical
And what is that?
any of the transcendental metaphysics Kant employs to set up his morality, same problem as any other westoid theologian. there's no god in the wired
>any of the transcendental metaphysics Kant employs to set up his morality
Give an example of transcendental metaphysics that Kant employs.
>same problem as any other westoid theologian.
Kant is not a theologian.
>there's no god in the wired
How is this statement relevant? No one is claiming there is a God.
If there's no God, Kant's categories come from where? What is the ground of all his a priori recycled Platonism? Why is he authoritative and not just another relative voice? You don't keep "logic" without theology or something equivalent to it. The logicians were out to prove something they knew could not be demonstrated. Logic goes beyond causality or this following that. It always sets up that first premise or cause for which the (theo)rist insists no additional proof is needed. If there is no God, Kant is entirely wrong and it is all the more bizarre to affirm him.
> I'm a person.
No. You’re not.
Then neither are you.
Depends, if you’re going for the “no one is a person” route or the “only what the subject says is a person, is a person”.
I will elaborate on this however, in case others with more level heads are reading this. You’re actually pretty close with the whole “if it’s communicating, then it’s a person” thing. It’s just you’re so wrapped up in the human-centric side of things that you fail to grasp the core of the matter: communication. Or, interaction. If you’re interacting with something, then it’s a “person”.
In short, we’re left with a trilemma:
> Anon believes nothing is a person, a stance that doesn’t even attempt at constructing a moral standard.
> Anon believes only some things are people, thus degrading his morals to base opinion (and effectively ending up like the opt above, albeit with the pretence of otherwise)
> Anon believes everything is a person, and recognises he’s a monster. This is the only option where morality objectively wins, but it doesn’t work as a balm so most are going to ignore it in favour of the others.
>Anon believes only some things are people, thus degrading his morals to base opinion (and effectively ending up like the opt above, albeit with the pretence of otherwise)
This is so fricking stupid. So the only options are "everything is a person" or "nothing is a person?" This is literally the most moronic argument I've ever read. It's like you're in complete denial of how words work.
No no, you can selectively assign personhood. But as you’re proving quite strongly, you don’t like it when the subjectivity is turned back on you, making it suspect whether you actually believe in subjectivity.
You absolutely do lower the standards because you are making up the standard arbitrarily and your standard is incongruous with reality.
Some people find it difficult not to rape and murder. I guess we should just declare raping and murdering moral, right? Because saying that raping and murdering are immoral is creating an arbitrary standard and incongruous with reality, right? The standards for moral behavior should be defined in such a way that the most disturbed sociopathic serial killer qualifies as moral. That's a totally useful moral schema!
Please read Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and stop being an idiot.
What part of majority do you not understand? Your rapist outlier is no different than the egg head outlier, neither are reflective of the solid unthinking mass of the masses. Even so both rape and murder are culturally acceptable throughout history and in various locations contextually. Spousal rape and war time murder are two low hanging fruits. So called ethics driven by reason do not exist. The factors are entirely biological and any coincidence with the aims of reason is entirely that, a coincidence. No society ruled by reason has ever or will ever exist. Humans are only able to idealize not actualize such motivations.
So your argument is that you are a dumb, insensate animal that is incapable of reason and not in control of your actions?
Just save yourself the time and effort. Next time just call him a worthless Black person.
certified worthless Black person post
Yes, and you are not? I laugh in your face if you truly believe yourself above the station of an animal. Such a lack of awareness is infinitely comical. Morality derived from suppression engenders far more cruelty than dumb animal expression of impulses. All attempts at using reason to tame man's animal impulses results in catastrophically worse outcomes. Animals are creatures of action. Consciousness is a being of pure thought. The only way an animal can interface with thought is through the blood. Through actualization. Bloodless hypotheticals and day dreams do nothing but silently contribute to the manufacture of misery and outsized cruelty.
>Yes, and you are not?
No, I am not a dumb, insensate animal.
>I laugh in your face if you truly believe yourself above the station of an animal.
Who cares? You're a dumb, insensate animal. Your opinions are irrelevant.
That “moral imperative” is impossible to follow, though. You cannot help but use others as a means to your own end, when you yourself are merely a collections of “others” working under an assumed identity.
So it’s not that specific system that’s at fault, it’s *the* system - our reality.
>This whole machinery, this industry, is evil because it is rooted in a violation of the categorical imperative, the moral necessity of treating others as ends unto themselves, and not as means to one's own ends, which includes the moral duty to honesty.
Well, I certainly don't think they're "good," since I'm not an ad exec, but evil isn't some transcendental reality independent of those involved. It's good for the predator, bad for the prey. Advertising wouldn't be possible if not for the feebleness of the consumer. We might feel there is something shameful in exploiting the stupid but that's not a universal feeling.
I meant "inflicting pain" on a much more interpersonal sense, as one can go about getting what he wants from other people in a fair or amicable way (though what that means is contentious, it would not mean stealing, murdering, forcing oneself, etc), not in a more total sense as in "leave no trace" best practices for camping. Of course we're going to trample grass, insects, microbes, whatever else, eat animals, participate in economic life such that others may be exploited, but those are harder and potentially impossible to avoid—and may not even be worth the trouble to avoid in some circumstances.
Animals aren't dumb or senseless but perceive a world differently than yours. Even among humans there are different worlds. Read Uexküll
>evil isn't some transcendental reality independent of those involved
Yes, it is.
>It's good for the predator, bad for the prey.
That would be special pleading rooted in a spurious analogy. People are people qua people, they are not predators and prey. You cannot declare yourself a predator and someone else prey and thus justify killing them. That violates the principle of equality.
>We might feel there is something shameful in exploiting the stupid but that's not a universal feeling.
Rational morality is not rooted in feelings, which is why we call it rational morality and not moral intuition.
>Animals aren't dumb or senseless but perceive a world differently than yours.
Show me a talking animal that displays reason that isn't a human being and we'll return to this point, but until then I'm going to disagree.
Reason is used to produce spurious explanations like that evil is absolutely real, that everyone is equal and there are no differences, etc. If animals lack this it may be to their benefit. A wolf that developed empathy for his food would starve to death
>that everyone is equal and there are no differences
Moral equality does not imply that there are no qualitative differences between people. Moral equality only means agents of moral consideration are of equal consideration.
That is, a crack-addicted prostitute may be qualitatively different from a pioneering cancer researcher, but for purposes of moral consideration, they are equivalent.
Or, in other words: Rape is wrong. There are no exceptions. There is no such thing as an acceptable victim qua rape. If you rape someone, you are eschewing your moral duty, you are doing evil. It doesn't matter who they are. They could be an innocent child, they could be a crack-addled prostitute. It's the action itself that is wrong, the identity of the victim is entirely irrelevant.
>for purposes of moral consideration, they are equivalent.
This is merely ideological and has little relationship to anything outside of the human project of playing nice. Not all moral systems have operated from that premise. If in fact we were all moral equals we should not have this problem of needing to conceptualize and implement frameworks of governing our relations with one another.
The point is that your "Madison Avenue" types are predator types, like wolves, and they view their customer segments as dumb and plient animals, like sheep. And if people were so equal in their capacities we would not have this scenario. But all of this is besides the point—good and bad are relative, they are affections felt by an individual depending on who is he is, from the extension of his mind/body/senses/feelings etc. Now, you may feel you have a universal human moral framework and argue that ad execs are violating it by being evil, but this is just something you've superimposed on the above affects and cannot demonstrate outside of them.
>A wolf that developed empathy for his food would starve to death
Also, who fricking cares about wolves? You are not a wolf. Nobody who works on Madison Ave is a wolf. Wolves are all kinds of awesome, but I've actually worked with wolves, and they're dumb animals that are not capable of moral reasoning.
Humans are capable of moral reasoning. Humans are capable of understanding relatively simple statements like "Lying is wrong." Wolves are not.
Stop talking about wolves.
>We—mostly—have the choice not to inflict pain to get what we want.
I disagree, I think we refuse to acknowledge the vast majority of the damage we cause, purely out of convenience. With every breath you take, you’re killing air. The instinct is to invalidate it, “that’s not pain”.. but then, you can’t complain when the same subjectivity is applied to you.
Not wrong, but there's a difference between accepting that to live is to impose costs on others without beating yourself up over it and actively using dominance as a short-cut. The wolf does not apologize to the sheep since it doesn't have a concept of its responsibility, a human hunter thanks his prey because he recognizes that he has made the choice to sacrifice it to sustain himself when he could have instead denied his own existence.
>he could have instead denied his own existence
I suppose that’s where we get back to the problem of free will, because even though there’s no escaping forethought, it doesn’t mean the above is anything more than a self-gratifying illusion.
Take the Gnostic pill.
It's been very bizarre to see gnosticism become somewhat mainstream these past few years. Not that I'm complaining, mind you, it's very nice that I can now talk with other people knowledgeable on a weird subject I know a fair bit about. I just wonder why it happened so suddenly.
Demons roamin' the eartvs takin souls of the damned. Bless you my brother in Christ hope you stop believing in that demon mumbo-jumbo stuff before the jaws of the beast consume you.
Gnosticism is just decentralized Christianity. It's natural that you'd see it make a comeback, since it is even more nihilistically world-denying than the historical Christianity which had contained it. With the slackening of one comes the release of the other. Less concerned with being saved by an external god, more concerned with blaming an external malevolence
People are getting tired of the demiurge's shit
Is there any footage or transcipt of the panel?
So I got curious about what moot has been up to
never mind, this is an older interview. not sure why it got uploaded on that channel in 2021.
I did a long time ago.
Return to nature instead.
Thoreau is a literal hoax, idk who made this chart but I wouldn't trust it
How is it a hoax? Your answer better not involve laundry.
He was a transcendentalist and he did love nature. So I'm not sure what is wrong with him. I enjoy reading his writing.
first off all he didn't really live in the woods, he spent a lot of time coming back to civilization and relied a lot on others, including his mother iirc
and also, most of all, his book now serves capitalists and libertarians narratives as some kind of self-help godlike argument/example. And believe me, if your "ecophilosophy" book serves the narratives of literal anti-ecologist, it's a bad ecophilosophy book.
If you want a rundown idea-wise, and even considering Thoreau as the "man in the woods" he wasn't, his "ecology" is deeply isolated and egoistical. In my country we call it gardening
It's still influential to the field in general. Just because some idiots today like it doesn't make it all bad. I like the book a lot. It doesn't really serve as a self-help or how-to manual in any form though.
The big problem is so-called green capitalism. I don't believe big business can solve any of our problems.
Whenever you hear someone talk about Walden like it's a return to nature reject civilization book you immediately know they never read the book.
who here /haibane renmei and texhnolyze/
That chart missing Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive. The whole Sprawl trilogy is essential.
The whole Sprawl trilogy sucks
when did you realize it's just one lonely /qa/poster brigading IQfy all by himself?
>anyone who thinks anime is consumed by mentally ill trannies and losers has to be from /qa/
Maybe you should seek help
I hope LFE is real
That PKD looks cool, added to wishlist
McLuhan is one of my favorites.
>post lain pill
>come back a few days later
>150 skitzo posts
What a moronic thread.