/lit/ - Literature

>>18771747
>who says they're going to be loners though? it's not just one person walking away from omelas, it's implied in the title there's more than one. maybe they end up building some society that doesn't exploit a suffering child.
if the scapegoating mechanism weren't necessary then what's the point of the story? it's just a society somehow under the false assumption that it is? what kind of message is that? and these aren't realistic options either, these societies don't exist. what you're proposing as the option here is just some pointless utopian fantasy

>because it's more like a thought experiment
i agree, tho that was also sort of my problem with it. it's sort of the trolley problem, as opposed to an "actual" short story, like The Lottery
>it could call on to the intrinsic vs superficial pleasures by setting your own standards of what successful, fulfilling living means instead of what society gives to you
i honestly dont know what this means but im going to take a guess. the problem about pleasure here is that Walking Away is fundamentally life-denying, and basically a denial of worldly pleasure (remember killing the kid makes everyone in society happy in this though experiment) just like the scholastic monks (again Rabelais et al already BTFOd this mindset half a millenium ago) which is very ironic because they obviously don't think that. they're just idiots (imo) but this is not just my take on a thought experiment, its a criticism of the story because i doubt Ursula really intended that

but anyway, if you like Ursula, i thought this video was charming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M73cyc9lhhI at the very least fun to watch while eating something. its a unique interview because the interviewer is just a mom that just likes reading a lot, and is really innocently curious about what it's like to be a female artist

>>18770799
Shirley Jackson's The Lottery is a better short story on scapegoating imo. It seems that Omelas was trying to illuminate this phenomenon, but the point is all fuddled. She turns it into the trolley problem and what am I even supposed to feel about the people that walk away? They're kind of idiots

>>18694316
proto-SJW ≠ SJW. I neglected the "proto" once or twice, but this is what I meant (except for the first post, that was intentionally kinda bait-y).

>>18694243
Yes, and where does it contradict what I said? I never said that (proto-)SJW was the sole or even main descriptor of Ibsen, only that it's an important one.
My main claim is that today's SJW came from people like him. Please reread hat I wrote.
(and this DOES NOT mean that they use the same means or come to the same conclusion! Your average discord anarchist would be completely unrecognisable to Makhno, but THERE IS a continuous thread connecting the two.)
He HAD an "agenda" in the sense that he believed what he was saying. He really cared about those issues, it wasn't just bait. Modern day SJW are insanely more reductive than him, but they care loosely about similar problems (of course: Ibsen had a broader scope). If he wrote about women's struggles, it wasn't because he was trying to bait anyone, but because he sincerely thought that something had to change. He was a great writer, so he knew he couldn't give straightforward answers (eg girl bosses => less sexism, black marvel superhero => less racism, or any other shit like that), but you cannot deny that he thought that the society of his day treated women poorly and that it was not right. An Enemy of the People is not some abstract "trolley problem"-like moral dilemma for the characters to philosophise about, but a very pointy political and societal criticism (with, undeniably, a deeper meaning, but that does not cancel the criticism). It was not "bait" by any means.
Yeah, he didn't have the victimhood complex, the constant whining or anything, but this is an extremely modern phenomenon, and if you care about details like those you end up missing the big historical picture on SJWs. Ibsen lived in the 19th century, of course he does not fit the SJW description well, this should be a given.
I am no academic on Ibsen, and I may well be wrong about my historical analysis, but saying that all his politic-societal commentary was pure bait to sell his philosophy is insane beyond belief.

>>18653818
hi OP

im exactly like u and i dont consider myself intellectual at all, but god, i just want to learn more about the world and history and philosophy. my school did nothing to nurture any of this, so its been entirely self taught with no guidance for me. im not that smart either

i had no idea where to even begin so heres what i did:

i think start by asking yourself if you have a particular interest in some area. i think its best if you start off with interest areas you can be passionate learning about because that is what youd want to talk about.

*history: ancient history? if so, what region/time? (rome/greece/the orient/the middle east/africa) medieval history? modern history? western or eastern? once you select a time period, you can optionally research what the dominant art style/period was at the time to get a feel for the cultural mood of the time. my personal all time favourite is a super famous renaissance period work - the school of athens - something about it makes me emotional and idk why

*politics & justice: or are you more interested in politics and justice than history? western political theory or eastern? if western then you have to start off with the OGs - particularly aristotle. then work ur way down to modernity. if you have a political view point of your own, test it against these philosophers and see how it holds up

*ethics and morality: how would you solve the trolley problem? is man innately good? what makes a man good? what is the nature of man? can there be a universal moral standard? etc. look for consequentialist, deontologist and virtue ethic authors/debates.

*metaphysics: maybe the hardest one, i still struggle with, it feels so abstract to me. i wouldnt recommend running in and trying to read the likes of hegel. but there are more digestible forms of metaphysics works out there im sure.

once u found your interest, it may seem overwhelming to try to learn on ur own, but heres what i did:

- wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy - a handy overview/starting point
- simply googling "philosophers of x" or "history of x"
- youtube: school of life helped me a lot to give me that interest to want to learn more about a particular idea and research on my own. dont be afraid to use youtube to its max
- project gutenberg: online version of all important works through history until very recent, entirely for free
- stanford philosophy site - accessible and more digestible summary of a particular strand of philosophy

ALSO: 10/10 would recommend subscribing to a news outlet (economist is good) or if its too expensive, think tank magazines (Brookings, American Enterprise Institute etc), foreign policy magazine (to bypass a paywall, post link into outline.com). they send u multiple article links to world and country news every single day. if u get into a habit of eating breakfast while reading the news youll put yourself in such a good position to be knowledgeable and form your own opinions.

>>18598448
>There are no great female philosophers
Up until 20th century? No, for the same reason there weren't that many philosophers among slaves.

After that? Hannah Arendt, Philippa Foot (the trolley problem), G.E.M. Anscombe, Ruth Millikan (teleosemantics), Patricia Churchland (neurophilosohy), Ruth Barcan Marcus (the Barcan formula), Penelope Maddy, etc.

And if you'll say that they aren't that "great", I'll retort with a quote from Nietzsche "It is the voice of prejudice that speaks thus, and argues in this way to depreciate the importance of the modern mind. <...> in the case of the most insignificant invention now made, a greater intellect, discipline, and scientific imagination are required than formerly existed throughout long ages." (Dawn, #36)
The modern philosophy has raised its bar and became significantly more autistic for you to appreciate.

>mathematicians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grete_Hermann

>>18559816
>>18559880
You seem unable to understand that fantasy-like questions do not oblige anyone to a serious answer. Fantasy-like scenarios are not taken seriously by someone who has enough self-control not to meddle where he shouldn't. Your question is as dumb as the trolley problem. The only answer I can give you is that I refuse to choose blindly, period. Choosing only on the basis of a fictitious number is the same as choosing blindly, so I refuse to. Deal with it.

>>18542371
The trolley problem.

>>18416237
>leftist trolley problem meme is a worse representation of capitalism than the fascist trolley problem meme
ironic

Does anyone else imagine the trolley going unbearably slow? Like there has to be enough time for you to grasp the entire situation and think through both sides as a time constraint is never included in the problem. I always imagined it was going slow enough that when it ran over one person it wouldn't be instant, but that it would slowly crush their arm before getting to their body and slowly cutting that into three pieces while the guy screams in absolute agony. The five-person one is sort of like a Saw trap where you can see and hear the people next to you slowly getting crushed by the trolley that's going to crush you. In this way the full weight of the decision is felt by everyone involved.

Trolley problem.

I’m making a manga that satirizes common philosophical stories, for example these could be the myth of Sisyphus, the republic by plato, that bisexual 3-some book that Simone de Beauvoir wrote. Or it could be a simple as the trolley problem.

>>18386695
>God is omnipotent
Ok
>if it is impossible to secure a great good without permitting an evil, God will not desire to eliminate that evil
At the first step its already wrong. if God is all powerful, nothing is impossible, even if we as humans can't think of a solution.
>free will in created beings is a great good
Ok
>it is impossible to secure
This is just a pointless elaboration of p2.
The rest are just are kind of basic arguments, operating on the faulty premise.
So no, this does not answer the problem of evil, because it assumes we have knowledge of what evil is and assumes God is not infinite. Take for instance, the murder of 1000 sinners to save humanity. This is just a blown up trolley problem, but God has done it, or the Bible says so.
The problem with the evil argument is humans trying to define what evil is, which is what the warning of the first sin was.
While I agree by faith "evil" is a byproduct of free will, this argument does not prove it

>>18361856
>“Sir, your question belies some degree of prejudice – the trolley isn’t the problem; the trolley has the problem.”
>“How–”
>“Protecting the innocent is what we are all about, and inanimate objects are the most innocent beings of all. Are we going to be midwives to this misCARRIAGE of justice, or are we going to help?”
>“Winchester, what IS the problem, then?"

>Winchester looked up, out through the window, up into space, up past planets, up past clouds, and storms, and up further. He looked farther and farther, and up farther, and up farther, and looked up farther, and farther, and farther, and looked up farther, farther still, and still farther.
>“Justice, my dear,” he said. “And its realization.”

>Now, Winchester can’t see this, due to the farness of his sight, but down below (out the window), there is a riot over bread – people are killing and being killed, and so forth, as if it were the twentieth century. And in the foreground, you’ll notice, there is actually a subtle joke, which is a jab at the social norms of the time. There is a soup kitchen, and it is in disrepair, and on its facade is a torn up poster, which reads (still legibly, so that you can see it) “The American way is the best way, all hail the Anglosphere and so forth! Don’t look up the inauguration speech of P. H. Burnett, first governor of California!” This is ironic because it is clear from the violence below that this society is FAR from the best one – in fact, it's not good at all. And this cigar-man speaks of justice – it's to laugh.

>Anyway, Winchester had in mind a problem of the following sort: people were being KILLED out there. And if they were to stop being killed, by the diversion of funds, then this would mean that the funds could have been diverted earlier – and so why hadn't they?

>“What is Justice, Glaucon?”
>“People are being killed out there, Boss! And I think a diversion of funds can save them!”
>“I think I've had enough of your little diversion.”

>Click. Winchester was on his own. He had to take matters into his own hands. He had to take it up with the conductor.

Hey, /lit/, what do you think of the introduction to my new novel? No chuds, please.
---

>Dr. Winchester, the thought police agent responsible for the snuflorp fields and the adjacent banana forests, sat in an office from the early twentieth century. He silently smoked a cigar, the smoke rising to the ceiling. He had his feet on his mahogany desk while leaning back in his chair. The desk in question was stacked with countless folders all filled to the brim with papers. Dr. Winchester himself wore a well-kempt tweed jacket, a blue undershirt, and possessed impeccable dark hair, which was at a sublime dialectical synthesis between the extremes of baldness and length, which is to say, medium. In terms of care, his hair was just unkempt enough to seem like he didn’t care, without implying that he really didn’t care. A letter materialized out of the air and landed on the desk. Winchester picked it up, opening it with little fanfare. He took the cigar out of his mouth, jammed it into an ashtray, and began to read. Then he reread, and once again, read it, for a total of three reads. Imagine that. Upon finishing, he placed the paper back on the desk, stood up, and opened a glass case containing a red telephone. When he picked it up he said:

>“Boss, we’ve got a problem.”
>“What kind of problem?”
>“A trolley problem.”

>Dr. Winchester sat back. Trolleys. He imagined fountains. He imagined lakes. He flicked lint from his pocket. It was building up, again. The sense of water. Always building, building–every dam he built–building, building. He stood, impeccable, impeccably regaining himself. He thought of his penis. (Small, a duckling, a frog eating a duckling, Big Ben, storms, a man with a nightcap smiling, water, Winchester, office).

>“What kind of trolley?” he asked.
>“The kind from San Fransisco, from the twentieth century," he said to the Boss.
>“Which?” the Boss asked.
>“Which what?”
>“Which is from the twentieth century? San Fransisco, or the trolley?"
>“Or the problem,” Winchester added helpfully, taking up the unlit cigar again and rolling his tongue around the circumference.
>“Oh, so it's the problem that's from the twentieth century, then,” said the Boss. "Damn, it's bound to involve large men, then –"
>“No,” said Winchester.
>“It is the trolley that is from the twentieth century, and it would not look out of place in San Fransisco of the same time. I only meant to intimate to you that you missed one of the options.”
>“Well, what's the race of the victim?” the Boss asked. “That might matter – trolley want a cracker…”

>>18274732
>>18274996
cmon now. using hitler or nazis in an argument is a sign that your losing
no fucking shit theres exceptions where stealing can be morally justified but ‘should i steal from barnes and nobles’ guy is not asking that question at all. this is like a highschool debate club where the devils advocate keeps bringing up ‘what if its baby hitler tho!’ or ‘what if your lying about hiding jews’ its not constructive or a catch 22 its at the edge of all edge cases and while its literally true it doesnt break my argument in 99.9% of cases.
its like trying to break the trolley problem by putting 99 innocents on one side and a serial killer on the other and saying ‘you’d HAVE to pull the lever then huh ‘,:^) ’

>>18120268
I disagree with your first posts in this thread but concede you have a point here. The trolley problem is a stupid dilemma and you should aim to save everyone.

>>18111120
>what's the point of a trolley problem if trolleys don't exist
>questioning the entire concept of thought experiments because you don't like the answer I gave to OP's hypothetical
Deranged.

>>17999218
The Continental-Analytical split is akin to the Left-Right split. A false dichotomy that does not touch on its basis, where the basis is the problem. Continental schizos' power calculus is as soulless and bugmanite as the Analytical time travelling brains in the vat on the trolley tracks drivel, except worded in a literally schizoid logorrhea.

Reject modernity. Embrace Tradition.

>>17994685
All of the above. In streets, on trains, at bars, even on a trolley 30 minutes outside of the actual city. American cities have a real fucking problem with quality control people-wise. They make living in any real American city almost unbearable unless you’re rich enough to insulate yourself or just a workaholic who never leaves the office. My friend had all of his fucking teeth stomped out by a gang of urban youths while walking home from work and he still talks about how he loves the edginess and hustle and bustle of the city. He works all the time and when he’s not working, he’s getting his teeth knocked out. How wonderful. Only upside for him is that he has a hot Asian girlfriend who didn’t leave once he started eating from a straw.

>go to top 10 USNWR uni
>expect expansive offering of philosophy courses devoted to great thinkers like nietzsche, cioran and land
>almost every philosophy class is unironic critical theory or trolley problem tier ethics

was peterson right bros?

>There is a denial, naivety and fear of the horrors we can cause, it’s a way to cope with the vastness of our responsibility and how even the most simple choices can have fatal consequences, if not for us then for other people still. It’s closer to a mystical experience since it’s the very opposite of the way we are programmed, it can be counterproductive and can cause severe depression since it can put too much burden on us. I will preface it with the fact that most people assume they are good-hearted and well meaning because they aren’t criminals and even then they can claim it’s because they had no other options, but are they really right to claim these things? For an example, even when you’re buying food it can have devastating effects on more than one side, to the brand which you didn’t chose and even yourself if the food is unhealthy. It boils down to either supporting the local farmers or the foreign slave labor if you live in a western country. If you don’t support your local farmers you will become dependent on foreign slave labor that will increase it power and in the end will enslave you as you will have no choice. If you don’t buy the foreign slave labor products they will have to starve to death the next season from lack of demand or although very unlikely, they might fight their oppressors which can be positive if done right. It’s why dictatorships like China and Russia survive and even have maniacal thoughts of conquering the world, they know how dependent the West is on them and that the average citizen is not aware of the consequences of their actions. But we shouldn’t also not neglect the responsibility for our health, if we chose to buy inferior products we don’t just risk our general idea of health but also that of our cognition by denying vital nutrients to our brain, we compromise our high-order faculty and thus have higher risk of making worse both short and long term choices, we can also become both a liability to ourselves but also to that our family, country, and even the world itself, and it’s all intentional. We are just beginning to realize how important our decisions are and how even the most meaningless ones can have immense impact on us, the people around us or the whole world. As we begin to understand more about our bodies we will begin to atomize these choices even more, to the point where detailed energy expenditure planning will be an extremely important part of our lives, either for proper functioning or for dictatorship, something we will have to carefully choose. This is why we need to become hyper-intellectuals, either we begin to fight against the horrors caused by anti-intellectualism or we will become victims of it too.

It's easier to read here:
https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/03/19/the-trolley-problem-in-our-daily-choices-and-the-horrors-of-anti-intellectualism/

>There is a denial, naivety and fear of the horrors we can cause, it’s a way to cope with the vastness of our responsibility and how even the most simple choices can have fatal consequences, if not for us then for other people still. It’s closer to a mystical experience since it’s the very opposite of the way we are programmed, it can be counterproductive and can cause severe depression since it can put too much burden on us. I will preface it with the fact that most people assume they are good-hearted and well meaning because they aren’t criminals and even then they can claim it’s because they had no other options, but are they really right to claim these things? For an example, even when you’re buying food it can have devastating effects on more than one side, to the brand which you didn’t chose and even yourself if the food is unhealthy. It boils down to either supporting the local farmers or the foreign slave labor if you live in a western country. If you don’t support your local farmers you will become dependent on foreign slave labor that will increase it power and in the end will enslave you as you will have no choice. If you don’t buy the foreign slave labor products they will have to starve to death the next season from lack of demand or although very unlikely, they might fight their oppressors which can be positive if done right. It’s why dictatorships like China and Russia survive and even have maniacal thoughts of conquering the world, they know how dependent the West is on them and that the average citizen is not aware of the consequences of their actions. But we shouldn’t also not neglect the responsibility for our health, if we chose to buy inferior products we don’t just risk our general idea of health but also that of our cognition by denying vital nutrients to our brain, we compromise our high-order faculty and thus have higher risk of making worse both short and long term choices, we can also become both a liability to ourselves but also to that our family, country, and even the world itself, and it’s all intentional. We are just beginning to realize how important our decisions are and how even the most meaningless ones can have immense impact on us, the people around us or the whole world. As we begin to understand more about our bodies we will begin to atomize these choices even more, to the point where detailed energy expenditure planning will be an extremely important part of our lives, either for proper functioning or for dictatorship, something we will have to carefully choose. This is why we need to become hyper-intellectuals, either we begin to fight against the horrors caused by anti-intellectualism or we will become victims of it too.


Easier to read here:https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/03/19/the-trolley-problem-in-our-daily-choices-and-the-horrors-of-anti-intellectualism/

The trolley problem

>>17861679
The first step isn't a huge problem, it's the trick of saying, "next, same scenario, except it's a fat boy and you can push him to stop the trolley", to which a lot more people will switch to saying no, at which point the teacher will point out the supposed hypocrisy of being fine with pusing a lever but not being fine with pusing someone directly.