/lit/ - Literature

Material sophistication is one thing.
Human progress is another.
Beware of the technocrats.

where do i start with trotskyism?

We should all be stoked about RC toys in space while a significant portion of the global population is under constant social and political duress, not to mention basic lack of healthcare and nutriment

>>7169232
Putting RC toys in space satisfies one's will to power, helping dirty hobos does not.

>>7169226
turn empiricism into phenomenology+contemplation, instead of bastardizing it through rationalism

>>7169234

satisfying one's 'will to power' is just one way to make up for some other kind of lack

It's embarrassing you actually believe what you're saying

>>7169232
Those problems could be solved if the philosophy involved were based on formal instead of informal logic.

>>7169226
Depends on who and what you mean. Do you mean British Empiricism, primarily Locke and Hume?

They're fabulous and worth reading. Hume is massively underrated

>>7169232
Only in third world countries. The people in those countries should be exterminated so we can take their resources easier.

>>7169240
>fabulous
I bet you have a lisp and HIV.

>>7169239

social change doesn't require any kind of formal logic

revolutionary activity isn't predicated exclusively on traditional thinking about language and its use

>>7169241

>we

what if you were one of 'them', would you feel the same way?

>>7169242
>DAE words r gay LMAO!!1!

>>7169241

>muh first world
>muh local development enables me to assert that I've got it good and everyone else should suck it

off thysen

>>7169237
dat picture
ma nigga

>>7169243
but it would be difficult without any common principle which the entire population agrees upon

>>7169226
There is such a thing as scientific progress or the worthwhile accumulation of observable natural knowledge. But conflating that with human progress is the real myth.

>>7169226
Empiricism and the scientific method serve the same purpose and accomplish the same effect of bacteria forming slime colonies on bread.

We "discover" things and utilize them to fuck more, and pump out babies faster, safer and in greater quantities.

While a necessary approach embedded in our physical bodies as a result of evolution in order to continue our species, It cannot reveal true knowledge,, only necessity.

>>7169258

hence discourse

>>7169232
We can afford both, you know.

>>7169275

Good luck turning the ancient mills of capital and self interest in the favor of people who just need to, you know, survive.

>>7169245
I wouldn't want to hold back progress.
>>7169250
Might = right

>>7169281

Prove it.

Define what might is, what right is, and how they are identical

only rhyme if you have to

>>7169282
The point is there is no such thing as 'right', the only way to do anything is through power, without power you can accomplish nothing. Might is the ability to force others to your will. So might makes 'right' because right is only defined by the powerful. Read Nietzsche, leftist slave.

>>7169283

puerile kids shouldn't be allowed unannotated books

I'll wait for a logical demonstration that might = right without a passing reference to another work

>>7169276
You don't need a revolution, or to steal the means of production, or to give away all your stuff to become an ascetic.

Just give 10% to (reliable) charities and convince your friends to do the same. If everyone in the world does this, we will cure all curable diseases, eliminate all hunger and poverty and still have money left over to send multiple spaceships to Mars in the first year.

>>7169238
Helping other people is a way to subjugate them, you cuck.

>>7169289

Easily the stupidest thing I've read on /lit/ all year, if not ever

>if we give a tithe of our wages given to us by owners of capital to charities the world'll be just fine

incredibly embarrassing

>>7169232
fuck off moralfag

>>7169292
Yes. Haven't you heard about the categorical imperative?

>>7169291

It is and always will be when the terms of the relations between people are dictated by capital

>>7169296

Haven't you heard about social forces of motion and how little they have to do with an individual's moral imperatives

>>7169300
>I can't do anything cuz capitalism!

>>7169301
>allowing people to obtain exponentially increasing power

cuck

>>7169291
What if I told you that 'helping' has manifold implications?

>>7169301
The question isn't "who's going to let me" but "who's going to stop me".

>>7169288
>if you disagree with my interpretation you're wrong
Feeble child.

>>7169311

I don't care about interpretation

I'm waiting for a positive assertion to be demonstrated logically

>>7169232
This guy is actually right you know

Wooo put a toy car on another planet, meanwhile people in third world countries don't have reliable access to clean WATER. When I was in school for America I knew people who would throw out their extra large soft drinks onto the ground if it tasted too "watery"

Once someone invents an RC car that can feed the world's poor, provide fresh clean water, and adequate plumbing to the rest of the world then I will be impressed.

>>7169319
give me one reason why I should give a single fuck about poorfags on the other side of the planet living their poorfag lives like they've done for millennia

>>7169226
It just werks

>>7169319
>people in third world countries don't have reliable access to clean WATER
Who gives a shit tho.

>>7169322
>>7169320

Straight to the fucking guillotine

>>7169320
Because under different circumstances you could have been that poor person on the other side of the planet

>>7169319
So what are you doing to help? Why are you wasting time on 4chan instead?

>>7169232
>healthcare
modern medicine relies on an empiricist paradigm

>>7169326

>you have a point but you're not doing anything to help

how does this help the conversation

>>7169326
I work at a non-profit that organises functions to generate funds to be used to help feed and clothe illegal migrants

>>7169324
not really
there is no possibility for me to have been anything other than what I am

Anarchic Technocracy when?

>>7169237
why does that pic look so familiar

>>7169336
How does technocracy differ at all, in practice, than oligarchy?

Save the me idealist drivel, I want to know what kind of functions would be placed to prevent power from congregating among a select few in this supposed "meritocracy". And so help you god if you make some kind of reference to a "Philosopher King"

>>7169333

you're avoiding the analogy

go away

>>7169331
Because he is saying doing anything else is not worthwhile. So instead of just mouthing off he could back it up with action.

>>7169332
So you're helping people that move, instead of tackling the actual source of the problem. Good job.

>>7169344
Addressing the problem would cause a large magnet to erupt from Syria and zap all the migrants back there. They are here and whether you like it or not they must be fed and clothed. It is less safe in the long run for us to not feed and clothe these people, if you are going to completely disregard the ethical obligation you have to help them.

>>7169315
>positivism
GTFO

>>7169305
If anyone else is better off for it, then why not?
Who cares about equity when you have wealth?

>>7169343
what analogy
it's just the stupid thing where dumb leftists pretend like your birth is a random event rather than fate

>>7169339
In an oligarchy, the decisions are made by wealthy individuals who are prone to making biased decisions based on their own agendas, beliefs or ideology which may not be optimal for achieving ideal conditions for the entire population

In an "anarchic technocracy," policy or decision making is treated like a real science. First, every citizen should have to agree to some fundamental principles and ideal conditions, then develop an algorithm for determining the best political/economical decisions to achieve such conditions

>>7169362

No, it isn't. It's an incredibly basic analogy to demonstrate a basic contradiction to a numbskull who's into changing the subject

>>7169356

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

I'm not a positivist. I'm skeptical.

>>7169365


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7169373

>>7169373
Nah. You're an Analytic asshole.

>>7169349
>ethical obligation
The only ethical obligation that exists is "do what thou wilt" tbh.

>>7169230
The Foundations of Leninism.

>>7169379
eat my asshole, oligarch scum

>>7169349
>ethical obligation

>>7169365
>First, every citizen should have to agree to some fundamental principles and ideal conditions, then develop an algorithm for determining the best political/economical decisions to achieve such conditions
So it's basically a thought exercise in futility?

>>7169391
why would you think that

>>7169370
There is no contradiction, unless you mean the "contradiction" where I want different for vastly different people.

>>7169395
Okay, my fundamental principle is "Sharia should be the supreme law of the land". Develop an algorithm for determining the best political/economical decisions under that premise.

>>7169412
see: The Quran

What's the problem here

>>7169232
the world will always have problems, think of where we would be without the advances of the space race, exploration is a fundamental human activity, fuck hobos, we can help poor people and third worlders whenever we want, but every day we choose for them to die so we can drink coke and drive SUVs big deal

>>7169424
Not all people agree to that principle.

>>7169412
>>7169424
The fundamental principles could be anything, even "all jews must be gassed"

It all depends on what the set of people agrees upon. If they all want to die efficiently, they could make a system that would satisfy this ideal

>>7169430
That's the point, the principle would only apply to those who do.

>>7169446
So there is like a thousand different societies with different principles? Like, you could call them "countries" or something.

>>7169451
>So there is like a thousand different societies with different principles?
pretty much
>Like, you could call them "countries" or something.
Depends on how you define "country"

>>7169446
You've avoided the point of the first anon's post, man. How do you go about 'developing algorithms for best determining political and economic decisions?' What would such a thing even look like? I could see it if the fundamental principle was something quantitative in nature---e.g. "we want a system where we generate the most wealth"---but something qualitative like "Self-autonomy is the most sacred thing" or "the excellence of the society is the primary goal?" Show us.

>>7169461
Right, I see your point. the principles should be well defined in some formal language, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense

>>7169409

>why should I care about people starving in another country?
>would you care if you were one of those people?
>ITS FATE ITS NOT RANDOM

Fuck off.

>>7169480
>would you care if you were one of those people
no I would not because if I were one of those people I wouldn't the "you" you're referring to

>>7169237
nice pic brah
truly fine taste

it's empirical

>>7169471
>>7169461

Easily done though. We already have the Human Development Index and a variety of happiness surveys that analyze how well off the average person is. It would seem rather simple to move from a capitalist society to a utopian one by redirecting most marginally new capital to those in the greatest need if we so desired. We don't though (because the rich are despicable) and so society will become worse and worse off until there's a revolution or some form of social collapse. I mean, look at the partisanship and disfunction in America pretty much tracking the rise in inequality. Healthcare, education, jobs, access to housing (rents are exploding), access to good food (obesity epidemic), public roads (collapsing). Every public good that exists is getting shittier because there isn't the collective will to make the country a nice place for most people, or the rich are corrupting the system enough to prevent that will from being known.

We COULD fix things if we desired, but the only ticket out of a shitty life is to go into computer programming and design the automation that will put most people out of a job. So no one studies ethical philosophy because there's no money in it, which of course you absolutely must have because there's no social safety net because of a failure of an ethical discourse to develop. Which might exist if we had more time for the humanities.

Oh, and all our great technological innovations are exploding the birthrate worldwide and leading to consumer driven waste and climate change that will make the world uninhabitable in my children's life time.

What a fucking time to be alive.

>>7169526
>We already have the Human Development Index and a variety of happiness surveys that analyze how well off the average person is.
Holy shit, that person might actually be serious. Try at least reading something about ethics.

>>7169526
>We already have the Human Development Index and a variety of happiness surveys that analyze how well off the average person is.

But all of these 'algorithms' still come much, much later in the decision making than the anon suggested. Is massive wealth distribution just? Ought we to end capitalism? Is equality even the goal? And if so, what are the ethical and unethical means for achieving this goal? etc. All of these are political phil. questions, not a hard science one.

Now, science comes into play once we've established our answers to these kinds of questions, as I've said before, but, again, it's not something you can base your values 'on.'

>>7169471
Example?

>>7169545

It's not a matter of placing values "on" something as if it were the objective truth (if there is such a thing). You HAVE to pick a system for people to live under, there isn't a choice not to. Either you believe the capitalist system is better than my proposal or you don't or you have a better alternative. Abstaining from making a decision is a decision which is to remain with the status quo.

>>7169545
I might give an example layer

I'm on mobile

>>7169568
I understand that. I'm just trying to get at what exactly "policy or decision making is treated like a real science" means. It appears to be something more substantive than using 'science' or empirical data to, for example, determine if putting more money into rehabilitation facilities and the like lowers drug addiction rates, which is something that's already done everywhere. Basically, what difference in political/economic decision-making is that anon suggesting we ought to use 'science' for that societies aren't doing already.

>>7169237
>>7169255
>>7169338
>>7169497
ITT: BLUEPILLEDS

kink is the SJW of porn. They have an aggressive campaign on social media and do the little interviews of the whores, just to say ''it is safe and liberating'' to make this genre accepted by other SJW and non-SJW.

>>7169568
>You HAVE to pick a system for people to live under
That's not how it works IRL.

>>7169590
Fuck off with your memes

>>7169590

How long does it take someone to start noticing how dumb they seem

>>7169591

shh
the ideology is cute

>>7169240
>Hume is massively underrated
What? No he's not!

>>7169637
indeed, the sophists are underrated

hume is at best an emasculated sophists because he was scared of the rationalists spooking him of solipsism

reminder that the libertarians and liberals are anti freedom of speech

>>7169683
>

A whole lot better than rationalism. Rationalism, by its very nature, always suffers from simplification, and can never possess the rich texture of empiricism. The only thing an empiricist has to do in return is assume he doesn't know everything and that he's occasionally wrong. In fact, the empiricist welcomes flaws, mistakes and errors, because he sees them as the only way to actually learn something. Every big leap in knowledge wasn't made when people realized how right they were, it was made when people realized how completely wrong they were.

Compare that to rationalism, which can never possess any of this nuance or any of this flexibility. It's an obsession with models of reality, and rationalists seem to have collectively forgotten that models of reality are by their very nature simplifications of that same reality. This leads to a situation where a rationalist can effectively never admit he doesn't know something and that he could ever be wrong on anything, which is the biggest weakness of rationalism.

Rationalism becomes weaker when errors occur. Empiricism becomes stronger when errors occur. This is why empiricism always has been, and always will be superior to rationalism

>>7169281
>right exists
He he.

>>7169226
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend

>>7169226
hume is a legend. and you should read sextus empiricus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_LX-m74uw

>>7169319
The major reasons that some people don't have access to clean water are man-made reasons, of which Political Instability, Corruption, Civil War, are only a few.

Scientists and astronomers can't solve instability in other countries, only politicians and their use of armed forces (think UN peacekeepers) can.

>>7169226
A truth process
Not the only truth process
Dangerous when mixed with cultural myths like progress and production

>>7169822
What's the orher truth process fam

>>7169826
Rationalism.

>>7169319
You dont get it. Poor or rich we all gonna die, but our knowledge and discoveries will live forever. In the future, when we discover immortality, those who advanced the knowledged will be resurrected, along with those who wrote good books.

if you want to help non-whites you should kill yourselves or take the redpill and see how brainwashed you truly are by your marxist professors

>>7169868
>give up your brainwashed ways for slightly different brainwashed ways

>>7169869
the redpill is non-ideological and hence objective. it's based in objective science, i.e. undistorted FACTS

>>7169875
doesn't sound convincing when someone else has already said that verbatim

enjoy your brainwashing

>>7169875
>>7169849

limitless ideology

>>7169839
>In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"[1] or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth

Lol what fucking joke.

Tell me when rationalism invents penicillin.

"rationalism" is the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. It is sheer delusion.
"hurr I know how the universe works because I have this idea and it just makes sense to me"

It's like homeopathy applied to the entire world.

>>7169901
all leftists are deluded. they're mentally ill

>>7169839
>Rationalism.
cannot even prove that rationalism leads to truth

top pleb

>>7169817
>The major reasons that some people don't have access to clean water are man-made reasons, of which Political Instability, Corruption, Civil War, are only a few.
yes, the rationalist-liberals created billions of humans without even thinking

>>7169963
Truth does not exist.

>>7169914

Mental health is a social construct

>>7169590
I like the interviews, seeing the actor in a real setting and discussion really lends to their attractiveness for me

>>7169232
If you would only allow progress once you've turned the last gyspy into a human we'd still live in mudhuts.

>>7170083
By the same token, if process was only for the hands of the elite we'd still live in mudhuts.

>>7170083

>progress

pure ideology

>>7170097
Sniff.

>>7170093
Sure, but it always starts out with some elite before it becomes common place. For example, computers used to be as big as a house and costs millions of dollars, now they fit in our pockets.

>>7170097
I'm aware of that. I'm an unrepentant neophile modernist though.

>>7169964
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but people in South Sudan and Yemen are under threat from famine precisely because of the Civil Wars that have recently occurred, or are still ongoing, in those two countries.

Instability impedes economic progress.

>>7169232
>stoked
That's not the point. The point is that the ability to put an RC toy into space means the underlying assumptions that went into the entire process are in some significant ways reflective of reality, regardless of "personal truth"/whatever postmodern objection you have. If they weren't, the RC toy would have gone somewhere else instead of where we wanted it to.

>>7170148
>Instability impedes economic progress.
and spreading legs generates instability

>>7169972
it's like you didn't even read the first rationalist

>>7169526
>Every public good that exists is getting shittier because there isn't the collective will to make the country a nice place for most people, or the rich are corrupting the system enough to prevent that will from being known
i.e.
>the reason government programs are shit is because the fat cats make them shit on purpose! let's make more programs!

le statist face

>>7169232
How is this relevant to this thread?

>>7169226
Empiricism has hard time giving an account of itself.

That's all.

>>7170995
I'll bet you thought that was really witty

>>7169283
Jesus you have the most pleb-tier understanding of Nietzsche. Pretty sure you are troll though.

>>7169914
Leftists in general aren't rationalist. Its the libertarians whose dick you probably suck that are the ones who succumb to this idiotic belief.

>>7169237
>all these people recognizing the picture
not surprised /lit/ is full of fucking degenerates like me :^)

>>7169237
>that picture

you subtle bastard you

>>7170157

>the ability to put an RC toy into space means the underlying assumptions that went into the entire process are in some significant ways reflective of reality

bullshit

about to finish my physics degree. still not sure how i feel about it tbh fam so ill just drink until then

>>7169237
whipped ass > hogtied > everything butt > device bondage > fucking machines > wired pussy > electro sluts > ultimate surrender >>>> the upper floor > public disgrace > kink university >> anything else

>>7172465
your kink a shit

You can shitpost here thanks to it so...

>>7172465
ultimate surrender and public disgrace are superior to all other forms of internet perversion

this is an objective truth

>commercial factory porn with naked actors pretending to moan

no taste

>>7172465
>whipped ass
whipped pussy