Philosophy

I’m new in this community. Anyone interested in engaging with these sorts of questions? If so, share your thoughts.

My initial inclination is that intrinsic value is an illusion.

How wrong am i if i say western philosophy strips man from nature and eastern philosophy encourage man to live with nature? Wrong or absolutely wrong or Absurd ?

with artistic training or brain stimulation we could look beneath the intrinsic nature of qualia to see the raw associations that make them up, just as a musician hears the individual components in what, to most fans, is a wall of sound. “It should be possible to experience parts of those underlying structures directly, just as we can learn to experience the individual overtones of a sound,”

The proposition, then, is that redness, pain, and the other qualities of experience are a blurred view of a dense thicket of relations. Red is red not because it just is, but because of a vast number of associations that we have learned or been born with.

cross-posted from: https://tilvids.com/videos/watch/52190b96-3443-483e-91ef-8b99edb3bd58

What would a largely deterministic society look and behave like? Would it be, as some imagine, a more merciful and just society, or as some others suppose, a veritable wasteland where lawless immorality, cruelty, and hopelessness reign supreme? In this video I hope to answer this contentious question and to bring some clarity to an otherwise esoteric matter.

Music: Adrift Among Infinite Stars - Scott Buckley

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/letstalkphilosophy/

Sources:

For this particular work I have taken much from the philosopher Spinoza, the psychologist Robert Sapolsky, and the Neuroscientist/philosopher Sam Harris. I have found their insights to be extremely helpful in clarifying my own thoughts on the matter and I encourage you to read or listen to their thoughts on Determinism and free-will.

Thought this would be interesting given the recent discussion on Robert Sapolsky. If you like this content the PeerTube channel can be followed directly from your Lemmy account at [email protected]

The Kantian Person/Thing Principle in Political Economy. An argument for workplace democracy

https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/KantianPrinciple-JEI.pdf

The paper presents a theory of workers' rights. It demonstrates that workers have an inalienable right to workplace democracy and to appropriate the fruits of their labor. Inalienable means the rights cannot be given up even with consent. It implies that all companies should be structured as worker coops and employer-employee contract should be abolished @philosophy

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/7032271

r/Futurology

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/809005

From The Psychology of Management of Labour Collectives: Guides to the Social Sciences, Chapter 1: The Methodological And Theoretical Foundations of the Psychology of Management of Labour Collectives, pg. 9 out of 386 of the PDF, by Aleksey Mikhailovich Stolyarenko:

Marx, Engels, and Lenin, who developed the science of society, showed that society is governed by objective laws; they discovered these laws and proved that management of the various spheres of society, directions of its activity, and social institutions is effective and progressive insofar as it is based on them. Marxism-Leninism has developed a scientific conception of society as an integral self-governing system. The term “system” is taken to mean an object whose properties are not reducible to a mere sum of the properties of its constituent parts or elements. Not a single property of a single element is manifested as the property of the system.2 The elements function and develop within the framework of the system, so that their properties are subordinated to those of the system as a whole. In the absence of interaction between elements, not a single property of any of them can manifest itself, and it is not manifested in pure form in interaction. System properties always have some traits that are different from the properties of the constituent elements, being a result of integral functioning of the system, a qualitatively specific result of its inner phenomena. The systems approach in science should be distinguished from the “atomistic” of functional approach, which studies system problems in isolation from the conditions and the causes from which they arise. The ‘‘atomistic” approach in the theory and practice of management is manifested in the view of management as a phenomenon independent of all others, as well as in isolated consideration of problems and phenomena that are systemic in nature, one that takes into account only individual cause-and-effect dependences (though they may be correct ones) unconnected with their entire ensemble at a systems level.

According to Lacan, language is a key component of human subjectivity, and symbolic systems shape our perceptions of ourselves and others.

Air quotes, also known as finger quotes indicate that a word or phrase is being used ironically, sarcastically, or in a way that is not meant to be taken literally. This gesture creates a gap between the signifier (the spoken word) and the signified (the intended meaning).

Language is a system of signs that does not correspond directly to reality but instead creates symbolic structures that shape our perception of reality.

The gap between the signifier and the signified is what allows for the creation of these symbolic structures, and it is this gap that air quotes highlight. The air quotes become a symbol of this gap.

This symbolic structure is reinforced by the fact that the gesture itself is not necessary for communication, the same end could be acheived communicating without air quotes.

Furthermore, Lacan argues that the subject is constituted by language and that the subject's identity is formed through linguistic structures. By using air quotes, the speaker is highlighting the constructed nature of language and identity. The gesture calls attention to the fact that language is not a transparent medium but instead shapes our perceptions of ourselves and others.

This was a quick idea I wrote down and reworded with gpt, does this make enough sense or am I just blabbering here?

I was wondering if it would be possible to help clear this section up:

However, the internal necessity perpetually to be, is inseparably connected with the necessity always to have been, and so the expression may stand as it is. “Gigni de nihilo nihil; in nihilum nil posse reverti,”30 are two propositions which the ancients never parted, and which people nowadays sometimes mistakenly disjoin, because they imagine that the propositions apply to objects as things in themselves, and that the former might be inimical to the dependence (even in respect of its substance also) of the world upon a supreme cause. The quote is from The Critique of Pure Reason, First Analogy, Principle of the Permanence of Substance.

I think they’re saying this:

• The idea of something being permanent means it has always been and always will be.
• You can’t seperate these two ideas: permanence requires both.
• People at the time of writing sometimes try to remove the “always has been” part as it conflicts with or removes the need for a creator (something which is permanent that created non-permanent things).
• These people applied the idea of permanence to things in themselves as if it were possible to perceive things in themselves, rather than their representations.

I suspect I could be wildly off here.

Like is it avoided or might you kill flies to prevent flystrike. Or is it ignored when you'll inevitably kill some small bugs/insects

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/6010002

The newest strip in my philosophy webcomic. To see the first one in this continuing tale go to https://noumenacomic.com/000

What do you think about this sketch?

For which parts of our life is it a metaphor?

What would different Ethical schools say about this?

• https://piped.video/watch?v=q-twcxsWHmk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-twcxsWHmk

The intent of this post is to encourage discussion and exchange of thoughts.

A question I'm trying to answer is when can values play a legitimate role in regarding something as misinformation?

I came across a review of The Misinformation Age which points out that the book doesn't offer a solution to this problem, and I'll be sharing a relevant excerpt here to facillitate a discussion, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the quote from the review or my question.

"In an endnote they clarify: ‘we understand “true beliefs” to be beliefs that generally successfully guide action, and more important, we understand “false beliefs” to be ones that generally fail to reliably guide action’ (p. 188). Their understanding of truth thus has a ‘strong dose of pragmatism’ and they further specify that it is a ‘broadly deflationary attitude in the spirit of what is sometimes called ‘disquotationalism’ (pp. 188–9).

"While I accept that doing what works is a good description of why scientists do and should pursue hypotheses, or why we sometimes treat hypotheses as if they were true for practical purposes, it’s not clear to me why we should equate this with ‘scientific truth’. Once a definition of truth is tied to notions of ‘success’ and ‘reliability’, ‘truth’ then inescapably becomes bound up with partial non-epistemic value judgements.

"The issue I see with O’Connor and Weatherall’s definition in the context of misinformation is that given reasonable value pluralism in democratic societies, there will oftentimes be competing claims to ‘scientific truth’ and it won’t be clear which (if any) should be labelled as ‘false beliefs’ or ‘misinformation’...

"I find it difficult to see how any theory that doesn’t give us the resources to distinguish between evaluative and non-evaluative claims can actually do the work O’Connor and Weatherall want in pushing back against propaganda. Moreover, adopting this kind of definition seems to risk encouraging people to paint too many things as ‘false’ beliefs, misinformation, and ‘alternative facts’, where disagreements are perhaps best understood as a product of legitimate value differences."

How do you identify certain thing as true?

Philippa Foot is most known for her invention of the Trolley Problem thought experiment in the 1960s. A lesser known variation of hers is as follows:

Suppose that a judge is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime. The rioters are threatening to take bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed from the riots only by framing some innocent person and having them executed.

These are the only two options: execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit, or let people riot in the streets knowing there will be loss of life. If you were the judge, what would you do?

I recently got interested about the Age of Enlightenment, and more specifically Voltaire - and would like to read some of his works to understand him better.

Can anyone suggest any "Essential Voltaire" that I can start with ? I know Voltaire is most known for his "Candide", but I want to take it slow.

I started a webcomic dealing with themes from philosophy. It's been going for a few weeks now.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but must be lived forwards.” - Soren Kierkegaard

Couple of days ago I saw a post about on atheist community about a quote saying atheist can't base their morals on anything.

I commented that if religion didn't accept some premises like god, they wouldn't either. Some said I am wrong and downvoted me. So I decided to post here about to what extent can I be skeptical about premises, to see where I am mistaken (or commenters).

Before that post, for a while I had an idea that even the analytical truth/necessary truth (whatever you name it) like "a is equal to a" are premises which can not be proven (since they are the basics of our logic, which will we be in use to prove claims) even though they seem us to be true by intuition. They just have to be accepted to be able to further think about other things.

So my question is since we can question the correctness of basics of our logic and cant find an answer, we can not justify or learn anything. Also, there lays the problem of do we really understand the same thing from the same concepts, and does language limit us?

If I am mistaken, which is highly probable, please correct me and don't judge. I am not much of a philosophy reader.

I would really appreciate it if you could share some resources (video, article, book, anything...) about limits of our understanding, logic, language and related topics.

Thanks in advance...