this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
25 points (100.0% liked)

neurodiverse

1741 readers
32 users here now

What is Neurodivergence?

It's ADHD, Autism, OCD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, bi-polar, aspd, etc etc etc etc

“neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior”

So, it’s very broad, if you feel like it describes you then it does as far as we're concerned


Rules

1.) ableist language=post or comment will probably get removed (enforced case by case, some comments will be removed and restored due to complex situations). repeated use of ableist language=banned from comm and possibly site depending on severity. properly tagged posts with CW can use them for the purposes of discussing them

2.) always assume good faith when dealing with a fellow nd comrade especially due to lack of social awareness being a common symptom of neurodivergence

2.5) right to disengage is rigidly enforced. violations will get you purged from the comm. see rule 3 for explanation on appeals

3.) no talking over nd comrades about things you haven't personally experienced as a neurotypical chapo, you will be purged. If you're ND it is absolutely fine to give your own perspective if it conflicts with another's, but do so with empathy and the intention to learn about each other, not prove who's experience is valid. Appeal process is like appealing in user union but you dm the nd comrade you talked over with your appeal (so make it a good one) and then dm the mods with screenshot proof that you resolved it. fake screenies will get you banned from the site, we will confirm with the comrade you dm'd.

3.5) everyone has their own lived experiences, and to invalidate them is to post cringe. comments will be removed on a case by case basis depending on determined level of awareness and faith

4.) Interest Policing will not be tolerated in any form. Support your comrades in their joy!

Further rules to be added/ rules to be changed based on community input

RULES NOTE: For this community more than most we understand that the clarity and understandability of these rules is very important for allowing folks to feel comfortable, to that end please don't be afraid to be outspoken about amendments and addendums to these rules, as well as any we may have missed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Anyone into philosophy/ethics/theology?

I’ve only studied technical fields, but I love trying (and typically failing) to engage with philosophical material. One of my old roommates studied philosophy, and we’d stay up late discussing it so I’d get tangential exposure and a good dialogue on ideas (I credit them with helping me “discover” actual theory). Anyway, they’ve been dead for a while now and while every day I wish it weren’t the case, so is my only connection to engaging with philosophical topics.

Anyway - I wanted to pick up more background info of ethical philosophy, and have been wading into Kant (like literally getting started with reviewing overview pages like this: https://iep.utm.edu/kantview ) and the page author’s summary stood out to me:

Kant’s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law. Thus in answer to the question, “What should I do?” Kant replies that we should act rationally, in accordance with a universal moral law.

Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith. Thus in answer to the question, “What may I hope?” Kant replies that we may hope that our souls are immortal and that there really is a God who designed the world in accordance with principles of justice.

Maybe I’ll have my own understanding when I engage with Kant’s actual writing, but I find the mentioned notion of a “categorical imperative” interesting. I guess when I’ve heard disagreements framed as “philosophical differences”, I never took it literally (ironically), but it seems like differences in worldview stem from a disregard of the

universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.

and it makes sense then that common ground cannot be found when opposing viewpoints are rooted in incompatible principles. (Assuming that all parties have principles of sorts).

Idk where I’m going with any of this post, but I don’t have anyone to engage in my philosophical dumbassery with, so you’re all the lucky recipients.

Also can one hop around between authors? Or is there a benefit to interacting with older material? I was interested in reading some Kierkegaard, but thought I should go through Kant and Hegel first… but should one go further back to idk… Plato?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

That’s fair. I prefer to read articles or primary sources at random, but I also don’t know what I’d do without random podcasts and videos and honestly where I’d be without some random and very elementary in person classes I once took. Textbooks are a source of info, whoever reads them. Honestly there’s some odd idiosyncratic reasons I don’t want to read textbooks. My ADHD says if I’m learning about something it’s good to make it quick and textbooks aren’t that. My autism says if I want to claim knowledge on philosophical positions it is best to have read the real source material from front to back whether I understand or not, and textbooks are too secondary for a time commitment.

My point is that I think that an “official” Marxist introduction to the very theory that says how to think and how we know things should avoid dogmatism and revisionism, and that’s a hard thing. We don’t want anyone abandoning Marxism to random pointless idealism and we don’t want anyone disregarding Mao because it doesn’t feel right to what they’ve been indoctrinated in. And of course we don’t want anyone treating Marxism as a fixed truth without a real understanding of the counter arguments.

Any text has its perspective and potential to influence. I am just currently in full skepticism I don’t what to believe including if it’s possible to believe mode, tons of contradictory ideas with different sources floating in my head.