/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 05, 2022

Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_zd7hlq in philosophy

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

  • Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

10

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

staypoor3 t1_iz30est wrote

I read Meditations today as a newbie and what follows is my own thought pattern as I sat in silence in the wake of the book. Enjoy!

I have deduced that Man possesses a soul, or something that very nearly all men have, that very nearly no other animal has, and that Man calls it a soul. This understanding is derived from the fact that all things beyond sensation lend themselves to consciousness; although he must explore the world to realize his sentience and therefore must utilize his animal half in order to access his rational half and thus realize Man’s rationality. When in pursuit of the satiation of the animal sensation of hunger, Man may come across a bush bearing attractive, colorful fruit. The sensational smell may guide Man to harvest the fruit, at which point previously unseen teeth spring from the branch and try to eat Man’s hand. Understandably, Man is likely to withdraw his hand from the treacherous creature he has just encountered and similarly withdraw his person (perhaps hastily) from the bush’s vicinity; seeking the cure to his hunger pangs elsewhere. Thus the bush has deterred another stupid beast from interfering in it’s reproductive cycle. But Man is not just another stupid beast. Had he been born a squirrel or a bird the story would end here; and he’d eventually have excluded this berry and it’s bush from his diet. Man is tenacious however and further, and more importantly, he possesses in his arsenal a tool which, as previously stated, virtually none of the animal kingdom possesses. Reason. Man is capable. Having been thwarted by the devil creature masquerading as a bush bearing tasty fruit, he will eventually find a place to satiate his sensation of fatigue, as do all creatures. During this rest however he will do something peculiar. He will more likely than not reflect on his day. He does not know why he does this but now nevertheless he does. He will doubtlessly recall how a peculiar creature bit him when he grabbed for what looked like tasty fruit and will start to do another peculiar thing. He will ponder the mystery of the devil creature in the forest. After some time man will do another thing. He posits a theory to himself that this violent creature that has bested him is not violent at all. In fact the creature may have been a bush as he first suspected but with some sort of defense mechanism to prevent stupid creatures from doing exactly what it was he had attempted. Man then does several things not normally seen in the animal kingdom. He makes a sort of mental note to examine the bush more closely if he sees one like it again. And then he does see one. In fact, he realizes, he has been looking for it for the entire time that has elapsed between his plan-hatchery and the time that he finally stumbled upon it; to the detriment even of his other tasks. After some examination our curious friend will be delighted to find that with care and deliberation he can maneuver around the teeth and delicately pluck the tasty fruit from its holdfast. At first he may find himself astonished. So amazed by his own work that he forgets why he endeavored to do it at all. He studies the smallish fruit, again using his animalistic senses but now toward a higher purpose. He knows now that he was right once before, and that this bush feels great need to passively deter interlopers from partaking in its appealing assets. But why? After some more deliberation he maybe comes to yet another conclusion; this time that this really must be some special fruit for the nature of its master to be so protective of it. When no longer can man stand to hold it, to smell its healthy ripeness or to even gaze upon this tender piece of flesh in his palm, the sticky blood of which must now be running to his wrist before escaping one drop at a time to the forest floor; Man shovels it into his mouth, believing himself a veritable pioneer in the world of gastronomy. Several things may happen now. Man may experience an unpleasant sour sensation and almost immediately refuse the fruit in the opposite direction from whence he first experienced it. He may contemplate it for a moment before swallowing, evaluate the situation and decide he’s not sure why the bush bit him and those who came before; for while the fruit would certainly do the job of satiating that hunger sensation, it would take most of the day to carefully harvest enough of it to ward off the unpleasantness that drove him to the bush in the first place and it simply isn’t worth it. Man is, after all, busy with all the fighting and humping and resting he must do day after day. Or, the fruit may pass Man’s test and he has his full of it before returning to the place in which he rests; whereupon he simply never wakes up. Finally: man may experience a brand new sensation. His eyes may widen as he chews and swallows the bright morsel and he gazes at the bush knowingly, understanding it all now. The bush was righteous in guarding the tasty little fruits. If these were undefended every creature in the forest would be chowing on them madly; ceaselessly. Imagine the massacre! So of course the bush must have taken up arms to protect the fruits. Probably, thinks man, now getting quite the hang of this theorizing business, probably the bush protects these so only a creature as smart as he could enjoy them. In a combination of the chemistry of sucrose and the satisfaction only man will ever know and only ever after having completed something previously impossible to him, he gathers enough of the sassy little plant’s fruits to eat on the walk home in what remains of the afternoon light and begins his journey. On the way he probably sees someone he knows well and does yet another peculiar thing. He communicates with this neighbor (who he likes and who he feels would probably enjoy a story of heroism and a snack) and he gives the other a portion of his spoils. This may happen countless times before Man finally gets to his resting place but eventually, he will do the peculiarest thing of them all. He will of course be a master at telling the finer details of his story after just a few times of telling it when he comes across yet another neighbor. This neighbor, however, is one our heroic friend is not particularly fond of and at once he is doubtlessly shocked to realize just how little of his stash remains after handing out the trophies all evening. How many morsels had he given away now? He had not counted. He will later come to the conclusion that he was so proud of his own story and so hungry for the admiration of his peers, for the ability to tell them something they did not know that he had lost track. For now, gazing at the not-friend neighbor and then at his much-diminished handful several times he makes a naughty decision. He scurries past the other, not giving him any outward attention, and returns home to finish what remains of his most excellent adventure, alone. After all, he reasons, the not-friend didn’t solve the mystery of the biting bush.

2

staypoor3 t1_iz30mm6 wrote

PS forgive the fact that I immediately published my own thoughts for others to read and respond to. Not very Marcus Aurelius of me.

2

LonelyMandom t1_iz7e7d2 wrote

Here is my 5-minute take on why I think conceptualizing infinity as a part of mathematics is fundamentally wrong (I know it regards mathematics, but in this case it's a metaphysical approach and mathematics is not the main subject or goal, even if it's used to visualize it)

When you think of nothing you think of a imaginary concept of lack of existence which we can't experience or comprehend, yet we can use as a proxy for a state where part of our perception is unable to well... Perceive something, despite it's objective existence (example: air is imperceivable through any of the human senses, yet it does objectively exist). In other words 0 is a symbol that allows us to describe that state. You can't divide with it because the process of dividing is a process that is simply a perceivable representation of a concept of partitioning a defined amount of reality into a defined space. You can have a reality defined as non-existing. Then you divide 0 into a defined space and get 0 as there was no reality to begin with. But you can't have 0 space, as if you take any amount of reality and try to divide it into 0 (non-existent) space it breaks the fundamental rule of existence which is that anything that exists does so in a defined space. And if you try 0/0, so you try to divide non-existance into non-existing space you lose the point of doing such equation - you try to conceptualize something, that by definition has no concept. So it's pointless.

It's actually funny how mathematicians concluded that something as silly as conceptualizing this or any similar concepts as infinity is a valid option - it's not. Again, by basis and fundamental goal maths is supposed to describe and conceptualize in an organized matter reality in which we find ourselves. But if that's the case, the concept of infinity has no place in it. As (even though we can't properly comprehend it) according to what we can observe our reality is, in fact finite. Infinity comes from our inability to perceive beyond observable spectrum if reality, so if anything, ironically infinity is actually a purely human invention. And as such it is childish and immature to use it as a valid concept in something that is supposed to describe reality. Here is a proof that there is a finite amount of numbers: if you use the smallest possible scale (which is a single quark as far as I know right know) and use it to count numbers up, and fill the entire universe perfectly, so that there is no more space for another quark to fit in, you have reached the highest number that exists. That's because anything higher is simply not possible - you can't count, imagine, see or use such a number and it doesn't describe anything. In other words - it doesn't exist. Apply same logic to anything like 1.3333(3), √2 etc. And you get same conclusion - there is an end to it. When you fill the entire universe (or reality if universe is not the only thing in it) with that number that's when it ends. Someone might argue that universe or reality is infinite and you can never fill it up. Well according to the theory of cosmic inflation it in fact is not. And if anything there are more proofs that reality is finite than there are proofs that it's not. One very basic is simply lacks of common infinity outside of human perception. Everything that we describe as infinite is only so for us. On the other hand everything that exists despite us so far is finite.

2

Pleasant_General7282 t1_iz7sy85 wrote

I think it was Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus who said that even with math we are eventually reduced to poetry and art in describing things that which we can not comprehend, as a graph is really an artistic expression of a concept that is essentially meaningless in the form we are expressing it. Thats why people use computers to analyze and create graphs for things that are beyond us. For example, the field of chaos theory, the mathematical definition and properties of chaos, is heavily dependent on numerical analysis and the creation of graphs to look at and analyze. Humans are of course impeded by their perception, I would argue that the 0 division you speak of is a fundamental piece of our universe, that has been boiled down to something we will never fully be able to interface our conscious with, like you said. I believe math is an all seeing eye. Reaching into the depth of the nuance of our universe that we will never touch.

2

Coconutcabbie t1_izcxit2 wrote

To chase the idea of infinity, we must start at 0 and progress forever. All science and mathematics I'd imagine is based in line with that.

If you chase a finite result, you need a start figure to provide an answer.

Infinity assumes no end.

The finite must end.

Both the infinite and the finite exist in the minds of the living.

All life lives in the living.

We subjectly can only know the living.

The dead doesn't subjectively exist.

Life only can exist in you, the you right now reading this.

There is no other than you.

There is no you, without I.

Without the living nothing can ever exist, therefore existence is the only thing we can ever be sure is real.

2

koda29897 t1_izaf8mv wrote

We need to be childlike because then we’re open to learn, we need to find better company and unlearn, and relearn, ask questions.

2

Coconutcabbie t1_izcsiae wrote

The shared problem for all ontological arguments are their implicitly assumed premise.

Whether theistic or atheistic, the premise of all ideologies regarding the nature of existence, all share the assumption of a beginning. This shared assumption of a caused beginning ensures an endless regression and eternal opposition.

Attempting to rationalise the irrational can only strengthen disagreements; meaning the most irrational thing one can do, is to try find rationale in the irrational. Does it not make more sense to, build rationale out of the agreed irrationality?

I'm hyper-aware this may seem like a word-salad attempt at profundity, so I'll provide a direct example of what I mean.

Theists believe God started everything, but can never explain that which made God. We must suddenly cease further explanations.

Science provides theories of a beginning, then seeks to answer how, which seeks how, which seeks how, into infinity, which quietly admits also, there can be no satisfactory answer.

Both methods of thinking, result in irrationality from a place of seeking rationale.

If one starts from a place of irrationality this problem is avoided.

Because we assume it rational that all things have a beginning, the nature of being will never make sense.

Is it rational to assume things must begin? Is it rational to assume everything came from nothing?

How can nothing even exist unless it can be compared to something?

Instead of something coming from nothing, maybe nothing can only exist out of something.

Instead of things beginning only to end, maybe things can only end because the nature of being is to exist.

No beginning argument into infinity is required if something is the default position instead of nothing.

I hope I made sense. Much wiser folk may have already debunked or raised this concept. I hope I didn't break any posting etiquette. Merry Xmas.

2

NotThatImportant3 t1_izd7isd wrote

Potentially sounds Buddhist. There is no beginning because there is no static thing. We are progressive but impermanent processes, mindstreams simply conscious at this moment. From this perspective—which could be characterized as anti-ontological—the study of being is fruitless because there is only becoming not being (Deleuze vs Heidegger). Things are constantly and perpetually changing.

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant posits that pure reason cannot capture certain things because one cannot infinitely pontificate in a room and understand everything—some level of empirical observations through experiential interactions with the world and others is necessary for knowledge development. I can say “red is red” with pure reason, but I can’t say “Roses are truly red and not blue” without seeing a rose.

The part where we might disagree, though, is with this idea that there are irrational things. If you just mean there are things that transcend reason, I agree. But If you mean things lack order, or are chaos—i.e. God is dead, metaphysics are dead, therefore the world is chaos we just manufacture organization onto—I would disagree. I think I side more with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave over Nietzsche. Sure, we may only see shadows, but the shadows emanate from something objectively real—we just can’t objectively perceive it. Since the things casting shadows are real, I still find order in the world. Physics consistently works because good studies are replicable. I just think reason alone can only, when done well and rigorously, get very close to a correct rationale explanation of how the world operates. I think this last bit we can’t get perfect on is just the limits of human cognition.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izdh3d0 wrote

I don't think we disagree, I think I failed in my explanation.

I would never be so bold as to claim, "God is dead." Or that metaphysics suffer death either.

I see the conception of irrational as something of a burden.

That which cannot fit reason, evades all our calculations in search for reason.

It is the very disregard of irrationality that clouds our basis for questioning.

If every line of questioning leads us to an impossible conclusion, perhaps we are poisoning our reason with faulty data.

To assume shadows must be cast by figures without clear evidence, apriori stands to reason.

Why? We must have prior understanding of light, shadow, figures etc.

I'm not questioning that which stands to reason; I'm suggesting that we are assuming reason from a fundamental factor never questioned.

Is the assumption of a start to all, backed by any evidence other than anecdotal—we started therefore the universe did—or the fact we subjectively have only known existence, proof existence is all that exists.

Unless we can end our existence to prove we can't exist, then return to existence and declare, "ah ha!" Is it not sound to assume existence is the norm?

The endless search to discover how or why the universe begun, is like shining light on the dark to prove the dark doesn't exist.

Nothing cannot exist unless something exists.

To assume the universe, or God started it all, is a failure to grasp the irrational truth of rationale.

I've only recently started reading Nietzsche. I have so much more to read. The more I seem to open my eyes to, the more I realise I am blind to.

This hypocrisy is abundant in everything. As I struggle through Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, he seems to highlight the truth in this phenomena.

Assumption in what must be true, distracts us from real truth.

Truth hides between desire and illusion.

The little I've read of Nietzsche so far, I definitely feel less anxious in life.

1

NotThatImportant3 t1_izeemh6 wrote

I’m glad reading Nietzsche has helped you feel less anxious. I feel you - Nietzsche’s comments on suffering are great in my opinion. The general concept of learning from suffering, embracing it, is a powerful one for me. His concept of ressentiment—how resenting and fighting against certain things actually can make them stronger in our own minds by binding us to them—very powerful and mentally useful as well. As you can see, I take issue with his rejection of any metaphysical organizing principles, though.

I also think, among many philosophers, Nietzsche is a great writer, especially compared to, say, Heidegger. However, be careful with trying to rationalize inconsistencies in Nietzsche’s writing. I once heard someone (I think it may have been Bertrand Russell in a recorded lecture) describe Nietzsche as a literary philosopher, in that he writes more like a storyteller than a classic, dry, pure deductive logic philosopher. This does make his work significantly more palatable, and it allows him to write more stream of thought type work (which I enjoy), but it also left him free to talk in ways that appear to contradict his own propositions. I would recommend enjoying his work, taking what you like and leaving the rest.

For example, I make the Buddhism reference because I find Buddhism helps me with suffering in many the same ways Nietzsche does. But I find the Buddhist concept of the Dharma very helpful - it helps me see compassion as inherently valuable, even if we don’t get direct material rewards for being compassionate. And I think Nietzsche would view the Dharma as too much like a “God” system to accept it.

May you feel peace, may you feel love, may you be free of suffering, my friend

1

slickwombat t1_izfh3jl wrote

You seem to mean cosmological arguments rather than ontological arguments. Of cosmological arguments, you seem to specifically have in mind the Kalam, as other varieties don't rely on the assumption of a "caused beginning".

But anyway, Kant talks a great deal about the idea of reason as inevitably seeking the unconditioned as the conclusion of a regress of explanations and problems arising therefrom. I'm not comfortable enough with Kant's nuances and subtleties to attempt any more thorough explanation from that, but here's an overview from smarter people.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izgxm4t wrote

I'm currently reading, "the psychology of totalitarianism", the author suggests that much social anxiety is created from our inability to be confident in what we try to express with each 9ther.

Words are an expression of what we think, but if we each assume different meanings from words without knowing, how can we be sure of anything?

I understand the cosmological argument to mean, how the universe begun.

The ontological argument is about the nature of being.

I am guilty of confusing the 2, but can they be separated?

Can anything exist if it has no witness?

Is there a cosmological argument without an ontological one first?

It stands to reason, all things must exist if only to oppose non existence.

All truth resonates out of hypocrisy.

1

ridgecoyote t1_izkhjwo wrote

You’re in line there with my philosophical choices, as well as my intellectual heroes, Royce, James and Peirce. Fictional ontology is a cornerstone of Pragmatism. But just because they are all postulative in nature does not mean we despair. They are all not all equal, some are better than others.

The problem comes in when you absolutize your ontology, like religion does and science has done.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izm9yee wrote

Science and religion are at they're worst when they become dogmatic in the truth. They become weaponized for control, be it, Anthony Fauci claiming to be the science, or believing your faith demands you kill.

But both are utilities for good, if they persistently lead you to wonder.

Without religion, science may not have been discovered ( as in the method to question it all).

Without science, religion would purely be dogmatic, rather than expanded to find wonder in more.

I agree that an ideology fettered in absolutism is a problem—except free-speech—but my point isn't about what is right or wrong individually.

It's about why all arguments disagree fundamentally, yet all struggle with the same fault.

They all assume there was a beginning.

We all assume a beginning must have happened, but I'm trying to suggest that must be an assumption overlooked and obviously wrong.

To assume everything came to be with a start point, means agreement can never be found.

But if existence always is, there is no need to disagree on how everything begun.

For all things to come from nothing, something must exist: as nothing has no meaning unless it has something to be without.

Existence can't have a beginning to explain how it came to be. Existence just has to be, as it can't be any other way.

1

ridgecoyote t1_izkfvfa wrote

Most arguments against free will are specious. They take “freedom” in its most absolutist sense and then attack it. There’s a very simple way to understand free will: Free Will equals consciousness. For instance, we deduce a rock has no free will because all it ever does is just sit there. Humans have more consciousness (free will)than rocks so a human can pick up the rock and skip it across a pond or carve it into a semi-conductor. The more mind you have, the more freedom to think about things and how to be. Freedom = mind. If you want to argue against the existence of mind, be my guest.

2

NukePlayo t1_izrstev wrote

free will in its most classical sense means "the possibility to have done otherwise". I may have a mind and consciousness, but I will have certain inclinations towards certain actions, based on my brain chemistry and as a reaction to other actions etc. to say that I could've done otherwise in the past would mean that the state of my mind or the circumstances would have had to be different, which is simply not possible and therefore I couldn't have done otherwise. it would be preposterous to say that a drug addict has control over his volition. in my opinion the best argument for free will/moral responsibility (that I know about) is that of the Frankfurt cases. these cases proposed by Harry Frankfurt are counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) which I personally think are quite strong. but this still does not try to prove free will in a classical libertarian sense because it still denies being able to have done otherwise. so I don't think we can reduce the concept of free will to having a conscious mind still might not have complete agency.

I don't know if this was very cogent or not sorry I'm not rly the most knowledgeable on this I only know a few things I've heard of so far

1

ridgecoyote t1_j037fxb wrote

Thank you for the classic definition. Can you agree with me that it immediately falls apart, as a definition? “The possibility to have done otherwise “ is way too frivolous as a philosophical statement. Possibilities are figments of the mind, acted upon to varying results. It’s impossible to define all the possibilities of a given phenomenon so we have to leave that out of the definition for sure. “Otherwise” is also problematic- another figment that we construct from experience.

Why we do things, isn’t because of chemistry. If you chose to, you will change your brain chemistry. Free will is a phenomenon of mind and the pieces and atoms of our selves are not mindful. It’s not that much of a mystery, unless you’re a reductionist mechanistic sort. Which seems to be the fashion around here, but if living in that metaphysical framework makes you happiest, by all means, go ahead.

Just don’t insist it’s the only one. Don’t absolutize your conceptual schemes, man.

1

LibraryImmediate3730 t1_izw2f61 wrote

I don't know very much about this kind of stuff but, free will could be argued rather about the existence of your mind, but the predetermination of all of your actions. There have been studies done that show when someone is faced with a choice your brain actually makes the decision prior to you actually commiting and thinking about it. This means that your "mind" makes the decision instead of "you", but what "you" are is an entirely different question. Also in your definition of freedom, couldn't animals be considered to be more free. A monkey for example, capable of doing anything it wants, me or you on the other hand cannot. At least without the threat of jailtime.

1

ridgecoyote t1_j03554w wrote

The problem again comes in with the attribution of absoluteness to a relative mind-set. Some thought is heavily conditioned- it is not very free. Other thinking is less conditioned , it’s more free. This value plainly exists, whether or not it exists in what is called “objectively “

Monkey thinking is a lot more conditioned than human thinking, but it’s much more flexible and adaptable than ant thinking.

1

why-aye-man t1_iz1ccmm wrote

As someone who doen't know much about philosophy (and/or existentialism), is Emil Cioran a good place to start? I have seen a couple of quotes by him and some of them resonated with me. So, I was thinking maybe I can start reading some of his books but I'm not sure if they would be difficult to follow?

1

GyantSpyder t1_iz2tl4n wrote

I don’t think it would be difficult to follow but it wouldn’t exactly be a place to start. Emil Cioran was a philosophy academic who eventually rejected philosophy and became more of a poetical essayist. He's primarily known for his beautiful and dark literary writing style. Read him if you want, sure (though if you're depressed maybe skip it - taking care of yourself and manage your own resources and ability to cope with dark thoughts is important to living with such things) - but I don't think he provides a jumping-on point for other philosophy, nor do I think he would want to. He’s his own thing.

2

Electrical-Eel-Club t1_iz39v1h wrote

Has anyone spent any time with any of Reiner Schurmann's work?

1

Masimat t1_iz4yi67 wrote

Is it possible to predict the future of any deterministic system with math formulas?

1

LonelyMandom t1_iz7dod5 wrote

Deterministic systems are mathematical models, so by definition yes.

1

EyeSprout t1_izulm25 wrote

Only if you know the initial state of the system and can describe the evolution of the system.

Deterministic systems are systems where any "future state" is a fixed function of the "initial state". If the observer knows both of these things, then it's predictable by definition. That doesn't mean that an observer actually knows the initial state or what the fixed function is. Things can get a little complicated if the system includes the observer itself.

There is a question of is it even possible to know or approximate what the initial state of a system is? It's possible to have a system where there's a limit to how much information you can get about the initial state.

(There's nothing special about the "math" part, "math" is really just any language that describes something precisely.)

1

feignedconsciousness t1_izbhxcd wrote

Hi all. Looking for book recommendations for a high schooler interested in philosophy. He is incredibly smart, high functioning autistic. Thanks for your help!

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izcw1bg wrote

Nietzsche is most high level in my limited experience. I find him so difficult to follow, I find meaning I'm not confident I was meant to.

Sam Harris's short book on free will provides good food for thought. (I wouldn't flirt with any of his recent stuff, if any though.)

Jordan Petersons 12 rules for life, is a decent book for young males.

Books from Plato, Kant, Nietzsche etc, I'd suggest should be side books slowly read before bed: for everyone, especially the young.

If I had parents that showed an interest in my reading, I'd desire they provided me logical rational thinkers on observed truth, instead of metaphysical hypothetical thinkers, if you will.

First learn how to think rationally, before tangling in the abstract.

The question is: how can we determine rational thought?

I'm new to this group, so I'm yet to see the personality of responses, however in my opinion, determining rational thought isn't difficult.

If you can state your belief, don't require majority support, don't need to silence the opposition, and are happy to change your mind in light of facts, you are thinking rationally.

1

feignedconsciousness t1_izd5jb1 wrote

Thanks for the great list. I really appreciate it.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izdhrh3 wrote

I really can't say if those suggestions are good or not.

I'm half black and half white and found those books very helpful.

If I could suggest some other books that I believe really helped me....

Up from slavery by Booker at Washington. I was Transformed, about Frederick Douglas. Rich Dad poor Dad, by Robert Kywasaki(can't spell his name). And Think rich grow rich, by napoleon Hill.

If I read those books as a young man, my life would have been much different.

Think rich grow rich, might arguably be a fraud, but the underlying message is sound. "You only fail if you quit."

If you never give up, you will succeed, the best message you can ever instill in anyone. Every champion is made from it.

1

EyeSprout t1_izukbjf wrote

Try introducing him to Godel's incompleteness theorem via either the Nagel/Newman book or GEB. For talented children, it's probably good to expose them to the foundations of philosophy and logical reasoning early on as it can guide one's thought process later on.

1

WyGaminggm t1_izdx7wt wrote

Hi everyone. Thus is a a short delve into my uneducated opinion on existentialism. I wanted to get some feedback on the flaws in my argument so far so that I can look for a deeper meaning so heres what I'm up to.

Short recap: existentialism is essentially the search for reason in the universe. This usually leads to the conflict of human desire for reason against the universe's chaotic nature. I would however reason that there was no human need for reason in the first place, and rather that the search for reason is societal. This is all of course a search to come up with a reason not to do things that religions or social codes would consider immoral (suicide, disobeying social standards, being a bystander or causing crimes).

I instead offer the idea that humans are also a part of nature, simply being coincidences of probability. However, humans do have their base instincts which manifest in dopamine, and other chemicals. That brings us to the idea that the search for self actualization is the search for the most positive chemicals, including curiosity.

Alternatively a more Buddhist approach would not be dissimilar, as it too searches for the most positive chemicals via rather than sating the hunger as I propose, starving it out.

Please let me know if the philosophy that I suggested already exists. I would love to learn more about it. Thanks for reading!

1

ridgecoyote t1_izkgfeo wrote

I like where your going. You’re almost there… but the universe does not have a chaotic nature- the parts of it we comprehend we call “ordered” and the parts we don’t we call “chaotic “ but these are subjective terms.

2

WyGaminggm t1_izki3kf wrote

Thats an intriguing point of view. Where do I go to learn more about the objective comprehension of the universe's nature?

1

ridgecoyote t1_izkixi4 wrote

Honestly, I would start with Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Don’t read any reviews, just get it on Amazon and read it. He lays out a lot of this in a nuanced way that would be helpful in many ways. Don’t listen to what anyone says, the book wasn’t made for anyone but those asking the kinds of questions you’re asking.

2

AnonCaptain0022 t1_iziynwv wrote

Recently I stumbled upon "four-dimensionalism", the metaphysical theory of time. My question is, if it's true, how do we experience the universe linearly? How do we move through this temporal dimension when movement itself implies time? Shouldn't the universe be a long tangled spaghetti structure of events that exists at all times simultaneously?

1

ZealousidealUse3402 t1_izm6zlg wrote

Could you expand on that thought

1

AnonCaptain0022 t1_izmu95q wrote

Imagine a 2d plane like in super mario, only replace the temporal dimension with the 3d spacial dimension (depth). It would look like all frames of the game are arranged one in front of the other. Which means that Mario becomes a long worm-like creature whose depth consists of his past states/frames. My question is, what animates him? What is it that iterates through these frames and makes the linear reality we are familiar with. And most importantly, how can it iterate through the frames of time itself? Iteration/movement implies time, you need time to go from one frame to the other, but it's impossible to use time to iterate through time itself.

1

cheeseburgercats t1_iztlvx8 wrote

Why are so many people aligned with accelerationism/dark enlightenment /nick lands thinking very anti liberal, when I thought the point is this argument that the only way to cause societal change is to accelerate capitalism to a breaking point (and liberal ideologies are serving greatly to accelerate capitalism in the modern day) I understand from their POV why they would be anti any genuine leftist ideologies, but I can’t grasp why many spout anti-trans, racist, or just any sort of anti-progressive rhetoric intending to be anti liberal it makes no sense to me

1