ChaoticJargon t1_j5z80h8 wrote

Based on the limited article alone I don't believe there's a defensible position. The only one I can find personally is the concept of boundaries. In other words, intentionally blocking others from giving advice is a personal right, but beyond that I can't find any other argument to agree with their full stance.


ChaoticJargon t1_j5z6pxo wrote

So, the author can't complain if I choose to seek advice because that is part of my own self-authorship. Also, the author can't complain if giving advice is part of my self-authorship, which by the way, self-authorship is not really defined in the text.

So the author is saying that a leader should never seek advice. That seems a bit, immoral, if you ask me. A leader should be open to the experiences of others. The author is taking too narrow a stance and not really considering all the implications of their idea.


ChaoticJargon t1_j3w4s3y wrote

I follow a belief I call perspectivism which holds that all philosophical ideas or theories are perspectives which we can be used as tools to further develop other theories and come closer to truth. Since every perspective acts as a lens that can show more sides of a given truth. There's no reason to be a hold out of one position or the other, instead every position can be used to discover something new. I see all philosophical ideas as cognitive tools that can be used to dig for deeper truths and there is no real reason to hold a position of one over the other.


ChaoticJargon t1_j1d89y6 wrote

I appreciate this post, though what I'd like to say is that low-self esteem is a multi-faceted problem that starts with our core beliefs about ourselves and includes both conscious and unconscious biases.

But I will just mention here how I overcame my own self-esteem issues - I addressed two problems within my core beliefs about self-worth. The first belief I addressed was how self-worth related to my failures - to solve this I tied my failures to self-growth and the idea of being a better person, in other words, recognizing my failures would inevitably help me grow as a person since I could resolve those failures and learn from them.

The second thing I did was develop my concept of self-compassion. Many people have negative self-talk which tends to cause a low-self esteem, so I changed my self-talk to be more encouraging and I also recognized that there's an emotional investment tied to self-talk, and that emotional investment can be helpful or harmful depending on the words I use, so I use encouraging words instead of detrimental ones.

Finally, I realized the inherent humanness of having flaws, the unique perspectives they bring, and the fact that perfection is impossible, these thoughts allowed me to see everyone as equal and unique. Everyone is growing at their own unique pace and everyone only needs encouragement to be better or do better, since seeking approval is fairly normal for people to do.

Though that is what helped me, I could elaborate more if need be, but there is no end to how we can improve our beliefs. I've written quite a lot about it on my profile if you're interested in learning more.


ChaoticJargon t1_j0h136g wrote

Well, we're just disagreeing with the principle of perfect knowledge, we both agree that FTL is currently impossible. You don't believe in any such notion that perfect knowledge has paradigm shifts contained within it, where as I believe there's always the possibility once perfect knowledge is attained, which may not be in our lifetimes.

Its fine to stop dreaming, but scientists who want to push the boundaries of our understanding will be the ones doing all the dreaming and making the impossible a reality.


ChaoticJargon t1_j0gukfe wrote

I know what it means to be a skeptic, and to me, its always been a non-starter. Its one thing to look at our current understanding of the universe and from that believe what can be accomplished has been decided, but rarely ever do I hear a skeptic question their own beliefs, which is to say, whether or not those beliefs are valid. I won't believe what's impossible until everything is settled and we have perfect knowledge of the topic. Which we don't currently have in any area, whether its material science, genetics, or particle science.


ChaoticJargon t1_j0grbpa wrote

I mean, I don't doubt that its an impossibility in our lifetime, I just wouldn't say its absolutely impossible at all, given that we still don't have a complete understanding of the universe and its fundamental properties.

If you can imagine a sphere containing all the knowledge we have about the universe, and a sphere outside it containing all the possible knowledge we'd need to have for 'perfect knowledge' of the universe, I'd say the distance between these to concepts is more vast than the size of the universe to our own planet, well, I can't say that for sure, but I imagine there's quite a large gap there. In any case, I don't think that gap will be closed anytime soon either. Who knows what sort of discoveries await us, but I can bet they will be things we once considered impossible.


ChaoticJargon t1_j0gh62u wrote

From my perspective, the amount of technology we'd need to make that kind of space flight viable is staggering, and simply not something we'll have in our lifetime.

We'd need a warp drive that can nullify space-time so that we can travel to any other point in the universe instantly, we'd need a light-speed drive so that we could use the warp drive, because the warp drive will likely be extremely dangerous to use near any celestial object. We'd need a way of discerning how to exit the warp drive safely away from dangerous celestial objects. We'd need a light-field generator outside the ship to push away debris while using the light-speed drive. We'd need way better materials science than we have today. The ship's life support would need to be completely self-sustaining. We'd need an anti-gravity drive to traverse planets.

That's not to mention all the other considerations we'd need to make everything work together. I don't believe its impossible, I just don't believe we'll get to that level of technology within our lifetime.

I'm an optimist about these kind of things though, I think we as a species will solve these problems, if we try.


ChaoticJargon t1_isauq2q wrote

If everything extends from Will, in Schopenhauer's view, then 'denial of the will' is itself a willful act. Which is fine, I mean, matter acts upon matter in the same way. I think a better term of description though is not the act of denial of will, but instead, the refinement and harmonization of Will. It would seem that what Will ought to strive for is a discernment that depends on the level of consciousness that's been achieved. In other words, we are at a level where we ought to strive towards reducing suffering, as we humans define it. We ought to refine our own desires so that they are more harmonious with each other.