Diogenic_Seer t1_j75flwq wrote

I’m not taking about the right to be happy.

The problem is that those of wealthier upbringing get to think about survival less than poor people. It gives an advantage.

It’s actually about trying to find ways to reward people with high mental fortitude, but their poverty keeps them from really gaining the momentum to intellectualize their minds.

The goal is to see the wealthy and weak willed displaced from power

Of course intellectualization comes after survival. That’s my point!

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”- Stephen Jay Gould


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3n9f9v wrote

More or less.

Broadly painting Camus as a colonialist despite his long history in anti-colonial rhetoric was a bit fucked up. Most of the people critiquing him were not active in speaking up for Algerian Arabs until it became a popular movement to support.

I don’t know why pacifism gets called problematic. There is a lot of research indicating pacifistic revolution as more effective: https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/06/10/are-peaceful-protests-more-effective-than-violent-ones/

There is also the fact that Camus might have been killed by the KGB: https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/05/albert-camus-murdered-by-the-kgb-giovanni-catelli

Camus risked a lot being vocal against communism. It was not a popular position in left-wing French philosophy circles. He genuinely might have been a straight up martyr for it.


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3iizc9 wrote

I don’t disagree. Outside of maybe the standard model, or Dirac’s equation, I don’t pretend I understand Quantum Mechanics. I tend to use visual models as a crutch when performing mathematics.

I’d just rather we not narrow learning paths. Workshops and essays still give a way to communicate with a teacher. As does interning. My own disdain for classes comes more from not wanting to deal with other students.

The 100-200 hours mark was meant to be ‘loose.’

Old knowledge can apply to newly researched fields. Pottery skills can translate to sculpting skills.

The soft sciences are still filled with holes. Holes that will not be filled for centuries.

I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a neuroscientist to successfully breakdown a psychology theory with very little research placed in the field of psychology.


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3eusru wrote

Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.

I really despise how undergrad classes can’t be easily avoided by taking a large test or writing a large thesis. It’s a lot easier to avoid classes at every other level of education. It genuinely find it authoritarian.

Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding. Naive discovery does happen. There were a lot of individuals that mused on continental drift before hard evidence was found. You could describe those early papers as more philosophical than scientific. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/step2012/participant/PlateTectonicHistory-1.pptx

You don’t need deep geological understanding to sort out that the continents kind of look like puzzle pieces.

That said, almost all philosophy of quantum science papers I have read have been utter bullshit.


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3aat0e wrote

Growth and acceptance definitely lead to the resistance of temptation, but in personal experience the path is not immediate. It isn’t impossible to hit further fragmentation on the route of trying to change yourself.

People tend to not like heretics. Resisting a temptation that is socially normalized will lead to people giving you shit for it. Your very presence now fragments their mind. Some people do not want to have to think about all the ways they can be changing themselves.

A classic example is how often people get peer pressured out of maintaining sobriety.


Diogenic_Seer t1_j22jzp7 wrote

When you break it down, I think philosophy is mostly metacognition. Psychology is still just as much philosophical as it is scientific.

There aren’t really huge difference between the three thinkers. Kierkegaard kind of needed Christianity as a coping mechanism.

Nietzsche genuinely did kind of break himself with stress. I don’t necessarily buy that he “went crazy.” I really feel like you can’t fully separate his alienation from German culture and Germany’s drift into fascism.

Camus forwards romanticism as a coping mechanism. He better understood science because of the time period he came from.

He was skilled at incorporating his philosophy into political and artistic results. I’d argue Camus had slightly more similarities with Doestoevsky than Kierkegaard.

There has been increasing information that he might have been politically assassinated by the KGB: https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/05/albert-camus-murdered-by-the-kgb-giovanni-catelli

A lot of political assassinations happened in the 1960s.