/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 9081
228 kB, 671 × 1099
1,1 MB, 640 × 640, 0:20
>>9070
>Since there is no philosophy threda
here it is.

i was lately toying with a little idea and wanted to hear Ernst's input on it.

As you all may know we have a serious problem with plastic pollution. We developed some genetic engineered fungi capable of breaking down plastics and reintroduce the parts into the "normal" biological cycle. I'm not aware of some genetic engineered bacteria capable of doing such, but let's suppose we have some.

would you introduce these into the wild bio-cycle?

I would tend towards "yes". First, let's try to imagine/determine all possible consequences. Ya, yaha. I know impossible task to do so; just look at what fuckery we did to the australian bio-cycle.
First off, we do not exactly know how fast these genetic engineered bacteria would be able to mutate towards something else. That's a big red flag for most, but this could be monitored and analyzed in closed (as in spacial) studies beforehand.
For the Pro's i would list the possibility of saving tons and tons of life on earth (even human life) and long term stability of the earthern ecosystem. Most likely this bacteria would spread far, prolly across the whole globe, since it has plenty of food, aka plastic trash, everywhere. But it is not only plastic trash it also would break down tools and other stuff made out of plastics. The economic infrastructure would have to shift their production towards other materials, if they want longlivity of their products. On top of that most of the current products would need to be replaced. This would create a new short-ish boom similar to when every household "needed" a fridge.
I would imagine a never-seen-before economic boom worldwide because of this. Sure, current market leaders would have to change or be replaced, but such is life. Plus, the long-term Pro's , if no major fuck-up happens because of mutation, would assure a few more generations of human life possible on this little ball before we need to find a new ball to reside on.

I know, I'm quite blind on my one eye which is supposed to look on the cons. That's why I'm seeking additional input.

I have a few other topics I would like to talk about. Like using Newton and Leibniz as an historical example for the problems intrinsic to the idea of intellectual property.

t. dummernst
>>
No. 9085
>First off, we do not exactly know how fast these genetic engineered bacteria would be able to mutate towards something else. That's a big red flag for most, but this could be monitored and analyzed in closed (as in spacial) studies beforehand.

Is bacteria mutation limited? Does it have a finite number of possible mutations? You could never be sure.
I've been contrarian to the idea of technology for a long time and human scienctifical progress in general because it fucks up often enough. Yet the alternative of going back in time for a whole earth society won't work and I don't think that is what we should strive for. HOW do we employ technology is the crucial question and yours is a really tough one. I cannot really say how well genetically modified organism can be controlled once they entered the eco cycle in vast numbers. It's different from dead matter I could imagine.
>>
No. 9091
The possibility of mutations is in my understanding a moot concern since mutations happen all the time in different organisms anyways and most of the time they don't change anything. So it would just be incredibly bad luck if it happened to the engineered bacteria and resulted in something harmful.

Besides I doubt anything like that would get implemented at scale any time soon. As you said it would not only affect plastic trash, but also all sorts of other plastic tools etc., so any established person who uses anything like that would be heavily opposed and would lobby gainst it without regard for the environment, as you can see in energy industries etc.

Maybe some small projects will see the light, but I only see something like that getting implemented at scale if some unipolar eco-fascist superpower takes over and enforces it
>>
No. 9092 Kontra
613 kB, 1200 × 1192
This isn't a philosophical issue and life has already found a way:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/could-a-new-plastic-eating-bacteria-help-combat-this-pollution-scourge
Recently scientists accidentally made the enzyme to make it more effective: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/16/scientists-accidentally-create-mutant-enzyme-that-eats-plastic-bottles

Bacteria isn't magic. They will do well somewhere like a dump where plenty of plastic is around but outside a dump they're not going to have much luck. The population will be controlled without us getting involved and will become itself a food source.

Hypothetically if it does get out of control then we have plastic rust whose annoyance ranges with the speed but can be controlled the same way we deal with rust. Doing as little as possible is always the best option.
>>
No. 9097
>>9081
Well, to take this topic from the realm of scientific conjecture a bit closer to philosophy (but not really), I would say that the reason there is so much plastic pollution in the first place is because unlike other materials of similar utility, plastic has disproportional materially high material persistence than form persistance. The form (and therefore the utility) of a plastic object will deteriorate rapidly, but its material composition will persist.
Unlike plastic, other materials used for similar purpose have their material and form persistence in an equilibrium. Just like a plastic chair, a wooden chair loses its utility once the integrity of its form is compromised, but unlike plastic, the material composition of wood deteriorates rapidly, avoiding the problem of there now being a useless object that takes up the same amount of volume as the useful object. Same for cloth, leather, etc.

The effect of the bacteria on plastic items with current utility would be negligible, because plastic items are manufactured to be disposable in the first place. Their form would give faster, or at a similar rate, as their material composition would under the effect of the bacteria.

That is actually the reason why plastic is such a pollutant: we use an incredibly persistent material for manufacturing incredibly short lived and disposable products.
>>
No. 9099
2,5 MB, 540 pages
Any Ernsts interested in academic philosophy?

Metaphysics asks questions about existence: for example, do numbers really exist? Metametaphysics asks questions about metaphysics: for example, do its questions have determinate answers? If so, are these answers deep and important, or are they merely a matter of how we use words? What is the proper methodology for their resolution? These questions have received a heightened degree of attention lately with new varieties of ontological deflationism and pluralism challenging the kind of realism that has become orthodoxy in contemporary analytic metaphysics.

This volume concerns the status and ambitions of metaphysics as a discipline. It brings together many of the central figures in the debate with their most recent work on the semantics, epistemology, and methodology of metaphysics.
>>
No. 9102 Kontra
>>9099
I'm not sure if it counts, but what's the branch of philosophy concerned with watching Asian girls livestream their grocery shopping?
>>
No. 9103
4 kB, 225 × 225
>>9097
also, persistence is stasis, and therefore death

life requires volatility.

the most volatile things are the most alive.

also it's kind of gross thinking about the fact that you are constantly entering into chemical reactions with your environment, constantly shifting in form, shedding material then regrowing, oozing liquid and grease. literally can not interact with the world without compromising your physical integrity. when you smell a fart, it's literal shit particles chemically interacting with your sensory organ.

If there was a sentient species made out of, say, metal or something, they would look at us with the same disgust we look at fantasy races such as the zerg, The Thing, nurglites, etc.

In fact, The Thing is such a great movie because it addresses this very point. The monster is not an object or entity, the monster is the very concept of volatility of flesh, and the mind's dependency on volatile flesh to exist. True apex body horror.
>>
No. 9104
>>9102
I watch Asian girls grocery shopping everyday.
r8
>>
No. 9110
>>9102
It's probably a symptom of general societal alienation where people are addicted to the screen, yet they still long for human interaction in a non-malicious, innocent way (Essentially pornography free, kinda)
Same reason why you see some "gentle care" usw. ASMR videos with views in the millions.
>>
No. 9113
Test
>>
No. 9116
692 kB, 1690 × 2720
>>9079
I was talking more from a historicist / marxist point of view.

In hegelian dialectics, the "spirit" of the universe evolves through a logical argument with itself, until it reaches the Final Thesis.

In historical materialism, history is driven by Kapital (evolution). So everything in history that is under the process of Kapital, is capitalism. Communism is the point in history when there is no more Kapital, and humanity reaches an enlightened state of... enjoying being humans I guess. At that point, according to marxist theory, history stops. Literally. Communism is the final event in the material history of the world. Just like the final thesis (Gnosis) is the final Truth that precedes all other Truths.

(I actually have no idea if I'm interpreting dialectical materialism correctly, but my schizo brain LOVES making logical leaps of faith, and I can't help but draw parallels between various philosophical ideas/frameworks. Such as between Marxism and Gnosticism in this case)
>>
No. 9117
>>9116
GET IT?
LOGICAL LEAPS OF FAITH?

LE KIERKEGAARD REFERENCE
>>
No. 9131
>>9117
>making such references and being appreciated for it
Welcome home EC man

Although I wouldn't at all draw those parallels between Kapital and Communism, in fact your entire description of Hegelian dialectics as a process of being in communication and argumentation with itself until reaching the final thesis is literally the base description of Gnosticism. Like, that is literally the entirety of the core of a Gnostic's thought, and in a sense has much more in common with Eastern mysticism and philosophy than it does with anything Abrahamic at its core unless one posits that much of Abrahamic faith is just generally misinterpreted gnosticicism by crass materialists, which is what I believe in. Likewise, I would posit that in the same vein that descriptor of Communism is much more the Luciferian counterpart to the crass secular materialist thought that's been perverting the Abrahamic religions since anitiquity, wherein the material universe is the be-all end-all with the only deviation being whether one bows down to be enslaved to it and rewarded with earthly desires (the idea of getting 72 virgins and being in a garden is not that different from what Christian peasants believe about God being "very very big" and a guy who rewards you with pleasure and happiness and such and, I might add, is much more similar to the lies told to the Hashishins) or to simply attain mastery over it and reward yourself with earthly desires. Note that ultimately neither one of these is a mystical system and therefore unlike the inferior, counterfeit versions of faith like the others, but rather I think closer to what that German was trying to understand about Buddhism which is more of an "internal" reward in a sense. Or rather, your entire reward is a greater wisdom and beingness within and in tune with the universe, a prevailing expansion of consciousness and essence, whereas the other systems really don't ultimately aim to transform you or your inner being, but merely to give you stuff as it were.
>>
No. 9135
>>9081
Oh and as for OP were I a multibillionaire among other things I would found is the Uplift Institute and publicly just have it known as a place where we're "making good people better" and instilling in them some greater sense of virtue, purpose, peace of mind, and undertaking various forms of counseling, psychotherapy, and sort of motivational seminars. Meanwhile I'd just be brazenly using the name in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_(science_fiction) as a way of testing our ability to uplift various species to a human intellect. This would of course be wildly reckless to even attempt so far as I'm concerned, but well then again some scientists didn't know if we'd ignite the atmosphere with the first atomic weapons testing.

That being stated I am generally opposed to the use of genetically modified bacteria and nanomachines for the simple fact that it's more uncontrollable. Remember always that Life Finds a Way anything genetically modified is by virtue of its very essence uncontrollable. The added problem of bacteria is that they undergo rapid mutations and would get absolutely everywhere. You'd effectively introduce rusting to plastics on a global scale, all of which stipulates no greater form of danger from it. One big problem is the byproducts of their plastic conversion. I always try to refer people to the Great Oxygenation Event where, the theory goes, anaerobic bacteria essentially genocided themselves and most forms of life by releasing tons of oxygen into the atmosphere, which is poisonous by being highly reactive (even to this day there is oxidative stress on O2 breathing life forms). Bacteria tend to produce wildly toxic byproducts like that. So if that thing mutates and starts pumping toxins into the biosphere you can cause a mass extinction event way more quickly than plastics doing anything.

>I would imagine a never-seen-before economic boom worldwide because of this.
This is, by far, the dumbest fucking possible reasoning you could come up with and it is exactly why our descendants will be scratching their heads at why ancient Americans were so fucking dumb and why the ancients used such a shitty, destructive economic model and ideology like consumer capitalism.

>would assure a few more generations of human life possible on this little ball before we need to find a new ball to reside on.
Our initial problems have little to do with the degradation of plastics, at lease for the next several generations. Altering the atmosphere is a rather critical one, as is killing off the biosphere, poisoning the water, terraforming the earth and generally behaving like a witless bacterium 3 billion years ago blindly poisoning itself and all life around it precipitating a mass extinction event. If anything, those plastic particles would just be a long standing geological reminder that just winds up in one very ultrathing layer of sediment that appears in the geological record like a flash of lightning and then just as suddenly and mysteriously disappears. This is how things would see it another 500 million years from now.
>>
No. 9157
110 kB, 1080 × 1395
>>9135
> Remember always that Life Finds a Way
aren't our creations by default part of this? In this sense conscious genetic engineering would also be part of "life finds a way".
On top, where is the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering? both methods try to alter the genetic code; one is just a more advanced technique.
and at some point we need to alter our own biological body, if we want to survive on other balls of this universe, i would assume.

> >economic boom
>This is, by far, the dumbest fucking possible reasoning you could come up with
i would agree.
but, wouldn't that be an argumentation NTs could be convinced with? i would assume an economic boom would happen, if you have to replace pretty much everything (unless, like said, you do not care about longevity of your products).
not to mention that our current monzeys system is totally fucked up; no value behind it. we burn so much energy, a real resource, to create imaginary numbers, aka monzeys which is not a resource whatsoever. it's dumb as fuck. only brainwashed sheeple could do such dumb things.
(luckily the east is somewhat further advanced; they have been starting to use crypto currencies widely, which has far less inherent problems than the "old" central bank monzey system)
>>
No. 9161
>>9116
>marxist point of view.

But Marx makes distinctions between capitalism and feudalism in Das Kapital e.g.

>In historical materialism, history is driven by Kapital (evolution)

I think you mix up things here, the first sentence of the manifesto is:
>Die Geschichte aller bisherigen Gesellschaft ist die Geschichte von Klassenkämpfen

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

History is not driven by Kapital, but by class struggle, that's the dialectic.

>So everything in history that is under the process of Kapital, is capitalism.

Yes, I think you can say that.

And you can also say that both correlate in their teleology, Marx built his on Hegel
>>
No. 9164
615 kB, 141 pages
>philosophy

What bullshit!

Your body is everything, your mind is nothing!
>>
No. 9165
>>9157
The whole economic aspect is very complicated, e.g. green energy might be generally a good idea, but see what happened with it in the 2000s, lots of money wasted
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/ff_solyndra/
>>
No. 9172
>>9157
>aren't our creations by default part of this? In this sense conscious genetic engineering would also be part of "life finds a way".

I was making a Jurassic Park reference. The more academic terminology would be spontaneous order whereby (from a distance) various interrelated parts in the ecosystem arrive at order. As humans are actors in their own right and we deliberately plan such things it's another kettle of fish and life adapts to us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWToUATLGzs

I'm talking about our super-bacteria being balanced out by the wider ecosystem that will adapt to it. If you plant the carrots the rabbits will come.
>>
No. 9178
>>9081

>would you introduce these into the wild bio-cycle?

I doubt that would make much sense, most likely such bacteria would only thrive in specific environment (certain temperature, level of moisture, surrounded by huge amount of plastics powder etc.). If we had such bacteria it would be most likely utilized in huge bioreactors of some sort where they could be utilized at highest effiency level.
>>
No. 9179 Kontra
101 kB, 887 × 592
337 kB, 2845 × 1556
>>9165
Not everything is that ogre, though.
>>
No. 9201
Plastics have been engineered to last and not break down, to be incredibly strong

That's why a plastic bag that weighs 10g can take 100kg of tension

It's also why plastics replaced metals in lots of engineering applications

To make biodegradable plastic is literally to just use less stable polymers that were improved on. It's to go backwards

The real issue is not having an incredibly strong, light and durable material. The issue is irresponsible waste disposal and production of disposables because businesses profit more and typically don't have any responsibility to clean up the mess produced by their products - the government pays people to pick up water bottles and plastic bags, not the companies that package their products in them.

Address the real issue.
>>
No. 9202
>>9201
>not the companies that package their products in them.
So these companies will end up charging customers.
We had such machines ten years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3r31EYxdPg
I can't say they were very successful, they paid up to 30 kopecks, or a bit more than 1 cent.
Either "rewards" should be higher or law enforcement should be stronger, I don't know.
>>
No. 9203
>>9202
certainly, that's one approach
the company pushing the cost onto the consumer is not necessarily a bad thing. If it costs the company more to recycle, but overall the cost to society is less in terms of pollution, then you're not paying taxes towards cleanup and instead paying the company for the more costly responsible business practices.
>>
No. 9902
>>9081
I saw this thread so late, but it made me laugh, because there is a larva of some wax moth which is capable of digesting PE.

We could engineer e.Coli (hell even I could that if you provide me a good vector) and should not release them, but we could build plastic-waste fermenters, so we decompose that without burning that shit. It would help a lot but it is primarily a technology which countries like India would need.

But because green politics is a circle jerk and actual green action would involve investment in poor countries, this is not going to happen and we jack off to the thought that we can lower our CO-production by 0,0000000000023% for a few million $ business. Nice.
>>
No. 9903
>>9902
Interesting source, because I could be wrong.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/2477_ENG_HTML.php
>>
No. 9910
Unfortunately, I think I might have reached my intellectual limits in my pursuit of philosophy.
Or the limits of my attention span.

I can't fully grasp dialectics, and also the works on the boundary between philosophy and neuroscience are lost on me. Namely the mind body problem is a rather tricky subject.
>>
No. 9937
>>9902
A smarter thing to do if you're actually going to bother with the designer organisms route (which I absolutely guarantee you is going to backfire horribly btw) is to find a way to manipulate the gut flora of some organism to digesting it and maybe having farms like you said
https://www.scidev.net/global/news/termites-may-hold-solution-to-polythene-waste.html

I also can't remember if you posted this or not
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-09-20-mosquitoes-insect-larvae-eating-plastic-ecosystems-environment
I'm honestly less worried about this than I probably should be. This is probably one of those things like oil spills that people can see (or think they can see, or mistake floating garbage bags with microplastic) and relate to thinking oh the poor turtle stuck in plastic or an oil covered seagull. I am far, far, far more concerned about chemical pollutants being constantly pumped into the environment and ourselves or the general ongoing anthropocene extinction event. Also, ironically enough, I am way more concerned about what horrors the genetic age will bring. Megacorporations with the patents on life itself. Said life getting out of the lab and wreaking havoc. It's a recipe for the worst sorts of disasters in the history of the world, changes which will be irrevocable.

I am staunchly opposed to any manipulation of the genetic codes of life, particularly if it is being done by corporations. If you sincerely advocate for it then it is tempting to curse you that you live through those times. You need to take a broader understanding of how all the things would work together and what will happen when you introduce this factorX into a dynamic system. Just imagining how patent law can fuck us, let alone something that will make cane toads look like a great success, is horrifying.
>>
No. 9940
>>9937
History is accelerating.

I guess the last hundred years were quite exciting, but I suspect that very soon, humanity's going to have to learn the value of slowing down.

Conscious denial of progress and communal techno tribalism soon. Will guided development, triumph of intent over expediency.

A society that is crafted, rather than grown.
>>
No. 9964
>>9940
I think what you say is what would be necessary but it won't happen. You can't re-train a few billion neural networks over night, most of them have to be de-commissioned and replaced for the lessen to get across, but in order to do that you'd need a big war where billions die and then a phase of enlightenment where new-borns are taught a different school of thought deliberately. A bit like in Germany after WW2.
>>
No. 9968
>>9964
>but in order to do that you'd need a big war where billions die and then a phase of enlightenment where new-borns are taught a different school of thought deliberately.
You know, there is that theory that a certain group is trying to do this deliberately, that the earlier wars were things like Capitalism versus Communism, and that the later wars will first be Islam vs. Christianity followed by the forces of atheism and nihilism against religious zealots and reactionaries before unveiling a global government under Luciferianism.

Regardless, I personally believe that all that's going to happen will be us moving violently in the opposite direction of freedom and enlightenment. The behavior of governments and major corporations are a testimony to this.
>>
No. 10004
>>9964
I see that coming since the 90s, I hoped to be lucky enough to grow old and die before the unavoidable eventually happens, but now I fear there might not be enough time left for me to die of natural causes before the great happenings...
>>
No. 13417
Here's an excerpt from the upcoming Nick Land book:
http://sumrevija.si/en/sum10-2-nick-land-crypto-current-an-introduction-to-bitcoin-and-philosophy/

It's rather cryptic and dense but probably one of the few cases of actually interesting/radical contemporary philosophy
>>
No. 13418
>>13417
Speaking of Nick Land, here is an interesting Nick Land talk/interview with a more typical leftist interviewer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDMVYNX9xPw
>>
No. 13426
>>13417
>probably one of the few cases of actually interesting/radical contemporary philosophy

Philosophy has taken some steps since Land 1990s period and Land has become somewhat an origin for strands of philosophy. Yet I hate his cryptic writings and never wanted to deal with them so far. It's part of his nimbus tho. The cryptizism as ornament.

check this publisher since you seem to be interested in land and contemporary philosophy

https://www.urbanomic.com/book/
>>
No. 13439
>>
No. 13441
300 kB, 2048 × 1280
>>13418
Funny, I actually watch this channel semi-regularly. Haven't finished that episode though because it's so long and I'm mostly acquainted with Land's ideas. Probably a decent primer though for people who want to learn about his ideas

He also did a vid on the Crypto-Current text recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Twn1x2Pw0

>>13426
I haven't read that much by him either, mostly just blog posts. At times he's actually pretty legible, what got me hooked though was Meltdown, it was rather fun trying to decipher it

I've actually been eyeing the CCRU collection and Fanged Noumena books from Urbanomic for a while, but I'd rather catch up a bit on Kant and other stuff before I delve into that
>>
No. 13446
1,6 MB, 342 pages
13,3 MB, 685 pages
3,3 MB, 313 pages
64 kB, 339 × 960
>>13441
You will also need Deleuze to trace Nick Lands thought I'd say. At least the Anti-Oedipus.

Before you waste money at something you can hardly read, I attached the pdf for you to have a taste beforehand. And a dissertation on Land that grapples with a central thought of Land I think.

And before you read many pages, just take a 2h listen to this: excellent discussion, that traces Land and enfolds important thoughts

https://soundcloud.com/ectpodcast/ect-3-nick-land

they also use Drexciya - Digital Tsunami in on of their music breaks which is a bonus for me
>>
No. 13447
Is it still antinatalism if you choose not to reproduce for eugenic reasons?

t. Mentally ill retard :-DDD
>>
No. 13452
>>13447
No, it's eugenics then.

Eugenics is generally the next step one goes through in their philosophical journey after antinatalism
>>
No. 13453
>>13446
I've read nothing by Deleuze yet so that'll be a piece of work as he also seems to be infamous for his illegibility

I'm aware of the PDFs, but they seem like books which I wouldn't necessarily read linearly in one sitting but rather browse around which is better afforded with actual paper. Otoh I just got an e-reader so maybe I'll try it out.

Thanks for the dissertation & the podcast, looks interesting

>Drexciya
Have you seen the Meltdown video? It's quite an audio-visual experience, also accompanied by some electronic music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiaWsgtJrNI
>>
No. 13464
40 kB, 476 × 500
>>13453
> I wouldn't necessarily read linearly in one sitting but rather browse around which is better afforded with actual paper.

I'd prefer a material book over ebooks any time but you could check first, if the texts are interesting to you somehow.

>I've read nothing by Deleuze yet so that'll be a piece of work as he also seems to be infamous for his illegibility

Yes. I would rather read him than Land tho. I already did but as you can guess my understandings were less than marginal I'd say.

>Meltdown

Yes. It's great art.

But Reza Negarestani who wrote a theory fiction book, Land also doing something that can be called theory fiction had some words about this, that I think need to be considered, when coming in contact with Landian texts

>This is because I have come to the realization, after learning the hard lesson, that not everything needs to be stylized or aesthetized. Style is something that is intrinsic to how one cognizes and re-cognizes the world. It is not, however, a way of peddling ideas or look cutting-edge or scholarly. Philosophy demands as its first priority semantic transparency and a theoretically uncompromising attitude: you should go wherever the impersonal concept takes you, in spite of your psychological convictions. Semantic constraints don’t eliminate the style, rather they positively constrain it so that there is no longer a way to mask the conservatism of content behind syntactic gimmicks, stylistic contrivances, and a libidinal prose. It is in the latter sense that style should be seen as a spurious elitism in opposition to egalitarian semantic transparency, and as such it should be handled with utmost suspicion. When approached systematically and as an unwavering task, thinking is a subversive activity in the broadest possible sense, not only against socio-cultural conventions but also against the most cherished dogmas of the human species. To become the vehicle of this cognitive subversion, one should, at least in the domain of theory, commit to semantic resoluteness or perspicuity in favour of syntactic or stylistic revolutions. This is because the latter, as I implied, is susceptible to safeguard the most conservative, conformist forms of thought in the name of radicality, polysemy, creative ambivalence and the so-called righteous fight against the tyranny of meaning and collective norms of thinking.

And after being asked that it seems he has some specific figures in mind he answers

>Well, take for instance François Laruelle and Nick Land, fundamentally different thinkers and writers. Without questioning or doubting the merits of Laruelle’s work, I think there is a cognitive lesson to be learned here. Once you almost flatten the distinction between content and form, once you unwittingly develop an increasingly esoteric style, then you inevitably open yourself to reappropriation by the most dubious sects. Save for some glaring exceptions, Laruelle’s thought has been hijacked by new age mysticism, politically-motivated negative theology, and colonial pessimism masqueraded as the voice of decolonial emancipation. Land on the other hand is a self-conscious stylist. His industriously crafted libidinal prose is less a product of a harbinger of semantic apocalypse who wages an all-out war against meaning (or inadvertent stylistic overexcitement) than it is a mundane yet effective mobilization of style to recruit the impressionable and those who are tired, rightly so, by stale and intellectually frustrating philosophy. But beneath the facade of this titillating, libidinally charged, and insinuating prose lies a philosophically and politically conservative writer, whose ideas of cybernetics and complexity hasn’t advanced since the 1970s, whose brand of social Darwinism as cosmological laws can be effectively debunked by an undergraduate in physics, and whose idea of the will-to-think is no more than mere a lacquer over petty psychological fixations.

>In a nutshell, Land is one of the greatest English-language writers alive, but being a great writer is not, by itself, a register of insight or profundity. It can very well be the symptom of someone who wants to think but is plagued with incessant poetic tics which are purely automatic and non-cognitive. In contrast to these examples, let’s mention Carnap (the writer of the Logical Syntax of Language), Wilfrid Sellars and—a more recent example—Lorenz Puntel, author of Structure and Being. These authors might strike the reader as boring, or even intolerably pedantic. But once you suspend your learned biases, you can see that they are much more exciting, subversive and rebellious than those who boast philosophical egalitarianism and the great outdoors of thought all the while under the shroud of fighting orthodoxy, indulging in conformism, conservatism and intellectual idleness.
>>
No. 13473
>>13452
What's the next step? Am I going to start worshipping AI and praying that strong general AI develops promptly and mercy kills the human race? :-DDDDD

That's what Nick Land is all about right? Sorry if I'm grossly misrepresenting his thoughts: that's just what I gathered from seeing people discuss his work on imageboards. In any case I would join an AI cult.
>>
No. 13833
26,6 MB, 531 pages
5,1 MB, 2527 × 3221
>>13464
I'm slowly reading Anti-Ödipus now, turns out reading on an e-reader works much better than I imagined.
I guess I'm starting to get a grasp on the iconic terms/concepts but yes the writing is somewhat elusive and, well, schizophreny inducing.

Also I read something by Artaud as supplement as they appropriated the "body-without-organs" term from him, and he creeps me out, or rather his life trajectory. Sick and addicted to drugs for most of his life, spending his last years in different asylums, producing some really vile and visceral writings. Nothing of this seems to show in his young face

>Reza
It might be fair criticism albeit a bit wordy. But in any case I'm aware and have somewhat already grappled with Land's reactionary & antihumanist tendencies (and their dangers)
>>
No. 13834
>>13833
I had a talk with a lecturer today who does not like postmodernists and we came to the conclusion that one often asks yourself: why this now? where does it come from? You get a vague idea from the machine, but what it is exactly is still a mystery to me to be fair I only read the first pages here and there, anything that the suhrkamp index listed with machine

>Artaud

Phew, did not knew that. I only heard his name getting mentioned when it comes to modernism. Well, not surprising that breaking down barriers and drug consumption go hand in hand. What did you read? Any short things?
>>
No. 13835
>>13834
>why this now? where does it come from? You get a vague idea from the machine, but what it is exactly is still a mystery to me
It might not be enough to talk about it in an academical context but I think a vague idea is plenty good enough for a general understanding. The source text is likely not lacking in contradictions either so there's not really a way to pinpoint it. I mean it's even the same with most abstract terms such as "capitalism" or w.e.

>Artaud
Just "To Have Done with the Judgement of God" It's quite short: http://surrealism-plays.com/Artaud.html
Bit I think it's really intense, and also finally gave me the in hindsight obvious epiphany of shit ~= consumer goods ~=needless production. I was just reading some random book on entrepreneurship and it freaks me out to a very similar extent when they talk about "growth" and "creating products" etc. and it seems like such trash to me. Then it clicked that trash ~= shit. No wonder people go mad when applying scatological frameworks.
>>
No. 14063 Kontra
>>13833
>Nothing of this seems to show in his young face
Either it is you or me who has a weird conception about faces showing. But to me his face and foremost his eyes, or better their stare into the hollow nothing, show a very conflicted mind, to put it nicely.
>>
No. 16643
42 kB, 800 × 729
>Yuk Hui
What Begins After the End of the Enlightenment?

https://www.e-flux.com/journal/96/245507/what-begins-after-the-end-of-the-enlightenment/

It's a reaction to an essay published in The Atlantic by Henry Kissinger. It argues against Kissingers, who thinks history Spengler-esque. Hui argues instead for a new frame in which to think technology outside the old Enlightenment paradigm that creates a global time axis.

>I don’t mean to suggest that modern science and technology are evil (not least because they were my first areas of study). Nor am I suggesting that non-European cultures and traditions have been destroyed by evil modern technologies imposed by the West, and that therefore we should give up modern science and technology. The question, rather, is how this historical process can be rethought, and what futures are still available for imagination and realization. If we identify Enlightenment thought with modern technology as an irreversible process guided by universality and rationality, then the only question that remains to be asked is: To be or not to be? But if we affirm that multiple cosmotechnics exist, and that these may allow us to transcend the limit of sheer rationality, then we can find a way out of never-ending modernity and the disasters that have accompanied it. It would be tragic to misunderstand rationality merely as strict and rigid reasoning—unfortunately, it has been often mistaken as such. The history of reason and its relation to nature and technology, from Leibniz to cybernetics and machine learning, has to be constructed and interrogated differently than it has been [...] Certain reflections on culture may provide a way to understand these different modes of technological thinking. To rediscover multiple cosmotechnics is not to refuse artificial intelligence or machine learning, but to reappropriate modern technology, to give other frames to the enframing (Gestell) at the core of modern technology. If we want to surpass modernity, there is no way to simply reset it as if it were a computer or a smartphone. We must instead escape its global time-axis, escape a (trans)humanism that subordinates other beings to the terms of its own destiny, and propose a new agenda and imagination of technology that open up new forms of social, political, and aesthetic life and new relations with nonhumans, the earth, and the cosmos
>>
No. 16691
>>16643
>[...] creating the need for a new guiding philosophy. What could this philosophy be? A transhumanist philosophy? An Eurasian conservative revolution? A Landian accelerationism, or maybe a leftist version of the same, both hoping to overcome capitalism by accelerating its contradictions until it self-destructs?
>An Eurasian conservative revolution
Semi-ironically count me in on some syncretic Eurasian Renaissance. Maybe this is the time to admit I've watched too many Dugin interviews (One, if the supercut of him claiming that shaving your beard is gay doesn't count).

>[...] Hegel approaching Deleuze from behind and giving him a monstrous child.
Good metaphor

>If we recall high school physics, where a = v1-v2/t, acceleration is equal to the change of velocity (from v1 to v2) divided by time. V is velocity, not speed. Velocity is a vector having both magnitude and direction, while speed is mere magnitude. Why not consider another form of acceleration that does not push speed to its extreme, but rather changes the direction of movement, giving technology a new frame and orientation with regard to time and technological development?
Damn, he had no qualms going there. Absolute madman.

It was a decent read, but I find he sounds too "smooth", generally very reasonable but extremely vague at the same time but I guess that's just how most philosophers are. Also a bit odd that he doesn't even mention Christianity which I'd consider pivotal when talking about the Western time axis. I guess it's a whole topic by itself, but still
>>
No. 16795
>>16691
>Also a bit odd that he doesn't even mention Christianity which I'd consider pivotal when talking about the Western time axis. I guess it's a whole topic by itself, but still

I think it's because he proposes a convergence of enlightenment/rationality and technology, as a european feature that turned into a time imperialism so to say. Christianity might be imperialistic but it's not based on rationality and the supposed use of technology that follows it and that shaped time like that, it does not respect any other grid besides it own. Capital as a great equalizer, one might add. It can be done by china, europe, africa these days. Ofc everybody looks at China.
>>
No. 17268
>>16795
Fair enough, but what is driving the development of technology and employment of rationality? I guess at this point you can say Capital. But I think the importance of Christianity, and particularly its teleology, and its continuity through Humanism towards a cultural shift such as the "Enlightenment" is nowadays somewhat underappreciated. Surely the more superstitious elements of religion were a hindrance as well.
Of course China is in everyone's sights now, and I think it's important that they offer at least some sort of alternative system that at least seems to work(hard to gauge as current information for and against seems to be highly propagandistic), and countering this notion of the "End of History". But upon closer inspection their current system also seems rather fragile to me, and I'd argue that this is due to their more or less lack of teleological direction.
In any case I realize I need to read up a bit more on these topics, since afaict I'm mostly talking in second-hand Spenglerian ideas.
>>
No. 17277
>>17268
I think what Hui proposes is a use of technology outside of the capitalistic and enlightenment logic. China is just continuing the (European) project of modernity Anna Greenspan, companion of Nick Land, wrote about it, Africa would/could do the same, and it's due to the use and understanding of technology that Hui identifies as a European idea of rationality/technology which came with a global imperialism of capital which originated in Europe. The Aim of modernity? Progress, Freedom??? Don't know.
What you say about Christianity reminds me of Georg Simmel. Around 1900 he proposed that Christianity planted a transcendent aim in us thru all the centuries. When Christianity went, people of the developing capitalism were searching for new aims/answers and it lead to a multiplication of these aims, respectively "answers" and none of them seems right really, since there are so many. The plural of modernity. Nothing feels right as you have many options. Insecurity.
>>
No. 17282
>>17277
I'd just like to point out the entire premise of this is stupid because it posits all religion as inherently irrational while propping up a godless scientific inquiry. The churches basically held out as reliquaries of knowledge after the fall of Rome and helped continue traditions of literacy and learning. A great deal of technical insight actually came about because of the premise "God, an intelligent being, created and ordered the universe, ergo the universe should be rational". Depending on perspective there is in fact no logical reason to presume that the universe follows rationality like that, whereas one could argue that the universe being created by an intelligent rational being does.

I would even go so far as to argue that the sometimes superstitious or magical thinking has contributed more to science than fedoraism, in that the idea that the universe is chaotic and random and contains no deeper patterns is antithetical to technical insight. "But this is a retarded strawman" you say, based on a caricature of retarded annoying American/Anglo internet atheists. Well, now you understand the level of trying to argue about theology on the level of strawman caricatures of American evangelical Protestants.
>>
No. 17314
>>17282

>But this is a retarded strawman

Well, I never denied that
>The churches basically held out as reliquaries of knowledge after the fall of Rome and helped continue traditions of literacy and learning

but I said that it created a teleology that modernism is missing.
Ofc the enlightenment didn't happen ex nihilo that would be proof of dog :DDD but has a lineage into the time of christian domination. Yet the enlightenment also does things different, it goes from a heteronomous principle (dog) to the autonomous human. The science got more systematic, dominating nature got systematic. The church also had a system, or even systems, but it was obviously different.
>>
No. 17510
I don't know when or where I read it but I have once read (I believe it was on the internet) that the best hunters would be the ones who let their victims believe that they would be the hunters themselves. I think the person whoever wrote this was writing it about the dynamics between men and women but it may also be the case that I just put it into that context immediately for some reason.
Can you somehow attribute this sentence? Are there any philosophers who have written about this? Are there any cases in nature where this is true? Is it a valid point at all?

Related to men and women it would be the thesis that it's not the men who choose their partner but the women who do but let men belief that they are the ones who choose. Or is this an obvious thing anyways and I was just too autistic to look through the outer layer of things?
>>
No. 17516
>>17510
The concept is basically the basis of trapping and fishing but it's also employed by other species, e.g. the camouflage used by venus traps or cuttlefish.
Though it really doesn't have that much to do with philosophy as I see it. I can't point to any names, except for maybe Nietzsche if it has to be someone considered a philosopher but that's just a very wild guess because of the metaphorical and aphoristical nature of the saying.

>is this an obvious thing anyways and I was just too autistic to look through the outer layer of things?
More or less, yes. You can probably read this sort of thing in any manosphere adjacent publication that's delved into some pop ethology/evolutionary biology/psychology.
>>
No. 17520
495 kB, 1600 × 1200
>>17516
Yeah I pretty much think he is overanalyzing and confusing things between the natural world and man's inventions and conventions. And yeah it's an actual thing, both in nature as an ambush predator and in human mating rituals by giving chase and thus controlling the pursuit of another. In sex itself it's called "topping from bottom" I think. And politically and culturally it is just all manner of subterfuge and chicanery, perhaps most infamously in the basics of running a con. For example the Nigerian oil scam, or any scam really, relies on enticing the greed of another and convincing them they'll get money for nothing or very little effort. Most predatory behaviors economically work out that way. Gambling in general thrives on this, by making your mark think he's going to make it big while you part him with his cash, all the way from scratch off lotto tickets to Las Vegas, and is the essential basis of pool sharking.

This is also a well known consumer behavior, whereby the adage "what's too good to be true usually is" makes people on one hand more willing to part with their cash for an expensive product, reasoning it is good, than an absurdly cheap one, reasoning that they're being ripped off and asking "well what's wrong with it?"

There are many areas in human activity where this applies, a great deal of it dishonest. But in nature it is surprisingly not as common, except for like angler fish and turtles. Most life seems adapted to make you think nothing is there than to blatantly give itself away, which is usually only done by highly toxic animals with warning colors. Why do this? Because even being attacked on accident is risking its life from being crippled/poisoned/killed/wound infections etc. and the waste of energy in a struggle, so it is more economic to simply try and warn something off with a threat display than actually having to bother with the attack, in fact many venomous animals deliberately give dry bites like spiders and snakes specifically because it is energy intensive to create that toxin and they need it to survive on getting a meal so would rather not waste it on some dumbass walking by them.

As such, giving away your position with some enticement is a rather hazardous hunting strategy in nature. It means your prey is actually going to be alert from the start and is more likely to put up a struggle so you have to waste more energy and put your health more at risk in subduing prey. Generally speaking you don't want to risk serious injury on a meal, nor losing your bait.
>>
No. 18224
2,5 MB, 176 pages
Finished reading Otaku: Japan's Database Animals by Hiroki Azuma. Mentioned it already in the lit thread but I guess it might be more fitting here.

The author builds on Lyotard's idea of modernity as the time of grand narratives (until ~1914) as source of meaning for humans and postmodernity as the gradual decline of grand narratives from then until now. His idea is that back then small narratives were used as elements that in total reinforced the grand narratives (e.g. something like Paradise Lost by Milton as element for Christianity).
Then he goes on to analyze Otaku* consumption behavior as a specific case of postmodern meaning-making. According to his theory anime (or other otaku products) are often not single-standing original works, but rather simulacra assembled of different tropes and characteristics from a shared database, which he considers a grand nonnarrative. The single narratives are meaningful for the otaku on the one hand by themselves (but only in an animalistic/abstracted way that triggers certain emotions/Moe) and on the other hand as part of the database of narrative tropes and character traits.

Then he briefly goes on to connect this structure to the way information can be accessed on many different layers in computers and also takes some pages to basically plug his favorite VN :DDDD (it's called Yu-No).

tl;dr: it was a very short and interesting read, also very legible compared to e.g. the French postmodern stuff. Would recommend to anyone who's into anime/VN culture (and this sort of critical analysis). He references a lot of other philosophers and their ideas which might be a bit much but for the most part he also explains them concisely.

* in a rather narrow sense, but other subcultes can be analyzed similarly
>>
No. 18226 Kontra
>>18224
I'm reading a blogpost about another Japanese book mentioned*, and I found this (somewhat unrelated) story that blew my mind:

>In the course of the Eighties, Baudrillard became a popular author in Japan, and his ideas were taken up in some unexpected circles. For example, the owner-manager of the Seibu department store, Tsutsumi Seiji, a versifier himself, adopted an explicitly Baudrillardean marketing strategy for his enterprise, renaming his (company) Saison, lecturing stock-holders on the role of simulacra in his business and cultivating parodic advertising styles.

So this guy is not only a poet and a big business exec but also cognizantly employs postmodern theory as a business strategy. I'm impressed.

* http://neojaponisme.com/2011/05/06/structure-and-power-1983/
>>
No. 18228
>>18224
To be fair, Yu-No is actually p. good for what it is. I never saw it recommended as much as it should have been outside of the more dedicated weeb watering holes I once inhabited.
>>
No. 18265 Kontra
77 kB, 322 × 215
>>18228
It does sound intriguing. There seems to be an official localization of the remake coming out this year but I'll probably rather check out the original.
Though actually I've yet to finish Muv-Luv Alternative. Now that I think about they also sound somewhat similar in regards to their tropes (time travel, parallel worlds etc.). Though what Azuma highlighted about Yu-No was the conscious visualization of the branching story structure.
>>
No. 18464
11,5 MB, 1280 × 720, 1:31
I as of currently being epistemologically relativist picked up reading TLP by Wittgenstein. My god I just barely got through the first chapter and it's so boring. I can't see myself picking the book up like I usually do with other books and it's because I don't understand it I think. I see no common thread and what's worse not only do I not identify the premises I don't even identify what Wittgenstein is arguing for. What other philo books do I need to read in order to understand it or is it just wittgensteins way of boring you to death?
>>
No. 18467
>>18464
afaik it's formal logic, you aint good at math either I suppose? Everything is deduced.

t. had sames with TLP
>>
No. 18468
>>18464
The TLP is supposed to be as brief as possible so he doesn't really give any explanations, just lays out the structure of "logical" propositions that build upon each other in a self-contained manner, so it's really not like other books. It'd probably help if you're acquainted with formal logic but I wouldn't bother with it unless you're really dedicated.
IMO there's not much of a point in trying to understand it by yourself, so it's probably best to just read some secondary source on it, e.g. the English wiki article would be a good start I think. And also Wittgenstein himself later criticized the ideas he puts forward in the TLP.
Disclaimer: I too only waded through half of it with some momentary epiphanies before I put it away.
>>
No. 18474
>>18467
>>18468

I've had a course on formal systems, perhaps I am bad at math, it is just I understand the deduction etc i just don't understand what the hell he is trying to tell. Like it's not something new deducing facts from premises he set up himself. I am just too bored to get through this.
>>
No. 19059
401 kB, 813 × 813
A short piece on whether artificial intelligence can be creative. The author argues that it cannot.
>Human creative achievement, because of the way it is socially embedded, will not succumb to advances in artificial intelligence.
>We may be able to see a machine’s product as great, but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good. For this reason, it seems to me, nothing but another human being can properly be understood as a genuinely creative artist.
>the supercomputer is not doing anything creative by checking a huge number of cases. Instead, it is doing something boring a huge number of times. This seems like almost the opposite of creativity.
> A machine could not surpass us massively in creativity because either its achievement would be understandable, in which case it would not massively surpass us, or it would not be understandable, in which case we could not count it as making any creative advance at all.
I should note that the author limits his considerations to current AI development:
>Still other paradigms may come in the future, but if we speculate that some notional future AI whose features we cannot meaningfully describe will accomplish wondrous things, that is mythmaking, not reasoned argument about the possibilities of technology.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612913/a-philosopher-argues-that-an-ai-can-never-be-an-artist/

The argument revolves around one key point: that creativity is not simply a new arrangement of colors or sounds, or even a never before imagined mathematical proof or game strategy. That new thing is only deemed creative when we can interpret some intent behind it. A toddler hitting random piano keys may strike a novel sequence, but we would call that randomness, not creativity. There are a number of examples where computer programs were used as tools by artists, and even a case where a deep-learning algorithm took Bach chorales as input, and was able to produce new music which sounded similar. This is defined as mimcry, with the original creativity still ascribed to Bach. The author is not approaching the question of creativity as an art critic might-in an effort to determine what is creative, but rather as a philosopher whose goal is to define what creativity is.
>>
No. 19061
>>19059
Isn't the great variety of species and natural forms observed on the earth itself the product of stochastic processes and algorithmic formalisms? If creativity requires intent, does this mean biological evolution is not creative?
>>
No. 19062
>>19061
>If creativity requires intent, does this mean biological evolution is not creative?
Given the boundaries of  his definition, the answer would be no. The random mutations which drive evolution and create new solutions to overcome survival pressures would be judged no different than monkeys pounding on a typewriter. Their eventual version of Othello was not an act of creativity. Creativity, by his reasoning, is not the end result, but the process which produced that result. I though his argument-or at least this part of it- wasn't as much about the limits of AI, as it was about the merits of humanity.  If we begin to call algorithmically produced work creative genius, we would be diminishing what makes humans special. He has a point. The portrait in the above post was made by feeding images of thousands of old paintings into a computer. It's a unique creation, but can we call that creative without changing the meaning of the word? I don't think so. The portrait was ultimately sold at auction for 400k, so in a  way the argument is like a man reminding us of the merits of his vinyl records while the world inevitably turns to digital music. 
>>
No. 19063
>>19059
It strikes me that his primary defect is some underlying faith in human beings. A very good example for me has been this growing tech cult where people literally don't see a difference between themselves or their computers anymore, or who are dumb enough the whole cyberpunk critique thing went over their heads and just think hurrdurr oh cool neon everywhere derpdurr cybernetic limbs. Silicon Valley and these techno fetishists who practically worship tech billionaires is one such example and in many cases what's being discussed isn't even sophisticated.

The great bulk of people are retarded and can be convinced to blindly worship anything you tell them to if they think enough people are also doing it, and sometimes not even needing that. For some reason a lot of these types of dumbasses congregate around Star Trek too. It is something I keep noticing in things like discussion of SOMA. There is a large swath of the public that literally sees a copy, a mere facsimile, as being the same as the real actual thing. To them if your personality was just "downloaded" onto a flash drive it would be effectively the same thing as the real person to them. I suspect they're also weebs come to think of it

These people are like baboons trying to attack a mirror. Why on earth would I have faith in them making any distinction between the genuine and the fake? Or between man made with intent and some random output of machines? I would also like to point out this is a huge problem I have with these nu-atheists, who take their most facile understanding of chance and determinism and are ultimately too freaking stupid to comprehend a greater pattern and so they say everything is meaningless and random, without having any idea of randomness itself. They are basically your average reddit user and further proof that bydloness is incurable by ideology.
>>
No. 19119
53 kB, 566 × 528
What is human nature?
>>
No. 19124 Kontra
>>19119
Only a brainlet would ask that kind of question.
>>
No. 19133
>>19119
It does not exist. Material conditions, etc.
>>
No. 19137
>>19063
>The great bulk of people are retarded and can be convinced to blindly worship anything you tell them to if they think enough people are also doing it, and sometimes not even needing that. For some reason a lot of these types of dumbasses congregate around Star Trek too. It is something I keep noticing in things like discussion of SOMA. There is a large swath of the public that literally sees a copy, a mere facsimile, as being the same as the real actual thing. To them if your personality was just "downloaded" onto a flash drive it would be effectively the same thing as the real person to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo
>>
No. 19138
>>19133
What then are we to call innate human behaviors, processes, and capacities, such as the ability to acquire a language when exposed to it during a critical period? Or sexual dimorphism in proclivity for violence and aggression across cultures and eras? Or the broadly shared developmental program that wires our brains before and after birth, in which genetic, environmental, and stochastic variation contribute to the observed range of human capacities? Are these something other than human nature?
>>
No. 19164
52 kB, 454 × 337
67 kB, 1280 × 720
>>19138
But Ernst, you are merely describing some characteristics of human nature. Now please tell me, what is human nature?

Sophistry aside, what you are talking about is a view of human nature as defined by evolutionary biology. That's a pretty useful definition but it is still limited and is most often invoked to make a certain point about what's natural for humans and what's not. All the while these "natural" capacities also merely evolved through time and didn't exist at other points of time throughout human, or rather pre-human (or pre-mammal, aside from language all the characteristics you mention roughly apply to mammals in general) evolution. So if neither humans nor these characteristics existed at other points in time how can they really be natural?
>>
No. 19187
>>19164
Thoughtful post. I'll confess, I'm probably out of my depth here. However, it seems to me that if the 'nature' of a thing must be specific to that thing, and not particular to a certain time and location, then it would be hard to pin down the nature of anything beyond physical constants and mechanical laws. For instance, I think it is in the nature of dogs to howl. But of course there are other creatures that howl, namely wolves (of which dogs are a subspecies). And a dog would not howl on the moon. And there is individual and breed variation in the tendency to howl.
>>
No. 19200
>>19187
>anything beyond physical constants and mechanical laws.
Theoretically, even these things don't have to be constant either. Recently I've been reading the sci-fi novel The Three Body Problem and there's this passage which elucidates the idea succinctly:

>When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.
>In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.
>The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.

>For instance, I think it is in the nature of dogs to howl. But of course there are other creatures that howl, namely wolves (of which dogs are a subspecies). And a dog would not howl on the moon. And there is individual and breed variation in the tendency to howl.

Well, again I think it's a sensible explanation but again you are talking in terms of biological taxonomy and only giving a specific example. There really is just no one true answer to a question such as "What is human nature?", though you might be able to reach some consensus on it within certain discourses.
I'd recommend checking out Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, or I guess whatever Wittgenstein wrote on language games.
>>
No. 19248
>>19200
>The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.

Ebin formulation of the problem of induction :-DDDD

I think I may try some Wittgenstein but I'm not sure where I should start.
>>
No. 19258
>>19248
>I think I may try some Wittgenstein but I'm not sure where I should start.
If you want to actually read his works, and there are only two major ones, you should go with Philosophical Investigations. I actually started reading it today as well, as before I've mostly known about his ideas from secondary sources. Which would be the other alternative, https://plato.stanford.edu/ is usually a decent choice.
I'd definitely not recommend starting with his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as discussed in >>18468
>>
No. 19797
563 kB, 1640 × 1150
>>
No. 19798
19,4 MB, 640 × 360, 4:59
>>
No. 19799
92 kB, 404 × 500
>>19797
>A priori Knowledge No
>A priori Knowledge Yes
>God Atheism
>Free will No free will
>>
No. 19800
>>19799
What did he mean by this?
>>
No. 19806 Kontra
>>19798
Is Nietzsche a thing in those circles which are parodied in this video? I guess so because he was so anti and also hated women. But then again the whole french postmodernism is kinda based on reading Nietzsche.
>>
No. 19809 Kontra
20 kB, 474 × 528
75 kB, 800 × 401
52 kB, 960 × 946
159 kB, 1631 × 1018
>>19806
Also he was like a total nihilist and also atheist ("God is dead")
I think his appeal to illiterate edgelords is quite unparalleled.
>>
No. 19811
>>19809
Where did this meme that Nietzsche was a Nihilist even come from?
Wille zur Macht coupled with Nothing is real, everything is permitted means that the world is your oyster and it's time to have some fun achieving things now that nothing is binding us.
>>
No. 19815 Kontra
>>19811
>Wille zur Macht

afaik it's an compilation released postmortem and not a book Nietzsche wrote himself and therefore problematic

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Wille_zur_Macht
>>
No. 19818
>>19815
Not the book, the doctrine.
>>
No. 19820
>>19811
Existentialism is just a response to nihilism. You can only create meaning for yourself if you acknowledge that no universal meaning exists.
>>
No. 19835
>>19820
You are oversimplifying things, please don't do that.

Talking about an entire school of philosophy as just this/that will bring no knowledge to anyone.
>>
No. 19899
>>9081
I don't think your thread is about philosophy; it's about environmentalism and science. This is because Philosophy translates as 'love of wisdom'. Also, calling it 'philo' is incorrect because this translates as 'love'.
>>
No. 19901
>>19899
Bioethics is philosophy. Environmentalism can also be philosophy although it doesn't have t be.
>>
No. 19905
>>19901
In that case it's not very profound
>>
No. 20558
36 kB, 60 × 56, 0:03
I have found one possible resolution of the problem, when you feel about the post on the anonymous imageboard that it could be yours, but it's not yours and vice versa.
You choose a community out of similarity of minds. And imageboard is a kind of community. Thus, similar thoughts float in the mind ether, which could be yours and not yours at the same time.
>>
No. 20591
>fungus modified to digest plastic
>we should release it
>oh no, need a new laptop, the mainboard in my old one grew moldy
brilliant idea.