Thanks for giving me the time of day.
(My responses to a bunch of reddit comments. Most of these
got deleted because I called somebody a “cunt” or some other harmless jokingly mean words. That
site wants people to be spineless degenerate children, it’s fucking shameless, be an adult.
Hopefully I archived most of them before they got deleted.)
https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/b5ajmh/this_week_michael_strevens_talks_about_his_2019/
This is the thread.
If philosophy was valid or invalid, then it would be a
science. If it could be validated, then it wouldn't be up for debate. It can be
agreed upon, and the consensus can be enforced by people as if it were a fact,
but this consensus does not indicate validity. People could enforce any
irrational consensus as if it were a fact without having any legitimate reason
for doing so.
What is the right thing to do? Does this make sense? This is
still entirely scientific, we may not have the data or knowledge to make the
scientifically optimum decision, but just as there is the right trajectory for
an intercontinental ballistic missile to strike its target, there is a
scientifically defined right thing to do. The thing that is optimized and
produces the best results.
Of course this depends entirely on what results oneself is
trying to produce, but regardless of what they are, the right thing is the
optimum thing, and the optimum thing is defined by the results, including any
and all energy that was expended to reach that point, as this is a result of a
loss of energy.
People lack the data to make these decisions scientifically
so they rely on non-scientific philosophical arguments, but this is an entirely
archaic methodology when we have thoroughly mastered the applications of science,
as the scientific method could readily deduce legitimate, scientific answers to
these questions if things were tested. Granted this is an insurmountable amount
of data to manipulate, many things can be deduced through the same common sense
that will remind a person any rock thrown into the air will fall back to earth,
a pack horse with a light cart will pull that cart faster than the pack horse
with the far heavier cart.
"Does it make sense?" doesn't matter in the
slightest, it is only whether or not something is correct. It doesn't matter if
the function of a computer "makes sense to you" your opinion and
understanding of the concept is entirely irrelevant from the thing in
questioning functioning.
In terms of "making sense" meaning being
agreeable, usually in regards to moral, personal, or emotional
objectionability, these things are also irrelevant because they don't change
reality unless humans, through their own volition, act upon their perception of
these things and enforce that which would otherwise naturally be unenforced.
This is reasonable when science would defend this process as optimization, but
just because people are acting in the name of what they percieve to be
moralistic optimization does not mean that they are actually doing this in the slightest.
E.g. prisoners who can't work, disabled people who can't
work logically are better off dead to save the economy money and thus be more
successful, but once moral and philosophical convolution come into play, the
scientific argument is invalidated by baseless delusional beliefs that
profoundly influence the decision making of a human
The only relevant things are the input and output, as we
cannot create an output we lack the necessary input for. When you look at
science, science operates completely independently from any moral, emotional,
or philosophical influence, so to convolute existence, our planet, animal life,
human life, and anything else with concepts that are entirely imaginary and
measurably irrelevant from the function of these things is nonsensical. The
only influence these things have upon human life comes from the extent to which
they present themselves as communal sentiments, which are not naturally
scientifically relevant, but are only made scientifically relevant due to the
fact that they artificially define the actions, behaviors, and thus reality of
the human race.
A simple example of this is this. "You are a prisoner
in a room. You are fed three meals a day, but you cannot eat without inserting
a butt-plug in your ass and putting on a clown wig and a clown nose. This is
not because it is physically impossible, but this is because your cell-made
Johnny is guaranteed to kill you if you don't do this. The second you start to
eat without doing these things, he beats you to death. Logically, you need to
put that butt-plug in your ass and dress like a clown in order to survive, it
is a necessity of life and clearly common sense, but in reality this is not
true. This is only true because Johnny causes it to be true through his own
volition, his own human, conscious enforcement of a standard that is not
reflected in natural reality."
This is the significance of philosophy, morality, and
anything of that ethereal nature. These things are "Johnny", they are
only relevant if Johnny makes them relevant, and in the case of the human race,
Johnny is very relevant, and this often causes people to act in manners that
are contrary to pursuing and making more so scientifically, and thus naturally
optimized decisions.
As for "why am I here?" that is also irrelevant.
You can look at a math problem such as 2+2 = 4, and ask "why?" but
"why?" is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. It changes
nothing about the problem, it is a delusional convolution that presumes
something exists and is relevant, when clearly as defined by the problem, any
sort of "why?" is not applicable to the situation as it changes
nothing about the situation at hand.The entire world, the entire universe is
nothing but math equations, so to try and argue that the question "why is
this so?" is somehow a relevant question is to turn the question directly
onto "Why is two plus two four?" because that's the way it is, that's
how counting works, and that should be plain as day.
The question, "Why is two plus two four?" is
relevant because this is the question at hand, and this why is easily answered
"Four is 1111, two is 11, 11 + 11 = 1111, it is simple counting. That is
why.
The "Whys?"
that are relevant are actually answerable "Why did this man beat his wife
to death?" is relevant because we know for a fact that there is an answer
to this question, there is a reason as to why this happened, and this is a
relevant question because if this can be answered and addressed, it may be able
to prevent people from being beaten to death. Knowing "why" reality
exists doesn't and won't change anything about reality, so it is not relevant
to reality.
These are my conclusions. The world is not an opinion, the
world is scientific, nothing is up for debate. Only the conclusions we draw as
we try to understand the raw, measurable, unconscious and physical reality in
which we live is up for debate, but in the end this is not debate because we
have transcended beyond debate. It is subject to scrutinous scientific trials
that actually and measurably prove with reproducible results whether or not
something is right scientifically, rather than logically.
Logically, the sun moves around the sky, the sun is moving
and we are standing still, this makes sense, but science proves this logical
standpoint to be false. Logic is not what determines right or wrong, logic is
an attempt to make sense of things, but often, due to a lack of appropriate
data and information, logic causes people to come to conclusions that are
false.
The way I understand it. Non-scientific logic is not a
reasonable way to come to conclusions. The human race understands that the
world is entirely scientific, and treating human life, thoughts, and existence
as if they are somehow different from the rest of the world, from the rest of
the universe, is nonsensical when clearly the entire universe consistently and
invariably functions in an explicitly scientific manner.
(Thanks for talking to me. =) I just like to ramble.)
Philosophy is a joke. Do you realize the place, the status
of philosophy in society? It's used for pomp and putting on airs, that's about
it. There is little practical value of philosophy, because by my logic if there
was any, philosophers would be paid good deals of money to
"philosophize" about shit.
Why do I care about what opinions some pretentious cunt
feels like shitting out of their mouth? I do the same shit all day. I get
plenty of philosophy and I get to stroke my own ego rather than feel like some
sort of subservient peasant because I'm not sitting here cooing over some pretentious
piece of shit who thinks they know better than I do. Thankfully i'm not so
spineless as to respect other people who don't fucking demand it. If it desrved
to be respected, the world would demand that you respect it.
I know the world demands some philosophers to be respected
such as the ones that influenced the constitution, and I begrudgingly do
respect these people. This is not because of any legitimacy of their arguments,
but the legitimacy of their standing armies that are truly the functional and
measurable metric of the legitimacy of a philosophy.
Morality doesn't exist. It is a delusion, it is the
cancerous progeny of empathy and emotion, literally instinctive formication
meant to induce actions and behaviors that were beneficial to social order.
Scientifically, morality is the optimization of a social system to maximize the
success of a species. Using any sort of empathetic or sympathetic metric to
justify morality is using this vestigial instinct for a task it is not designed
to do. It is only designed to function in small group settings, it cannot be
applied to anything beyond a very small village at most.
These are ideals. This is not a metric of optimization. The
metric of optimization I tend to rely on is economic success, as money is nearly
identical to raw potential energy in a human society that values it.
Do you want all Jews gone? This depends on the degrees to
which Jews influence the economy. By my rough sense of things, without any sort
of conspiracy, Jews seem to benefit the economy, so killing them does not
optimize the economy.
Do you want perfect wealth equality or meritocracy? No. Why
pay for what you can get for free? Why give people rights when you don't need
to? I argue in favor of enslaving people and using a varying arrays of
physical, emotional, and chemical conditioning to encourage them to work and
discourage them from idleness. This is the most bang for your buck so to speak,
and even if they're a bit less innovative, there's still a profoundly higher
degree of productivity and a much lower overhead for maintaining a human
society.
Reagardless of any moral arguments, I defend the concept of
CREAM, cash rules everything around me. Seeing how this is true, optimizing and
maximizing cash is the only valid metric that should be optimized. Nobody ever
said "Morality rules everything around me" or "Emotions rule
everything around me" because they don't. That's sentimental bullshit, and
real, functional, logical people don't concern themselves with that bullshit.
1st of all, I'm not some cunt who would read a book, let
alone even consider the thought that what somebody else thinks is anymore
legitimate than mentally retarded bastard child born out of incest
To your second point. "philosophy is a largely
linguistic pursuit that the animals learned how to do" This describes
fiction, fucking anything, shitting on a piece of paper and finger-painting
with it to express your feelings. Just because people do something doesn't mean
it is somehow firmly rooted in the god damn scientific method.
As for Newton, you lost me. The whole "making sense of
things" seems to be a practical approach, this is not any sort of
philosophical quandary unless a bird making a nest is somehow doing so due to
some philosophical initiative. It just does these things it naturally does to
survive. A humans exploit their environment in any way possible in order to
compete for dominance, and similar to how a bird exploits the world around it
to make a nest.
The argument "things happen for a reason" seems to
make sense, if I throw a rock, it goes forward. That's just how things work.
From the fact that these things tend to happen for a reason, you can extend
that point to everything, but that is a deduction only an adventurous person
would make. Things falling to the ground seems like breathing to most people,
the sound of footsteps, completely insiginificant and most of the time you
don't tend to hear your own breath.
1) I'm trying to understand your question. I'm just saying
philosophy is convolution the behavior of animals. It presumes people to act in
ways that are somehow different than animal instincts that are convoluted by
the delirium that is intelligence. It's overthinking the behavior of an animal.
When a an animal does something, is this a philosophical quandary? I don't know
2) No. I'm a vagabond. I just wander around looking for
places to shitpost, places to argue. Throw virtual rocks at people and try to
get some kind of reaction, enjoy a shouting match. I didn't read a damn thing
on this sub. I've never read a philosophy book in my life.
I just presumed "philosophy" as just some crock of
shit where you think about meaning, morality, and that sort baseless
existential nonsense that is validated by literally nothing in the universe
save for the human psyche. If morality is ever valid, it is valid because it is
the amoral optimization of a system, not because anything is "good or bad,
moral or immoral" in reality.
I just like to rant about god knows what. Thank you for
mentioning Socrates. I respect this man, shit on a plate and then people eat it
for thousands of fucking years. This is the only one unless there were some
iconoclasts who tried to do the same. Don't listen to anybody, assert yourself
over everybody. Nobody knows what their talking about, so assert the fact that
you do and watch them buckle due to their lack of ego and self confidence. If
they have an opinion, they're wrong, because this is not your opinion, if you
agree with them you're just forfeiting. You're letting them with the god damn
prize, and you're just admitting to be a worthless god forsaken loser who can't
win a god damn shouting match.
Of course people are fucking invulnerable on the internet,
but if I was shameless enough to partake in some philosophical argument, I
could shout louder, and be more verbally aggressive if not abusive until people
realized that they're wrong because I'm louder than they are. If they want to
gang up on me, so be it. Fuck it, only proves they've got shit for brains for
having faith that there is any form of quantifiable legitimacy in the god damn
delirium known as human consciousness. If there is, it is a complete
coincidence.
(I wrote this in about ten minutes, I shout-type fast.
Forgive the hurried colloquial pace and whatever mistakes I may have made.)
It is energy in that it compels people to do things. It can
be exchanged for energy, this is called paying people to do work. This can even
be extended to paying for raw materials as matter is all stored energy, not
that a steel beam is having it's atomic energy utilized like an atom bomb, but
the atomic energy of the steel being steel, providing support to a building or
doing other things like that.
This doesn't seem to be philosophical. It is clear cut and
raw, it's not lofty at all. It's not some kind of baseless opinion.
Also. The sun isn't around us. The sun is very fucking far
away, like millions of miles through dead empty space. Everything around me is
everything on the planet, everything on the planet is explicitly and
graphically dominated by the influence of human beings. I mean energy in the
explicit scientific sense.
Creativity? The fuck is that, worthless. If it doesn't
produce leigitmate, functional and mechanical value, then it is garbage. If art
or music cause people to work harder, be more intelligent, than sure. It is
quantified in the degree that "people exposed to art produce at 120% X
rate" and "people not exposed to art produce at 100% X rate" ,
the quantification of the value of that art is 20% increase on the rate of labor.
If it's making money it is ingenuity. Can you quantify this?
Yes, the amount of money it makes, or saves, effectively making money by saving
it.
Potential meaning potential energy, sure. Money is potential
energy that can be converted into plenty of things, somebody chopping woods or
fabricating metal, damn near anything.
Dynamism? This is beyond me, but the dictionary says
something like inducing vigorous activity. Yes, money compels people. There are
cheaper ways to compel people, but money is potential energy that people need
such as food and water, it is twice potential energy for lack of a better term
in that it provides things that reduce energy expenditure such as clothing,
shelter, etc.
I'm going to bed. I'll try to get back to you if you respond.
I'm halfway busy tomorrow. (Sorry if this is getting disjointed, it's late.)
Ok. Look at it like this. You have 100 people 99 of these
people make $100 each. 1 of these people costs $9,999 to keep alive. To keep
this person alive, you would need to spend 99.99% of all money that is made
just to do so. You would rather keep this person alive, be paid 1 cent instead
of $100? No, that's nonsense. This is why ethics is a crock of shit.
You are kept alive so long as your life is a valid
investment. You are kept alive so long as you produce more value than you
extract from society, and this is called a net yield. When your net yield drops
below $0, you are killed. As for children, if their projected net yield to
society is below $0, they are killed. This is how you run a business, and an
economy, a government, and a society are bound by exactly the same rules that
determine the success or faliure of a business. Convolute these things with
"ethics and morality" all you like, but that isn't going to change
the way economics works.
Ethics and morality are a luxury where as being economically
successful is a necessity. You can't have those luxuries without first having
that necessity met, and beyond that, I frown upon luxuries simply for being
pointless. That's not a valid investment of money any day of the week. Invest
in something that yields a profit, if you are not doing this, you are making a
poor investment.
Logically, understand that you are presented with two
stocks. Your income, what you substantiate your life from, your food, water,
clothing, and shelter all come from these investments. You can invest in
brain-dead quadripleics, choosing to spend money on keeping them alive, or you
can invest in a successful company that makes and sells every form of energy.
The stock in
brain-dead people yields $0 dividends annually as those people make no money,
and you starve to death because nobody will help you, and the energy stock
gives you enough money to meet your necessities.
This is the decision. It has nothing to do with
"jewishness". If you were killed, it would have nothing to do with
being "jewish". That's like looking at a situaiton where a child
drowns in a lake because it cannot swim, then arguing "this child drowned
because he was Jewish? Is this lake antisemitic?" That's hilarious but
also stupid as shit.
~ ~ ~
Logic is math. Real logic, mathematical logic, productive,
functional logic. Are you saying that a god damn logic gate in a computer is
the product of philosophy? This the logic I am talking about.
If a hard science has a use for something philosophy was
able to deduce, the legitimate, productive, physical science gains custody of
that product.
This is like saying "A philosopher once said that the
sun emits light", then claiming "The science and physics of stellar
bodies is rooted in philosophy". Philosophy tends to put their name on
things like common sense, throwing shit at the wall, and when it happens to hit
a certain point of a hard science by complete coincidence, suddenly Philosophy gets
credit for something.
I understand that sure, philosophical logic exists, but to
argue that logic is philosophical is nonsense because logic has existed since
the dawn of the universe. Philosophers attempted to formalize logic, and this
worked to some extent, but mathematicians were able to formalize logic in a
more so functional manner that can actually be applied in society in something
like a logic gate in a computer.
I'm just being a bigot here, but I'll argue that this is
like cavemen pushing a car, compared to somebody who actually knows how to
drive and mechanically assemble and repair a car. Sure, the car goes forward in
both examples, but the car is a far more efficient mode of transportation in
the latter example.
I would concede that
philosophical logic was profoundly influential in the creation of mathematical
logic, but mathematical logic succeeded in the same respects that chemistry and
physics succeeded, mathematical logic succeeds in the computer and programming.
This is where philosophical logic has largely failed entirely to be put to use
in any sort of reliable and practical endeavor because it depends so entirely
on the impeccable function of the human mind.
~ ~
Ok. A man pushes a god damn box. This is him unleashing the
stored potential energy in his body in the form of work upon that box. You
compel him to do this work with the money. Thus by this string of exchanges the
money itself equates to work, which is a form of harnessed energy.
Motivation is the instinct not to die. You are motivated to
work because you don't want to die and you don't want to suffer. Even the
"words of love" bullshit is still somebody trying not to suffer, they
couldn't suffer with the guilt of letting their loved one die or whatever.
There are countless ways to motivate somebody, and
motivation is just the desire to alleviate discomfort. Here is how to motivate
people: you make them very uncomfortable, then you offer to make them less
uncomfortable when they do what you ask them to do. They are then "motivated"
to do what you want them to do. Find anything that motivates somebody that
isn't this.
People who want fame or fortune are discomforted by the fact
that they don't want them. People who want their loved one to be happy would be
discomforted by the fact that their loved one is unhappy. This is what
motivation is, and there is no reason to convolute it with specifications. A
rectangle is a shape just as much as a triangle and a circle, and motivation
here is just a shape.
It is far more consistent and reliable to motivate people
with the temptation of the alleviation of their physical discomfort than it is
to motivate them with "love". Many people don't understand love, but
all people understand physical torture, and all people would be motivated to
reduce or alleviate their own torture if at all possible. This is even true for
animals, this is why horses run when you kick them, this is why oxen pull plows
when you whip them. These animals are not compelled by the thoughts about their
"loved ones", they are compelled by physical torture.
I don't even support paying people money. I support keeping
them alive as beasts of burden, simultaneously optimizing their economic cost
of upkeep and their performance, but that's about as far as that goes.
There is a point, because people lack fucking critical
literacy or I'm just a god awful writer. So either way we're getting practice.
If I'm a "cynic"
then I'm just as much as valid a philosopher as any of you asshats, so
take your own pretentious creed of philosophy and airs and stick them up your
ass. Looking down upon me despite clearly being just as much of a
"philosopher" because I am a "cynic".
If I wasn't serious, I wouldn't spend all this time writing
these things, would I? I don't want to aggravate people, i want to enlighten
them. Trying to argue against things like hard capital, money, animal
conditioning, and potential energy with an argument about the "motivating
quality of love" seems laughably childish if not entirely asinine. If your
people are being motivated by love, there is something wrong with that society;
that is hardly a surefire method for motivating people to the greatest extent
possible. You're not getting your bang for your buck that you invest in keeping
those people alive if you do that.
~ ~
How can you defend empathy when you would pay $10,000 to
save the life of your own child, rather than let that child die and save the
lives of 500 African children. That is the degree to which empathy makes
irrational decisions. The life of your own child is worth more than the lives
of 500 African children, whose parents care about them just as much as you do
your own child. This is the problematic nature of the limited scope of empathy.
Does your opinion matter here? Regardless of how pathetic
you may argue that my stance is, it doesn't matter in the slightest if God in
heaven agrees with you 100%. These sociopathic people who exploit others for
their own personal gain literally rule the fucking world, they own 99% of the
fucking world. You're going to spit upon these people because you're such a god
damn idealist that you refuse to acknowledge reality?
That's irrational, that's completely delusional. If
"real, functional, logic" does not define what is successful and thus
powerful, than those metrics, whatever they may be, are entirely irrelevant. If
these metrics do not produce competitive yields, they are less relevant than
any metric that produces a higher yield, and one of these metrics is clearly
the sociopathic abuse of humans for the sake of financial gain.
~~ ~
posted by Marzipan Maddox @ March 26, 2019
0 Comments
