The philosophy thread general discussion

Bingo. But, people will still persist in the whole "skipper" notion. <_<

When most cognitive scientists and neurologists are having to be on the more... realistic side of the street. (Others would say "pessimistic" — but, it isn't pessimism when the statistics are out there doing the rumba.)

In my half-hearted and entirely ad hoc defence, You can be more like a thing than another thing without being particularly similar to the first thing.

Humans, for example, are more like giraffes than the moon.

...Wut?

I mean even if the notion that our conciousness is a competent captain is false, it still at least bears a resemblance to a useless one that thinks they're in control while the first mate and the rest of the crew run things and make them tea and stuff.

That's... not a bad analogy actually.

In fact, it's a very good one. Not to mention hands reports and other stuff over nicely doctored to keep the old duffer happy... Plausible Deniability: Your Brain.

edited 9th Apr '14 8:41:35 PM by Euodiachloris

No I don't think you are just a small part of what your brain is doing. The thoughts you can talk about are just a small part of you. For the most part you just think. You just don't think about thinking, or even keep decent records of your thoughts, for the most part.

To put it another way you are the crew. And there's no central authority. The whole thing only holds together because it has been crafted to, by evolution. And it has poor record keeping, which it fills in with guesses, that it doesn't mark as guesses in the records.

From what I heard from Postmodernism movement, it is more than just breaking the fourth wall in fiction but a movement that questions the conventional wisdom of old values, morality, etc. Postmodernism will not last forever but my question is, what come afterwards?

One of the most important messages of postmodernism is relativism, and frankly I think that's something that's going to stay around for a very long time - even though if you ask me it'll probably be marginalised in the thinking of each individual philosopher until it's basically mostly a trivial concession on a very fundamental level, and at the other end of the spectrum it'll also be a way to approach questions that don't seem to have a factual answer.

Continue the rights discussion from the Econ thread here?

To keep it on topic, I would suggest tying your position directly to philosophy. Plans for overthrowing American society properly belong in it's own thread (although that subject may be contentious enough that the mods wont ever allow it to be opened. Wont know till you try, though).

My philosophical grounding is with Max Stirner with his radical individualism, egoism, radical nominalism, and implied metaphysical monist idealism, all of which I synthesize with Camus's absurdism, with hints of Kierkegaard's sort of existentialism without the Christianity, Berkeleyan subjectivist idealism, and post-structuralist constructivism, especially constructivist epistemology, but Stirner's philosophy is definitely dominant in my worldview.

The biggest ideas I get from Stirner, which form the center of my philosophy are as follows. First, we give names to many groups of things when the groups aren't real, just the individual parts of the group, and to ideas that do not manifest and only really have influence if we act upon them. These he called spooks, and I agree with his labeling of them as such. Second, without these spooks, we would act to maximize our own self-interest. It is only because of these spooks that we don't since they limit us and what we can do, often forcing us to choose things that hurt ourselves and lead to others choosing things that hurt us. As such, by accepting and acting upon these spooks, we are hurting ourselves and perpetuating our own oppression. Third, power and authority are spooks, and they hurt everyone involved, including those with power and authority, though they are hurt less. Thus, it is against our self-interest to seek and gain power and authority and for others to have power and authority. Fourth, there is a distinction between the revolutionary and the insurrectionary. The revolutionary is creating a mass revolution in order to change the nature of power and authority, usually acting off of a belief, which I believe is mistaken, that this change in the nature of power and authority will help everyone else out, thus they are acting to make this change in as wide an area as possible for others. The insurrectionary, in contrast, is acting for themselves to destroy power where they are. While the revolutionary wishes to build a new nation, state, or other such massive body, eg linked worker syndicates, the insurrectionary is simply trying to remove the nation, state, and other such massive bodies, eg corporations. While the revolutionary seeks to make their revolution for other people, thus imposing their new structures of power on others, the insurrectionary does their insurrection where they are, and only helping others with their insurrections if they start them themselves and showing others how it looks to live freely. I also find this to be an important distinction and put myself on the side of the insurrectionary, not the revolutionary. Those are the basics of the philosophical underpinnings of my politics and how I see the world.

"...Second, without these spooks, we would act to maximize our own self-interest. It is only because of these spooks that we don't since they limit us and what we can do, often forcing us to choose things that hurt ourselves and lead to others choosing things that hurt us. As such, by accepting and acting upon these spooks, we are hurting ourselves and perpetuating our own oppression."

There's a missing step in there somewhere. Aren't notions like "Justice" or "Compassion" just as much "Spooks" as "Power" or "Authority"? In fact, following this line of reasoning, the only thing you can really "know" directly are your own needs, not the needs of others, whom we cant know are real, so shouldn't this logically lead toward some sort of nihilism?

"Authority" I might agree is simply an abstract perception, but not power, I think. If someone hits me with a club, I feel it. That's power, and I can be coerced via my own direct perception. Or am I missing something here?

"Thus, it is against our self-interest to seek and gain power and authority and for others to have power and authority." You're going to have to explain that more fully, since it doesn't appear to make logical sense. How can it not be in one's self interest to be able to direct other people's actions?

"While the revolutionary seeks to make their revolution for other people, thus imposing their new structures of power on others, the insurrectionary does their insurrection where they are, and only helping others with their insurrections if they start them themselves and showing others how it looks to live freely."

Is there no room in this scheme for organized collaboration, that is a large group of people who seek to change the nature of power (by which I understand to be "governing system" or regime) for each other? "Large scale" doesn't have to = "coercive". Or is he against any form of external discipline at all? How does he want to handle large numbers of destructive individuals?

edited 1st May '14 11:14:46 AM by demarquis

Absolutely!

It is completely nihilistic, though I wouldn't go as far as to say it's solipsistic.

Power is used to speak of many different things. If someone hits you with a club, that's power. If a club owner says that a band can't play there that night, despite everyone else wanting the band to play, and the band doesn't play, that's also power. When I said that power is a spook, I wasn't speaking of what your attacker would have if they hit you with a club, but what the club owner has when the club owner says the band can't play there that night.

Because the idea of your own authority controls you. I was having, recently, a discussion with someone about Atlas Shrugged. They said that, in it, the "heroes" put increased productivity in front of having good, beneficial, and healthy relationships, with such relationships going on the wayside completely. While I doubt it happens to this extreme in reality, when people gain authority, they authority does begin to control them in such a way. Your authority becomes a delusion of grandeur for yourself which you use to excuse doing things that don't help you, but help maintain your power. This limits your options and leads you to do things that are ultimately harmful to yourself.

There is, of course, a place for organized collaboration. I even touched upon it a little, though not with the organized bit being explicit, though, it really shouldn't be about changing the nature of power as much as destroying power. The part where I alluded to something like this was,

So there is a place for working with others, often in an organized manner, but an insurrectionist wouldn't do so with others unless they aren't already prepared for insurrection. In addition, they would focus on making things free where they are over where others are, even if they work with others. The phrase "Act locally, think globally" comes to mind.

Absolutely.

I'd say on an individual basis. Stirner himself doesn't touch on this in what I've read of him, which isn't the entirety of his work, like I have yet to read "Stirner's Critics," for example, but I feel like how he treats the idea of property and wealth redistribution would be applicable. "It [the question of property] is solved only by the war of all against all. The poor become free and proprietors only when they — rise. Bestow ever so much on them, they will still always want more; for they want nothing less than that at last — nothing more be bestowed." Here he is, essentially, saying that the question of property will be solved, not by some external body taking property from the rich and giving it to the poor, but by the poor rising up and taking for themselves the property which they need. If we are to apply this to your question, then the answer is obvious, to me. Destructive individuals aren't to be dealt with by some external body, but by the individuals involved fighting them in, as he put it, the war of all against all. Indeed, the effected individuals, if they were Stirnerite egoists, would get together and form what he referred to as a "union of egoists" to wage this war of all against all who would work together to fight off the destructive individuals.

Well, as long as he is consistent, there is no objection on philosophical grounds. The only objections are practical- most people would (have not) been happy under such conditions, so most people would not cooperate to bring it about- it violates the felt interests of too many people. Since he doesnt believe in coercion, there doesnt appear to be any way to bring this about. As a personal philosophy, if you acted on this you would run into people who require a certain minimum conformity to shared collective expectations and norms in order to maintain the social structure that they have decided to depend upon in order to pursue their chosen way of life (i.e., within a social structure).

It's my opinion that structure, for most people, is a more fundamental need than individual autonomy or freedom. Thus, it cant work as a general program for humanity. But I suppose that if you could isolate people who share this philosophy somewhere safe and self-sufficient (dont know where that would be) you could try to base a small community on it.

...Shouldn't this be "Well, as long as you're consistent, there is no objection on philosophical grounds."?

Very few have shed themselves of spooks since we first made them, so I wonder where you get the "most" from... What I seek is radically different from what we have now, so I doubt there is very much information, if any, on how most people have been under that... I mean, if you want to say they would not be happy under such conditions, then I could see the argument, but have not?

I have, in fact, run into people just like that. My mother is among them, and that leads to tension between us as I try to act freely and she tries to keep me from acting too freely.

Neither is really a fundamental need. The only real fundamental need is self-awareness/perception. From there, all else stems. Structure, autonomy, and freedom are all desires, not needs.

OK fair enough, on both points. But it's a little bit like saying "No one has ever tried to live without air, so you cant say exactly what would happen..." If most people have a fundemental internal need for social structure, then I think we are safe in presuming that they would be less satisfied without one.

"The only real fundamental need is self-awareness/perception. From there, all else stems. Structure, autonomy, and freedom are all desires, not needs."

Ah, so here we do disagree. Very radically. What's so fundamental about self-awareness? It's relatively easy to do without very much of it. What definition are you using for "fundamental need"? (Unless you are talking about basic human consciousness, which is less a need than a simple feature. I dont know of anyone who varies in it without being comatose). What's the difference between a desire and a need? I do not agree that things like structure, autonomy (or others like achievement, affiliation, creative self-expression, etc) are consciously chosen- they manifest at too early an age. We discover how much of these things we require in order to feel satisfied with our lives as we mature- sometimes we even get it wrong, and end up living unsatisfactory lives as a result. Yes, the social structure can impose life choices on people, but it doesn't not follow that all variation in life choices is illusory. It just means that one personality type managed to dominate during cultural development. In general, I think that the narrower the definition of the good life a philosophy offers (and this one is very narrow) the more people it is going to disappoint.

edited 1st May '14 4:09:33 PM by demarquis

That is, indeed, a big if, and one I disagree with. The only fundamental need is self-awareness. Everything else we have made and we can get rid of. Nothing else is needed.

I believe you misunderstand me. I don't mean self-awareness as in you are aware of your flaws and skills and what sort of person you are. I mean it on a more basic level. I mean self-aware as in aware that the self exists. To inwardly perceive the self. Without that, we couldn't exist because all that exists is that which is perceived. Only things with self-awareness, that is the ability to inwardly perceive the self, exist when no one else is perceiving them, thus making it fundamentally necessary to exist beyond the perception of others and to be a thing-in-itself.

edited 1st May '14 4:57:06 PM by deathpigeon

Well, ok, but that's like saying the only fundamental need is eating and breathing. True, but doesn't tell you much about what makes human beings different and unique from each other. And I dont see the connection between a "need" for self-awareness in this sense and treating individual freedom as more privileged than social conformity. Why not go with whatever pleases you the most: private liberation, mass murder, getting stoned, stealing food, climbing up the corporate ladder, etc. It's all an illusion by this logic, so it doesnt matter which choice you make. Does it?

It isn't all an illusion. It just is all immaterial, quite literally. The world is made up of ideas, feelings, perceptions, and beliefs. Those aren't illusions, but they are certainly not physical or things-in-themselves, minus the self-perceiving. So, yes, it does matter. This is the world we live in. The world built out of ideas and created through our beliefs and perceptions. We live here, so of course it matters.

And eating and breathing are not necessary beyond how we have made them necessary. They are no more a fundamental necessity than acting within your gender role. Both of those are socially constructed. One just is more universal and has greater certainty to the belief as a result. Indeed, there is nothing that is fundamentally necessary other than self-awareness. Everything else that is necessary is only necessary because we have, slowly over time, led ourselves to believe that they are necessary through discourse and discussion, thus making them necessary. But, of course, since they aren't fundamental, they all can be changed, and often are. The Romans, for the longest time, would say that having war every year was necessary, but, as time went on, they changed and that fell on the wayside. Every need but the need for self-awareness could change similarly, so none of them are fundamental needs. However, social conformity and freedom are things I don't think are even considered needs as a result of social construction and the discourse of minds, but, rather, simply desires that many believe to be universal.

I would say that all of science is against you, but of course you regard science as a socially constructed belief.

I cant see the difference between a self-constructed belief which can be changed through and act of will and an illusion. A perception that is not based on a material reality outside of our perceptions is an illusion. In any case, whatever you call them, "spooks" or "illusions", either you can change them or you cant. If you can, then what difference which set you pick? Just make yourself happy, other people and their needs are just self-imposed spooks. If it's all an hallucinatory dream (self-created reality, whatever) then just masterbate all day. In particular, I cant see any reason people should decide to act "free", but only within the constraints of a self-created physical reality. If you believe in mind over matter, then fly. Why settle for less?

If, on the other hand, you cant just arbitrarily change your perceptions, then they are indistinguishable from an external reality which is beyond our will (including the nature of our personality). In that case, there is no more reason to believe, a priori, that you can change what you need in order to feel happy any more than you can stop breathing or decide to be sexually attracted to frogs. And if thats the case, then, in order to maximize your odds of survival, you need to compromise with the efforts of other self-directed entities pursuing their own self-interest. There is no reason to assume that all humans share a common set of universal interests, so any program that is based on a narrowly defined set of such possible interests generates it's own resistance, and is limited in it's potential for wide-spread adoption. I think that's the case here.

Deathpidgeon, could you use paragraphs more?

edited 1st May '14 7:10:29 PM by Qeise

I wouldn't say it's socially constructed, but, rather, it is built upon assumptions that I believe are false.

This assumes there is a material reality outside of our perceptions, which I don't believe there is. Unless you think that the lack of existence of a material reality would mean that everything is an illusion, but, if that is true, then calling everything an illusion is useless. It's still the world we live in, even if you would call it an illusion. It matters because we live in it. Heck, we're just as much ideas as everything else. We're only different because we can perceive ourselves.

Not everything is a spook. To quote myself,

Going by this definition, I am not a spook. I manifest in my self-perception. My laptop is not a spook, it manifests in my perception. But justice? Honor? Morality? These do not manifest. It is these which are spooks. We can change ideas that manifest. Indeed, every action we take changes ideas that manifest. But they aren't spooks and they aren't what I speak of when I speak of spooks.

Other people manifest, so they aren't spooks. Other people act and manifest in ways that indicate to me that they are probably self-aware. Other people influence the way I can perceive things, so they influence my subjective reality. So it's not that simple. However, I would agree with the first part. Just make yourself happy. Unless you're a sociopath, or similar, though, making yourself happy doesn't mean ignoring the needs, wishes, and happiness of other people. The happiness of others makes me happy.

Because it isn't that simple. I cannot simply believe myself the ability to fly because I do not choose what I believe. I can influence what I believe, but my beliefs are, ultimately, reinforced through the perception of the self with the set of beliefs I hold. They can be changed, of course, but that doesn't mean it is easy to change them.

And at no point have I argued otherwise. Indeed, I have argued for just this. For example,

And, earlier in this very post,

So, yes, we need to cooperate. We need to work together. We even need to compromise with other self-directed entities. That is absolutely true.

Again, never argued against this. I have argued that we should all pursue our own self-interest and I have argued that some things are against our self-interest because they prevent us from acting as we wish to maximize our self-interest. At no point have I argued that everyone's self-interest is the same or universal. Indeed, I argued against it. For example,

Every individual, from me, to you, to my cat, to the President of the United States of America is unique and different with a different range of interests, desires, wants, and sources of happiness. I am not saying any of those are right or wrong, just that we need to free ourselves to be able to pursue those without limitations, which is what I believe anarchy and the rejection of spooks does.

Is that better?

edited 1st May '14 7:21:44 PM by deathpigeon

Thanks.

No problem.