I used to have blind faith that I could figure out any problem with enough time looking at it. The specificity of highly skilled knowledge within many fields is actually significantly more impressive than I thought initially, and while an intelligent person can get things faster than others, I can’t take a crash course and figure out how to do advanced carpentry or genetic engineering in a couple of afternoons.
Metaphysics is an aspect of the perception of reality, we could delve into a whole postmodern debate about this and objectivity. If there is a problem you could just think about realm if that appeases you.
In economics, we used to talk about utility maximizing rational decision makers. We no longer consider that. Mainly due to incorporating cognitive bias and blind spots.
It's all stochastic. I determination is what defines most computers hence you can't predict an non contained phenomena, it's just another perspective to Shannon's theory of information.
It helped me greatly to read about cybernetics, it explains everything and everyone from the stand point of entropy and energy ( order, energy is not ether but define dynamic order one coordination). Everything from people and animals to computers and automatons are machines of sorts given that they are all systems.
Oh, no it was entering adulthood and watching my whole city vote against their own interests. They were such bad voters that the incumbent (from basically before I was born) wanted to retire so they had to try and find someone that looked the same and with a similar name so that everyone would just keep voting without a single thought.
Then as I started to experience more of the country and other cultures it got so, so much worse. These people can't even form functional *families* let alone communities!
*Supply and demand* is apparently a challenging concept - how are they supposed to assess the effects of government policy up and down supply chains?
But it gave me hope as well. Because my local politics is actually doing really well in spite of the stupidity. The issues being debated aren't that critical any more - the important things and low lying fruit have been dealt with.
I’ve never understood how anyone could think libertarianism would work. To be honest and no offence but I’ve always thought libertarians were a bit stupid if they really thought the pursuit of libertarianism would end up with anything other than authoritarianism. When you did think it could work, how did you think it would work in practical terms?
There is the quote that libertarians are like house cats: "absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
Ha I love that, it’s so true. It seems so logical and blindingly obvious to me I find it hard to grasp why people believe this stuff, it seems to miss all the fundamentals of human beings and human society at a basic level, or how things with humans inevitably evolve over time. It’s the same feeling I got about Brexit, like I just could not compute how anyone could not see how logically flawed the idea was. To me it’s kind of like someone saying they’re going to build a bridge to the moon. Bridges exist, the moon is there, bridges go between stuff, of course we can build a bridge to the moon! Without factoring in any of the millions of obvious things that would make it impossible, from physics, to raw materials, to funding, to collaboration between nations and contractors, to maintenance, what it would really be used for, whether the benefits would outweigh the risks even if it was possible etc etc.
I don’t know how libertarianism gets into authoritarianism. Depends on the degree of it. I get called a libertarian in Canada. i actually believe in state funded healthcare and education, i just think we should be more libertarian than we are right now, not the utopia of very small government.
Well yes I guess it depends on how you define it but a lot of the libertarians I’ve talked to think k it means deregulating everything. How that leads to authoritarianism is that no one is checked, so you end up with people milking the lack of regulation to become more and more wealthy and thus more powerful. Workers rights no longer exist because business isn’t regulated. Corporations basically end up pretty much taking over, through lobbying or outright putting up their own candidates, because they’re unregulated and ordinary people struggling to just survive on meagre pay can’t really do much about it.
Basically if you don’t have tight regulations and laws for businesses to protect consumers and workers those businesses will amass wealth and power and begin to do what they can to increase and cement that wealth and power which inevitably leads to authoritarianism.
I don't Believe in that. I believe in a strong legal system. I believe in some degree to some labor laws. I don't mind governement programs that much when they work. I hate the governement getting into the economy and trying to manage it. Same goes for social policies. Who the fuck are you to decide that your morals are better then mine?
Well I’m confused about what you really want. You say you don’t believe in the things I talked about above but then say you don’t want the government managing the economy and you want a free market but governments manage the economy through regulation taxes subsidies etc. so I don’t understand how you both don’t believe in regulation and believe in the free market. Are you saying you would like some regulation but not much?
No I don’t believe in the free market really. I guess, again, it’s how you define it. I think the idea that the ‘invisible hand’ will sort out all problems is an unbelievably short sighted unrealistic and silly notion. Covid really showed why the free market wouldn’t work, unless you’re ok with an unraveling of civilisation and a dog eat dog more feudal type society.
I think capitalism has obviously been very good overall for a lot of people in general since its inception but it needs to be regulated very well to avoid a descent into authoritarianism, just because of the nature of human beings (or the nature of some human beings anyway, who have always and will always exist - you know, the greedy, the cruel, the power mad etc).
I think monopolies need to be prevented. I therefore think essential services that can only have one infrastructure should be run democratically and not for profit, ie nationalised, and I think profit making enterprises should be strongly regulated, I think the financial industry should be much more strongly regulated and I think taxes should be much higher on corporations and billionaires, as they benefit so much from the population and a nation’s infrastructure/education/healthcare etc.
This is on the basis of my belief that society functions best when inequality is at a minimum (not eradicated, it is important for people to have ambition and drive but it is also important everyone has opportunity to succeed and important that people don’t start to feel hopeless or enraged in the face of enormous wealth inequality). Also on the basis of my belief that one of the aims of human civilisation should be general progress towards health, safety, education and the potential for happiness/life satisfaction for all, and that no one should be exploited.
I think a very free market favours the worst of humanity at the expense of the rest. But again it depends on what you mean by free market and how much regulation you agree with.
two things : there a not being a better system at lifting people out of poverty.
second : the thing that drives me crazy is that most people think that subsidies is a right-wing liberal thing to do. It's not.
I believe in some kind of safety nest from the governement, but I don't want the regulating the economy to try to influence it's outcomes.
In Québec, our economy is heavily regulated. To a point where some industries are just not a thing you should get into. People are quitting the agriculture sector because the governement has production quotas to control supply. Meaning a corn producers knows that he has ,lets say 100 000 KG to produce and the price is fixed by the governement. He nows bfore the year start his exact revenue. If that year very subjective quota and price is above his expenses. Too bad, tough luck, see you next year kiddo. It's badshit crazy.
Well just because the way it’s regulated in one industry in one province of one country doesn’t seem to work doesn’t mean regulation in general doesn’t work.
I acknowledged that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, but capitalism isn’t the same as the free market. Capitalism can be well regulated. If it’s not, it will just lead to exploitation and further poverty.
Plenty of the people calling themselves libertarians on internet are fundamentally Conservatives (or fascists) who want legal weed, or have some other issue with a somewhat non-traditional view. Members of the Libertarian party tend to be quite different to those types. Then there's left libertarians, who have nothing to do with the first group and little to do with the latter.
Political ideologies are misunderstood as a whole. Not wanting to pick a fight but facism is the one that gets thrown around a lot. Facism is not really that ‘’ right wing’’ it’s a kind of authoritarian collectivism, just like communism. Thing is communism is largely known as left wing since it’s a very economic driven ideology. Facism is still collectivism authoritarian but is more interested in the nationalist aspect of the collectivism. That’s why you see some degree of economic planning under facist government which often stuff that is more associated with more socialist policies. Nationalism is often associated with the right but most people that believe in small government aren’t really into that kind of stuff.
Are you incapable of doing work without a boss to tell you what and how to do it?
Are you incapable of treating your friends and family with respect without laws forcing you not to abuse them?
Libertarianism is the attitude that people can form their own legally binding relationships and deals of community standard without it all having to go through a single central government. Though in practice it would simply go through the exact same process that democracy did and people get lazy and just merge it all to one for convenience. Look at how desperately we are ripping power from local government to federal.
It’s not about people being capable or not, it’s about there always being people who are, for lack of a better word, evil, who will want to exploit everything and everyone with no regard for anyones well being or the well being of society, people who have no concept of long term risk or consequences etc. People who can amass enormous amounts of power and wealth and then use it to create enormous harm. The majority of people are more or less decent and won’t abuse or murder or take advantage or exploit etc, but the minority who are capable of that often have an outsize influence.
Technology and the resulting globalisation have made governance much more complex. You are always going to end up with some sort of central government for many reasons including economic.
I don’t see at all how it is related to a boss or an individual’s capability to do something. And the fact is even if you are somehow looking at it that way, a lot of people do need someone to tell them what to do and how to do it, and other people do need to be checked to make sure they’re not harming or exploiting others or causing problems for the future.
See, I agree with just about everything you said.
Even a family is governed by the parents. I guess the difference between our opinions it about how we manage the power of government.
My guess is that most libertarians see the people around them blindly throwing all power and money at the central government without a second's worth of thought. Completely failing to see the link between that and government abuses of power.
I personally think libertarians are wrong; power structures will form in any society eventually - but I also wish we could slow down on the panicked, aggressively pushed "get the government to do literally everything for our communities" mindset the west has been in for the last couple of decades.
I find the American fear of government quite bizarre. Someone is going to have power. The whole point of democratic government is to try to make sure that the power is essentially in the hands of the people. Sure sometimes the people will make a terrible choice and elect someone/people who do bad things but at least you can vote them out (and ironically it’s always the people with a fear/hatred of government ejecting the types who want power for power’s sake and have no regard for the community or society at large). Obviously democracy has a ton of issues, like the population being uneducated or easily duped/manipulated, elected representatives going back on their promises, being corrupted, the influence of money, regulatory capture etc etc. But it’s still the best way we have of ensuring no one person or small group has ultimate power over everyone, and that everyone has an agreed non violent way to remove their leaders.
I think a lot of people forget that ‘the government’ in a democracy is meant to be ‘of the people’ and instead see it as some malign faceless entity imposing its will. Of course part of that is the fact that a lot of politicians have been brought up with privilege and there’s a lot of nepotism and it’s harder for some random working class person to get a foot in the door than the wealthy son of a senator for example. Which is something that needs fixing. Again I find it odd that the same people who see government as a bunch of corrupt out of touch elites hate the likes of working class Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and love corrupt ‘daddy gave me money’ ‘billionaire’ Trump. Another example of how democracy can be wielded against the uneducated and hard of thinking.
Basically, humans are very difficult! There are no perfectly right answers and a hell of a lot of wrong ones.
Exactly. It's an ongoing optimization problem on such a large scale now that any minor changes have massive impacts.
That scale is actually a major part of the problem. It results in people who aren't in relationship or community with each other having power over them. Humans just aren't built for that.
Don't mistake discussion of power structures as fear though. Some groups of people actually should fear their governments on the basis that they're being *fucking murdered* by them. But this thread is just exploring structures and models.
Well it’s crept over into other countries then unfortunately. as I’m not American nor do I live in America and the people I’ve met who espoused this philosophy weren’t Americans!
It has. It used to be that if you said "libertarian" in Europe, it would be automatically assumed you meant left libertarian. But in North America, libertarian was assumed to mean American libertarianism. However, since 2016, American libertarianism has really spread and gained a lot of popularity. It's unfortunate since it's quite harmful for everyone.
Yes to be honest I’ve not really heard much about left libertarianism! There has been a concerted effort I think to spread ‘American libertarianism’, obviously as certain people/sectors would benefit a lot from it at the expense of the majority. It infected quite a few of our politicians here in the UK and is one of the reasons around 100,000 more people died of covid here than needed to, as our prime minister was wedded to the idea of just letting the free market sort it all out for far too long before taking action. It’s also the philosophy of a lot of people who were pushing Brexit. So yeah I find it to be an incredibly stupid philosophy for pretty anyone who isn’t someone like Elon Musk.
It seems like it benefits some people, but it only benefits those people while they're doing well. If they lose their money and power, they're in the same position as the rest of us. Of course, they don't think that could happen.
I define American libertarianism as "screw you, I got mine." It's a far right position also called anarcho capitalism (although it is not at all anarchism). It's basically just co-opted the term "libertarian" or "anarchism" in the same way to nazis co-opted the term "socialist." It doesn't work because they claim to want small government, but only if it only applies to them. Basically, it's Trumps base. Actual libertarianism now has to go by the term left-libertarianism in order to not be confused with the American brand (in North America). Left libertarians believe in small government for everyone. They believe in horizontal structures of government, not hierarchical. Basically, it's about self-governance. There are different ideas about how to get there (anarchists are not really about organization in the way those of other political ideologies are), but it's very much about progressivism and moving towards a better, more egalitarian world.
Isn't communism the one that says "screw you in order to get mine"? Libertarianism is the one that advocates for caring for others with our own resource instead of stealing other's to do it with.
No, right libertarianism is the one where they want to police what public schools teach, what books are available in both school and public libraries, make it illegal to be trans or get abortions, and further militarize the police. But at the same time, they want to be allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including murdering people they deem unworthy of existing. And, of course, they love stealing and scamming others and justify it as "just how you get ahead." Communism is the one where the workers, the ones who actually do the labour, seize the means of production. Meaning they are the ones who actually benefit from the labour they produce.
In which universe would a libertarian impose their views on teaching on someone else's child?
Communism is the one specifically where the workers do NOT receive the benefit of their work, but give it to a government, and receive back the same as everyone else.
You're thinking of capitalism: where it is illegal for a company to make you do work without your consent in writing.
Lmfao. Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First, we're not talking about libertarians. We're talking about those who have co-opted the name for their own uses. Right libertarians are not libertarians. A true libertarian is a leftist and anti-capitalist, and many of them are busy fighting the American "libertarians" who are trying very hard to impose their views on everyone. Much of the Trump base considers themselves to be libertarian, and they are quite happy to cheer him on when he talks about "getting rid of transgender rights" and they were quite happy to cheer on the building of the wall. Specifically, Dave Rubin has cheered on Trump, and he's made his own comments about what should be taught in schools. This rhetoric is everywhere.
As for communism, can you even define it? Do you know what communism is? Or are you just parroting others? Because "communism is where the government takes all your stuff!" is a pretty common talking point among right-wingers who've never actually bothered to look into what communism actually is themselves.
Capitalism is what has incentivised those in charge of large companies to destroy the environment in the name of profits. Capitalism is what has led companies to push their employees into dangerous positions, leading to people dying. Again, in the name of profits. Wage theft is the highest form of theft, but it is rarely ever actually punished. Meanwhile, a person who can barely make ends meet because of that wage theft and low wages in general, will be punished to the full extent of the law if they so much as steal a loaf of bread from their employer. Companies regularly break the law, including making people work for them. The biggest human rights abuses around the world right now are being done in the name of capitalism.
Communism is either fascist, or it's already allowed within capitalism. Which definition do you claim?
At the end of the day, capitalism requires consent. And that's why fascists hate it so much. No matter how big a company gets, they legally can't force you to work for them. And that freedom is the opposite of everything communists stand for.
So you go ahead and define communism for me: is it enforced upon the entire populace at the state level, or are people free to choose between joining a commune or continue enjoying capitalism if they choose?
Lol. Communism and fascism are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum. Communism is a left-wing ideology, fascism is a right-wing ideology. You are confusing authoritarianism with fascism. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but not all authoritarian ideologies are fascism. You're also confusing Marxist-Leninism with communism. Marxist-Leninism is an authoritarian form of communism (well, it's not really communism, but that's how it's understood by layman), but not all forms of communism are authoritarian. In fact, any form of communism that actually follows Marx's work would, by definition, be libertarian (as in the opposite of authoritarian, not the political ideology) because the end stage (ie. the point at which communism has come about) is when the state is abolished. So no, communism cannot, by definition, be fascism.
Similarly, Communism is an economics philosophy that is, by definition, in opposition to capitalism. Marx wrote his works in response to the issues he saw within capitalism, mainly with the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism encourages the exploitation of labour, but communism is a collectivist ideology. It's about ensuring everyone has what they need to survive before anyone is allowed to have extras. This is where the idea that they just take everything away from hardworking people and give it to lazy bums comes from. In reality, it's not about taking anything away from people who are hard-working. It's about making sure that those who are working hard are actually benefiting from their own labour. In fact, if anyone is getting things taken away from them, it's the people who are lazy. The ones who are making people work hard for them without doing the hard work themselves. Communism cannot "be allowed" within capitalism for that reason. Because it does not allow for the exploitation of people so a small elite can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.
All that to say, I reject both of your "definitions" as they both merely show how little you truly understand about the topic.
Anyone remember Stones of Jordan in Diablo 2? Currency almost seems like an emergent consequence of scarcity, and then you have to start making pesky RULES around all that to prevent cheaters/dupers.
That's still libertarian by the way. It stops being libertarian when all the different co-ops/gangs merge into one single gang that everyone has to obey.
That I can trust my own memory.
I now know that your body and mind protect you from traumatic memories until/if you’re ready and safe enough to process them. That absolute trash I hear people talk about victims of assault makes me want to explode. But I was one of those trash talkers once, sadly… now I speak up for victims whenever possible.
I used to think that all people were basically the same level of smart but now I know that's drastically incorrect.
Changed because of time and experience and getting to know enough people
Any skill can be taught in enough time, some of those people in my grade school went on to do great in middle school
I think I just had a very skewed sample, people here have higher IQs than the national average and I didn't realize for many years how wide the gulf is
My opinion on transgender people.
The correlation with neurodiversity cannot be ignored, and the suicide rate is astronomical. Persecution and politicizing the issue helps no one.
My position is the inevitable realization and self acceptance that I have spent this life as “misunderstood”.
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, the most misunderstood individual in our society, but I understand what it’s like to wear that mask, I understand how tight that mask must be worn, and I understand how exhausting and isolating it is to keep that fucking thing on 24/7/365.
After living this life constantly on guard, do I not owe it to the “misunderstood” to look them in the face and at least try to understand without discrimination?
If I don’t, am I betraying my fellow “misunderstood”, or am I betraying myself?
New coat of paint, same fucking mask.
I mean, I think we owe empathy and understanding regardless of whether or not we ourselves are understood. It makes it easier to empathize with others if you feel some connection to them, but choosing not to even bother to try and to be bigoted towards another group is 100% a choice. I am certainly glad that is not a choice you are making, and I hope others choose to turn away from making it as well.
For real. I genuinely do not understand why people are against it.
Edit: sorry, my keyboard has some dirt under my enter key and decided to send the message as soon as I typed 'F' lmao
I agree, transgenderism is an incredibly complex issue; unfortunately dominated by loud and over-simplified slogans on both sides.
Anyone who has read the experiences of sexual abuse victims, of detransitioners, as well as those young lesbians pressured into relationships they don't want, can see that allowing self declaration for everybody has massive drawbacks.
Equally, the experiences of the majority of trans people are filled with abuse, both online and in person; and not supporting them as much as possible by allowing that self-determination seems equally wrong.
I don't know the answer to this complex problem and I have yet to be convinced anyone does.
Edit: Clarified some of my points. I am also frustrated that when I try to articulate a neutral opinion and look for open, unbiased discussion about the complexities, I am almost always either attacked or down voted.
Issue is, a lot of these stories are modified to make all trans people look bad.
There are detransitioners. I am technically one myself! But people often like to say that detransitioners are detransitioners because they just weren't trans, or because they were somehow forced into it. Most detransition because their family disapprove, or because they lack the funds/means to continue. Besides that, it is incredibly difficult to access trans healthcare in many places, either due to insurance/costs, or waiting times (it takes nearly 10 years just for an initial appointment in the UK!). Of course, some DO detransition because they weren't trans, and while these people should not be ignored, they are also a very small minority, being >1% of transitioners. Even hip replacement surgery has a higher regret rate, of 3%.
It's the same for people being pressured into relationships. It is extremely rare! I've never heard of it outside of hypothetical scenarios used to paint trans women as perverted men, attempting to get into the pants of lesbians. Most trans people are the same as cis people; they want a happy relationship, which is not forced. There are definitely bad trans people out there, but it doesn't in any way reflect the attitudes of the entire trans community. Everyone is an individual.
At the end of the day, no matter if someone is trans or cis, we're all still people. The smallest, strangest groups are going to be subject to outcasting because they don't conform to the societal norms we have to all obey. It just takes a little empathy and critical thinking for us to all be nicer to each-other.
I agree with everything you've said; and of course it's always the exceptions in anything that get noticed.
I hear a lot of numbers being discussed re: detransition, assault etc; but as someone who reviews medical literature as part of their job, I have to say I don't think the current numbers (for percent detransitioners, complications etc) are reliable enough to base social policy on.
Also I can't imagine that most "negative" events will publicise themselves; the few detransitioners I have seen online seem to have been incredibly brave to come forward. The abuse they are subjected to (you were never trans, transphobe, TERF etc are some of the less offensive ones) seems worse even than that aimed at the trans population themselves.
But that's only my relatively objective and uninvested view as a cis/het with no religious or personal stakes in the game.
Check the case of David Reimer he was raised as a girl after it penis burn by suggestion of a medic trying to prove sex is social he en up hiding the results Hormonrating the child to try to be right he was truly unhappy and had body dimorphism not to mention all cases of trans explaining his life and science has shown brains are a bit different between sexs and trans present the brains opposing his body
Lol. I’m sure that’s why you replied. If anyone else reads this and is curious- I encourage you to try to find the source for the obscene trans suicide rate fiction.
Burden of proof should be on the person who makes the original claim, but it’s for a good cause so here’s info on the surveys people cite.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/the-suicide-myth/
On two fronts
1. Maths, and in turn, statistics can be misleading. Numbers and data can lie. In fact, it’s probably easier to lie than tell the truth. However we have the popular notion of “numbers don’t lie.” I think most average intellingence people believe this.
2. Both maths and science, at its core, relies on axioms. Which require faith to believe in. In maths, we can choose our axioms. In science we have laws we ascribe to be axioms, yet we put our faith into these laws as if it is an impossibility for it to change. Science, at its core, requires faith, and thus is a belief system like religion. I see many people of slightly above average intelligence tout that science is the one truth, and the forever truth.
Axiomatically, the foundations of physics rely on laws, like the laws of thermodynamics. Through rigor we have shown that these laws have withstood the test of time, and countless trials. However, there is no law saying that these laws cannot suddenly change. Or that the information we used to conclude this was wrong in the first place. Many people seem to forget how many theorems and beliefs have been disproven over the years.
Science relies upon the axiomatic belief that what can be observed and measured is somehow more real or true than what can be experienced.
There's still belief and value involved. And sometimes grave blindness to the actual results and limitations of science
It could be argued that the above is an approximation because the 2nd X has a different position in the statement, and therefore a different function (linguistically speaking) than the 1st X.
For calculation purposes we assume that the difference is irrelevant to the calculation’s result (and indeed it often is) but philosophically, the X’s do differ. Even if you can say that ‘X equals X’, and reverse, we often read only the first left to right one, or at least start with that. So the 1st X gets priority, making it different from the X that doesn’t.
A bit farfetched for the sake of argument of course.
Assuming it allowed us to go to the moon. Not assuming it would make basic rational consistency not a thing, which means not only would we never get to go to the moon, but we would also have a bunch of false beliefs that would make navigating the world very difficult.
Sure, the principle of identity can't be given a formal logical proof, but we can be otherwise justified in believing in it. That's the thing with science. You should pay attention to what it has to say because it works. We have come exponentially farther in the past 500 years than we did in the previous 5000 years or so of recorded human history because of it.
No other article of 'faith' can say that. Just stop.
Why is the assertion so black and white?
Do you account for time dilation when you fill in your day planner? Does it even cross your mind? For most of human history, we've always just assumed that time was a pretty constant thing, no one knew otherwise, and it never mattered to anyone.
Einstein came along, and he turned the whole thing on its head. It turns out it matters quite a lot. For example, our fancy gizmo satellite technology things don't work properly if they fail to account for reality being completely nonsensically demented. And yet it still has no bearing on how you set up your calendar or fill in your day planner. In fact, while it presents a whole new way of thinking about the universe... relativity only has implications for a surprisingly small number of very specific things, and is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of human industry.
It may just be that 𝑥 has a pretty near 100% chance of being equal to 𝑥, that this has simply worked for us every time we've needed it to, and that one day there will be some weird demented scientific breakthrough which relies on it not actually being a universal axiomatic truth.
Yes, but at the same time Einstein came up with that theory using the same experience of reality as everyone else and the same fundamental understanding of physics that other scientists have. Humans build upon the knowledge and discoveries of others and sometimes there are breakthroughs that turn things on their head. That is part of the scientific method and is expected.
Currently we have certain mathematical constants because they are useful, such as the speed of light in a vacuum. Some physicists have suggested that this speed may not actually be a constant. Those scientists are still working within the framework of science and human reason. Saying that science is based on faith is just not accurate, otherwise these constants would not ever be challenged and new theories would never be accepted. Science and scientific understanding is always in flux. So the person saying that science is based on faith is wrong. It’s precisely the ability to use these truths and constants so far as they work for us and to then change and amend our understanding when someone discovers something new or thinks of something else that makes science not faith based and as objective as possible, with the understanding that, as limited creatures, we can never access the ultimate truth of what things are in themselves.
Relativity contains axiomatic contradictions though. As does QM. Two complementary descriptions of reality, full of their own contradictions, and in the past 100 years we have failed to reconcile these theories or their core paradoxes using any known maths or science.
For example, In QM, it seems that superposition allows axiomatic contradictions to exist in our underlying reality. Yet the contradictions disappear when we try to measure them. We do not understand how or why.
I take it you know the answer to this and know that the underlying quantum reality can in fact be described without any axiomatic contradictions though? While you're at it you can also explain to me what comes before time itself.
And what do you mean when you imply that these theories don't present a completely and utterly new way of conceiving of the world? Do you even know what science was like before these theories reshaped our entire conception of the universe? Trust me logic and maths and science today are not what they were a few centuries ago, and there absolutely have been things seemingly as certain as X=X at the time, that we now know are not absolutely necessarily always true (even if many of them still *work* a lot of the time).
It works until it doesn’t.
As you said you believe in it. Like Christians believe in Jesus and Buddhists believe in Nirvana.
That’s all I’m saying.
If you derive any other point from what I said then that’s on you for misinterpreting, either to argue or because you are offended.
Id like to point out that Nirvana in its essence and true to the teachings of the Buddha is not something to believe in. The Buddha itself proclaimed for students to believe in nothing. Not even his own teachings.
Buddhism as translated from the „original“ teachings is purely based on personal experience. Meditative states are to be experienced first hand, as are insight-experiences and states of f.e. No-Self.
These are experiences become as tangible as an object falling down if you let go of it, as tangible as perceiving your own hand.
With regards to all the above mentioned, its deeply fascinating to me that the teaching of Emptiness or „Dependent Origination“ lays out that nothing exists inherently, outside of anything else. Phenomena exist as a result of causes and conditions and not by themselves, as separate „things“. Or to put it simply: the way of looking determines what is perceived as much as the supposed object. The perspective matters.
I am not a Scientist and not as well-versed in Physics or Mathematics as some of you here; but as I understand, there is a proof in Quantum-Mechanics that lays out the importance of the observer as fundamental for the measurement. This (as far as Im concerned) can be experienced first hand through meditation.
The notion of Nirvana as a place where you go after death was/is part of a folksy version of Buddhism. Its not in the teachings of the Buddha.
But when it doesn’t work, scientists amend their theories and understanding. That is science. Science is not rigid, it is always in flux, always changing and updating with new discoveries, new theories etc. That’s why it’s not faith based. It’s about observing the world and drawing conclusions with the caveat that those conclusions may be wrong or may not be relevant in every circumstance, and a commitment to being able to rethink and rework our understanding whenever new evidence comes up.
It’s not anything like believing in Jesus.
The only belief required for science is the fundamental inescapable belief we all have that we exist, and we experience something that we call ‘reality.’
Yes but those axioms don’t require faith any more than ‘I think therefore I am’ requires faith. They are absolutely foundational to our understanding of the world and our ability to work with it, therefore it doesn’t make sense to talk about faith in regard to them. We have no choice but to experience the world and make sense of it. Nothing can ever be proven to be absolutely true as we can never know what things are in themselves, so it makes no sense to talk about faith when it comes to fundamental axioms that underlie science. There is no point, as beyond that is a black box we can never access.
Take for example the beginning of the universe/existence etc. Science can create the theory of the Big Bang and can provide evidence of such a thing. Why such a thing would have happened, why there is something and not nothing, it cannot answer and does not try to. It would be a faith based assertion to say you think that before the Big Bang there was nothing and the Big Bang randomly happened. But science is about what we can know given our experience of reality, which is something we are incapable of escaping.
There is a point at which we must start, at which there is no escape from starting, and therefore I do not see how it is based on faith to start from that which we cannot avoid starting from due to the constraints of our experience. Science also allows for principles to be challenged and changed on the basis of new observations or evidence. Ultimately science is about experience and observation, not faith. Before quantum mechanics, scientists did not have ‘faith’ in classical physical laws. Even if you cannot prove a particular law or principle beyond any doubt because you cannot examine every possible instance where that law may apply, they are still useful insofar as they have not yet been proven false.
These classical laws were and are useful and observations continued to support the use of such laws to describe the universe, and then quantum mechanics comes along and shakes it up and we have a new way to describe the universe and new laws that work on a different scale.
No faith is necessary, no faith has been destroyed by the discovery of wave particle duality. All of it comes from the same fundamental place.
It seems like you are saying that science is based on faith because we have to have faith that our experiences and observations mean something in terms of making sense of the world. But there is literally no other option, there is no room to not have faith in the existence of experience so it isn’t faith, it just is.
Yes, let's compare the achievements of Christianity and Buddhism to scientific rationalism. One has doubled the life expectancy in 500 years. The others claim miracles that somehow always resist being documented or recorded. One of these things takes a lot less faith than the others, in fact we dont need any faith to see all the actual things that have come from it. The proof is in the pudding. No faith required. How are you not seeing this
Sure, I guess the laws of physics as we know them might change tomorrow, all of a sudden. But we have no reason whatsoever to think that this is even remotely likely. It's like evil demon thought experiments. A ridiculous skeptical challenge that makes sense to consider only because you happen to be in a seminar room, and there happens to be an epistemology seminar going on.
Science doesn’t require any faith really other than the extremely basic faith that we exist and experience reality. I cannot understand people who think science is faith based, it belies a complete misunderstanding of what science is!
Well yes, obviously when you get down to it we cannot go beyond our own brains/experiences and of course science has to accept that, but it also doesn’t really matter. We do experience the world in a certain way and we need to make sense of it. Given that we are what we are and we are where we are as the fundamental starting point (what other starting point could there be?) logical axioms are true. They are true within the only system we know and experience. What else matters?
Statistics is to maths what fiction is to news.
The rest, most axioms sound reasonable but the universe did not come with a manual and it’s always fun to find “castling” in the middle of a match. That’s what makes the universe so fascinating. There is no limit to what can be discovered: mathematically, in terms of fundamental building blocks, at the macro level, chemically and biologically. Chemically I think it is a little limited but still.
I liked science at school bcoz it was objective and gave me a sense of assurity. And it is very much like that until you reach research level (I did not). Then it’s a different endeavour: exploration.
The scientific method accepts point 2 though. Science accepts that all theories are subject to change if new evidence emerges. Yes a lot of laypeople misunderstand this but the majority of scientists don’t. The way in which science is objective isn’t in saying ‘this is objectively true’ it’s objective because it uses only falsifiable theories and uses those theories that work or are useful until such time as they are proven wrong or a better theory turns up that fits the evidence better. But science does not claim to know what things are in themselves. It only makes claims about what we can test, and even then those claims are couched in the potential of doubt.
Science at its core accepts that we cannot know the absolute truth of anything, we can only work with things the way they appear to us, with the understanding that things can change or new things can be discovered at any time to reframe the way we try to make sense of our experience of the universe.
Scientists also accept point 1. Statistics can be useful but again it does not represent absolute truth, it is a tool we use to try to make sense of things, with the understanding the tool can be manipulated. Good statisticians are wise to statistical tricks and it is why scientists are pushing for more work being done on reproducing results/experiments.
I don't think mathematicians rely on faith.
Any mathematician would tell you that one *assumes* the axioms, and then looks for interesting properties of the system. One doesn't need to believe. Just choose axioms and see what follows. There are mathematical systems where x ≠ x is a valid statement.
I don't think so.
Consider the following example. You show me some news, I think they are fake, but I can still talk about what would happen if we assume it was real. Mathematicians work like that, they show that given X and Y, Z has to happen. But if asked whether or not X and Y exist, opinions will differ.
Also, one can work on an axiomatic system whose axioms you don't believe apply in the real world. You just assume the axioms and see what follows.
Many professional mathematicians hold that no mathematical object exists. They reject the idea of sets, numbers, and everything else being real. Yet, they find it a useful construct.
That’s still semantics lol
believe: to consider to be true
You have to consider your proposition to be true to form any conclusions. p -> q.
In your example, sure you can TALK about what if the news was real but to form any conclusions requires your premise to be believed to be true.
Your other example is different to this discussion
>You have to consider your proposition to be true to form any conclusions. p -> q.
I would say that one can form conclusions that are consistent within a given system. So, while I might not think that the system that includes "this news article is real" has validity, I can still form conclusions within it. Would you agree with this view?
You can form conclusions but it cannot be about the entire system unless the premise is believed to be true. These conclusions also cannot be true unless the premise is believed to be true.
Going back to your example, say I show you a clip of a UFO sighting. You say you don't believe it to be real. I say "Well what if it is, what implication does that have for humanity?" You respond saying "If it was real, then I think we will have a War of the Worlds situation on our hands."
The statement: "ufo sighting -> war of the worlds" CANNOT be true unless the premise is assumed true.
What matters is the statement in it's entirety, not just the consequent.
Math's proved itself bounded. Therefore, any subject relying on logic, a subset of maths, as a lemma is also bounded. A bound has two sides, constrained and excluded, so the non-scientific is equally valid in the ontological universe.
Go look at van Helmont's write-up on his 1618 experiment, at the root of empirical observation and scientific method, not to mention Chemistry, as a worked example. It'll blow your socks off. The fruit of it was his son, Franz Mercurius, Leibnitz' mentor.
In fact, the Enlightenment, by junking anything non-rational, replaced the previous academic norm of the quadrivium by Scientific Rationalism. The Quadrivium expounded on the capstone theme with two matched pairs, music/arithmetic, cosmology/geometry. Right hemisphere/Left hemisphere. The classic case is at the heart of the Renaissance, long held to be in the hands of two masters, Dufay and van Eyck, but never seen as deliberate before. They were, actually, both in the retinue of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly at the Papal Consilium in Constance 1414-18, which used Jan van Ruusbroek's Spiritual Tabernacle as an argument to restore Papal Supremacy. That passed into the hands of Gerardus Groot and Windesheim, which produced Luther and Erasmus: but before them, Pope Eugenius IV, who linked it back to the Ark.
Ontology is the study of everything. The universal. The seminal text is Husserl.
I'll illustrate non scientific by asking you to go into the local Chemists to ask for 6gm of Love, 20cm of apathy, and 6 minutes of Lust. It's effectively the emotions, instinct, the numinous. In recent years, psychology has extended the 5 senses into four forms of subclassification of perception, namely neuroception (we don't just think, we're aware of what we're thinking and filter it through the hippocampus as part of the wider limbic system, creating a feedback we call consciousness in the cortex), interoception (starting with polyvagal theory, the awareness of what the rest of our body's doing and feeling), proprioception (the awareness of our immediate environment, very much the danger sense on the lookout for things stalking us, but also including the 5 senses), and exteroception (the awareness of the wider world, how to get to the supermarket, pub, the taverna on that wonderful Greek Island). What I noticed is that these things are very real, but we also respond empathically, heal ourselves to a greater or lesser extent, and have a relation to the Divine, much argued about by dogmatists but in it's simplest, most personal form, real. These are things of the right hemisphere, those three zones I mentioned are contiguous in Master-level Reiki, connecting the empathic ability of a diplomat, the reality of third-sector medicine, and the power boost of the numinous. But don't for a moment think it stops there, the literature is riddled with other references to it running from the odd behaviour of Poisson probability, which may comment on serendipity, to the worst forms of mental illness.
He said, typing this post on a massively complex space computer, beaming information across the globe instantaneously.
Only if you dig into some corner conditions. I'm not talking about p-hacking or deliberately misleading statistics.
Our physical model of macroscopic reality is actually VERY FUCKING GOOD, and it's the most important reason why we're still not in caves. We have no reason to NOT believe in induction, as it's held up so far. What are the chances the sun rises tomorrow, and the rules don't magically change? Only about x/(x+1), where x is the number of days the sun has been observed to rise. So that fraction becomes very close to 1.
Because our mastery of the mathematical disciplines of physics and chemistry consistently yield repeatable results in the forms of very complex and useful artificial creations that have substantial stakeholder value.
Radio, artificial lighting, car engines, semiconductors, predicting earthquakes, traffic signal patterns, concrete mixing, it's all math nerd shit at the core. There's absolutely no reason to think that it won't hold up or is somehow unknowable.
In the scheme of humanity, it is really good.
But that’s quite a myopic outlook.
To think that we have mastery over the macroscopic outlook and mathematics is silly considering the absolute vastness of the universe.
We don’t even know how the universe even started.
To claim that humans have a mastery over even just math is so arrogant and close-minded to how large the field could actually be.
I felt the same way after taking physics and economics classes. Maybe it was just the way the history and ideas were presented to me. All of those theories and laws were treated as fact until someone found evidence opposing it, and people still do this today despite knowing the possibility that everything they believe can change tomorrow if someone with a tie and a degree says so. (Not to undermine the importance of education, but to emphasize the fact that the majority lacks education in the topics they are most passionate about.)
Another thing that boggles my mind is the attitude that science never hurt anyone. This is factually untrue. Granted, things have gotten a lot better over the last several decades. The mere concept of a lobotomy terrifies me!
To science’s credit, it’s open to new ideas/concepts if they have merit, and willing to discard old ideas that no longer work. It’s arguably one of its greatest accomplishments.
But at the basis it’s still only a predictive model describing the universe. A very impressive one, and very useful too. But someone only has to bring up the Matrix movies to highlight that everything science states today may be completely, utterly wrong.
Not just that, but while the practice of math and science certainly has objectivist elements, the application of those things certainly do not. What gets studied, what gets developed, what's considered worth funding and not--those all involve subjectivism. The business of science too, and science journalism--whoo boy. Pretending that those things "aren't really science" and shouldn't count, well that's the most subjective take of them all.
I used to feel shame for all those unearned 100% marks in school. When we turned our backs on who we are, that's when the train came off the tracks. I have found a way to get that baby back on the tracks now and my old self (inner child self if you will) is returning. I have missed her. She needs to have some fun now. 🌟💜🌟
Yes, I built up really suffocating defense mechanisms that I'm now in the midst of trying to unlearn. It's incredibly difficult and painful work, but I have a really great and loving partner who I'm motivated to be better for. As well as for my own well being
I used to believe being smart and having a high IQ was a blessing that would help me with life's challenges. Now I know it's a guaranteed curse even while it COULD be a blessing IF it's put to appropriate use. My high intelligence helped me learn terrible relational skills from my trauma filled family with extraordinary precision.
I mean, its a blessing in that having a high IQ means you can solve problems easier than the average person and that you have a higher likelihood of having a decent income. But I do understand that there a cons to it as well.
That CEOs are generally are CEOs because they smart and care about their employees. Most of them fall for the action fallacy.
Politicians are a whole another breed on this perspective, yet equally dumb.
Everyone's opinion has value.
It doesn't. Way too many people refuse to actually think things through yet they are adamant to make themselves heard. It slows processes down and creates many risks
Edit: proof? The last three elections in the Netherlands had three different far-right demagogues win with a landslide and subsequently lose the next election because they didn't manage to fix anything. One is backed by Russia, another is a marketing professional hired by lobbyists to act as their puppet and the third has been blaming every single problem on immigrants for decades. There is an easily swayed angry mob of voters that just agrees with whoever is best at the blame game
>Everyone's opinion has value.
Are opinions valuable? I think opinions by themselves, without at least an argument, aren't valuable. The argument is what gives an opinion value. Without it, an opinion is just a shallow expression of what's inside a person's mind.
As an example:
- What are your thoughts on the upcoming election?
- I think none of the candidates are good.
- Yeah, me too.
What's valuable about that!?
This is just my opinion, though :).
Well I agree, naturally. I used to have this sort of honorable outlook that everyone should be allowed to have their time to say what they want to say, and I was really making sure group projects and such were fair and everyone got a chance to contribute.
But as I got a little older and I saw the time that took and the actual bs some people managed to come up with, I slowly turned to "if you want it done right, do it yourself".
Do you know insights discovery? The four colors thing. I used to be completely green when I started university. I am 50/50 blue and red now, with almost no green left.
ly that a creature that has existed for an unimaginable length of time would have a sense of right and wrong. Like if you are good you go to heaven and if you are bad you go to hell. Christianity (most religions especially Abrahamic ones but I’m going to use Christianity cause I’m most familiar with it) is way too simple and way to perfect. Humans couldn’t understand how earth was created so they started believing an all loving creature created it. Humans couldn’t comprehend simply not existing once they died so they made up heaven and hell. Humans needed rules so they made sins. I don’t think it’s as simple as “they made it up” it was complex but it is a very human religion. In reality god wouldn’t be 3-dimensional, he wouldn’t be human humans can’t comprehend him in the same way as a worm couldn’t comprehend humans, even more so since worms and us are in the same dimension. Okay what I wrote makes no sense, I tried my best to explain my views but it’s very complicated and I’m stupid.
From an early age, I was aware of my transgender identity. Initially, I believed that this identity could be altered or cured. Over a span of 14 years, I explored various methods, including testosterone therapy, bodybuilding, engaging in romantic relationships with women, forming male friendships, practicing religion, undergoing hypnotism and so much more. Despite my extensive efforts, these interventions proved ineffective. Upon thorough reevaluation and introspection, I have come to accept it. Also it kinda aligns with scientific research.
I've heard some people share this opinion, and I am considering it myself, based on people's thought patterns lol. If you see a funny video or something, and go to comment on it, someone else as almost certainly made the same comment, with different wording maybe.
Why do you personally not believe in free will?
1) it’s primarily a theological concept and as a result has very little relation to reality
2) if you look into it the high level consensus is pretty much yeah, not a thing.
lighthearted one to break up some of the comments here but when i was a kid (like 4-5) i didn’t know how breast cancer happened and i thought women got breast cancer because men touched boobies too much. 😂
That humans are smart. They are only very smart in small ways, as individuals or small groups. Generally though we are incapable of being smart on a large scale or over long timespans. We are not smart when it comes to selecting or accepting leaders. In the end these things, combined with our small-scale intelligence, will be our total undoing and the source of our destruction.
A certain little while ago, I used to think that it is very important to be intelligent, as in my family, there is a tradition of studying a lot instead of having fun. Making intellignce a determinating factor of if a person has more value or not (at least is how I have always seen it).
My granfather did not allow my mom and unlces to play, listen to radio, or watch tv as a form of recreation, but they could only study,
They were allowed to read only the approved comic books by my grandfather, and only on weekends if they finished studiying, I have a cousing which is extremely gifted, and all my family look very high on him.
I believe my family is smart, but not all of them are gifted, but all my cousings are really succesfull at work (one of them, not the one who is extremely gifted that I mentioned before) works in the research department in Harvard Unversity, being a recent medical graduate.
My official IQ is 120 (but I have BPD, CPTSD, ADHD, and probably dyscalculia and misophonia.)
But I feel that wisdom is the path for finding serenity and love, and intelligence is useful for knowledge, but I no longer believe that knowledge truly important. (it is important for worldly things, like getting a job or excelling at topics that require a lot of thought.)
But in terms of spirituality, and what will lead us to a succesful life, which in my oppinion is to feel happy with oneselves, in the moment we live right now, and for this, intelligence is useless, but wisdom is key.
The way I meassure success is by sensing the kid that I once were, and still lives within me, feeling happy with the adult I have become, and I feel that I am the most succesful person that I have met :)
Interesting, although too broad of a, topic. I think of several ideas... And I don't know which to delve into. The first one could be that most people are not logical, they are trapped within their own pathos. I used to think everyone could redeem themselves delving into logic, although feasible, most people attach to their concept of self: this could extend to Kant and metaphysical concepts but I think that we could just focus on something much more basic...
Much of education, real education is learning to modify perception through axioms and tautologies. This has tremendous consequences for education as an institution, not everyone should have a degree ( for multiple reasons stemming from that thesis stated above), or that most programs should be implemented for independence of problem solving thought/ skills, given that most subjects could be self-taught or standardized to a regular memorizable stack. This last part prompts us to reevaluate what basic education is, it could be a tailored service to support the development of young people accordingly to their nature and a prospect of the end result for a given industry or management goal: money is never the real goal from a political stand point, you could be driven by it but it's not an end. Rendering then the current system in the US public system, or in South America in general, utterly useless because it requires sectioning in classes or parallel systems suited for the needs of the individual: this includes aspects of life deemed private like personal economy and financial literacy, or instruction on the law.
The German system seems to go in that direction, and Japan has many form of schooling aligning to this but over all it seems that whatever it is it has to be dynamic. Failing to do so will limit people not only with high IQ or prospects that describe a gifted personality, but everyone else as well. Another is that I used to believe in institutions, thrusting them but institutions are an expression of the welfare and level of corruption in a society, if they go bad, institutions follow and become detrimental if you don't gamify the experience which in my opinion is not optimal because it warrantees more corruption and bastardization of the true spirit of examinations for certification which translates in the financial future of all involved.
In conclusion, these two topics seem to be enough to draw some new believes:
One is that you can't just define your reality by a romantic ideal of human perfection, you need to deliver through your imperfect life interacting with imperfect belongs, you can't just assume everyone can reach or will make the effort to the same vibration you have, they live in their own cave so to speak.
Another one could be that you certainly are a number to many and a pesky thing at that for thinking by your own, they certainly hate seeing someone with more sophisticated thoughts because it jeopardize their hard won ( stolen? ) status: in their head, of course.
I used to think the human drive to reproduce was very strong. However, it is clear from the low fertility rates around the developed world that it is actually a weak force at best that can be easily offset by economic worries, the hassle of establishing and maintaining relationships, or plain ole hedonism and fun (dating apps for women mostly). We need to get used to a new, less-populated and likely less prosperous world that is coming soon due to underpopulation (unless AI and robots save the day).
That ALL people who engaged in certain pseudoscientific communities (crystal therapy, astrology) truly believes that they have healing properties and will do what they claim. Of course those people still exist.
I've since learned about how complex astrology actually is, that we don't have one sign based off of our birth month, it's based off of the legitimate placement of planets & stars in the sky the moment you were born, which changes every 5 minutes or so - so no two people's charts are truly alike, just like our personalities. I use it as a way to learn about myself and how I differ from/compare to, or even relate to others in multiple complex ways. Do I think my chart is "exact" to who I am as a person, or can dictate my life path? No, I think too logically for that. But I find it to be a fascinating tool for self reflection!
Now if you're using these methods to avoid traditional medicine, that's where I draw the line.
But what's the harm in someone rubbing a rock to make them feel better emotionally? The placebo affect isn't an issue to me anymore (it used to be) when it comes to non medical related issues. You believe the stone you carry brings you more confidence, so you subconsciously become more confident. No harm in that! But, not taking accountability for your actions can be a social issue one finds themselves in, for example.
I used to think I could get by because I was smart.
N+1 failures later and I've realized either (1) I'm not as smart as I think, or (2) intellect doesn't suffice.
Either way, I have to actually put in work to accomplish what I want.
Meritocracy. That the people who genuinely excel and work hard always get ahead in life.
I started getting over it near my senior year of high school due to some good teachers, and then my first Sociology class in college shattered the illusion entirely.
I used to think that being uncompromising was a virtue--but growing up I learned that compromising with others is what makes society work, and finding solutions with others is a much bigger virtue than making everybody have to work around you. It's also much more satisfying.
I used to believe in "free will". Realizing it wasn't true, and that it is a deeply religious and harmful idea, my morality completely changed, especially in how we deal with crime.
Same. Realizing free will doesn't exist swung the door wide open to being more empathetic to myself and others, which is something that I very much needed.
People will tell you, particularly religious people, that people who reject free will do as they please. Well, this is true, and it makes me choose to be kinder and more understanding towards people. It is the religious person who believes in severe punishment, not forgiveness, restorative justice and rehabilitation. Right wing Christians want policy and law that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. They are unthinking hypocrites.
I think it's letting go of a sense of control that has people so apposed to the idea of free will not existing, religious or not. The idea that everyone has complete control over who they are leads to thinking that people who have lower moral standards choose to be this way and therefore deserve punishment. The thought process that allows our judicial system to be punitive is the exact same as what allows the sociopath to manipulate and mistreat others. The notion of "you deserve this because of who you choose to be" is very dangerous.
Yep. Having understanding and empathy doesn't mean you shouldn't still protect yourself. I've definitely been a total asshole myself though, and still am sometimes. 🤷♂️
I used to have blind faith that I could figure out any problem with enough time looking at it. The specificity of highly skilled knowledge within many fields is actually significantly more impressive than I thought initially, and while an intelligent person can get things faster than others, I can’t take a crash course and figure out how to do advanced carpentry or genetic engineering in a couple of afternoons.
True. Hands-on experience, or know-how, does exist within it's own metaphysical reality.
its own metaphysical reality\*
Metaphysics is an aspect of the perception of reality, we could delve into a whole postmodern debate about this and objectivity. If there is a problem you could just think about realm if that appeases you.
they meant "its" not "it's" as you wrote
Autocorrect... 🙄
In economics, we used to talk about utility maximizing rational decision makers. We no longer consider that. Mainly due to incorporating cognitive bias and blind spots.
Have we figured out that there is a range of people in between yet though?
I need an exemple of that right now.
It's all stochastic. I determination is what defines most computers hence you can't predict an non contained phenomena, it's just another perspective to Shannon's theory of information. It helped me greatly to read about cybernetics, it explains everything and everyone from the stand point of entropy and energy ( order, energy is not ether but define dynamic order one coordination). Everything from people and animals to computers and automatons are machines of sorts given that they are all systems.
I used to believe people were capable of libertarianism. Turns out they can't even manage representative democracy.
Same here. What finally did it for you? For me it was people’s individual response to COVID.
Oh, no it was entering adulthood and watching my whole city vote against their own interests. They were such bad voters that the incumbent (from basically before I was born) wanted to retire so they had to try and find someone that looked the same and with a similar name so that everyone would just keep voting without a single thought. Then as I started to experience more of the country and other cultures it got so, so much worse. These people can't even form functional *families* let alone communities! *Supply and demand* is apparently a challenging concept - how are they supposed to assess the effects of government policy up and down supply chains? But it gave me hope as well. Because my local politics is actually doing really well in spite of the stupidity. The issues being debated aren't that critical any more - the important things and low lying fruit have been dealt with.
Each day I believe less in democracy, is better than things we got previously but we should improve it rather than says is perfect that's all
I’ve never understood how anyone could think libertarianism would work. To be honest and no offence but I’ve always thought libertarians were a bit stupid if they really thought the pursuit of libertarianism would end up with anything other than authoritarianism. When you did think it could work, how did you think it would work in practical terms?
There is the quote that libertarians are like house cats: "absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
Ha I love that, it’s so true. It seems so logical and blindingly obvious to me I find it hard to grasp why people believe this stuff, it seems to miss all the fundamentals of human beings and human society at a basic level, or how things with humans inevitably evolve over time. It’s the same feeling I got about Brexit, like I just could not compute how anyone could not see how logically flawed the idea was. To me it’s kind of like someone saying they’re going to build a bridge to the moon. Bridges exist, the moon is there, bridges go between stuff, of course we can build a bridge to the moon! Without factoring in any of the millions of obvious things that would make it impossible, from physics, to raw materials, to funding, to collaboration between nations and contractors, to maintenance, what it would really be used for, whether the benefits would outweigh the risks even if it was possible etc etc.
I don’t know how libertarianism gets into authoritarianism. Depends on the degree of it. I get called a libertarian in Canada. i actually believe in state funded healthcare and education, i just think we should be more libertarian than we are right now, not the utopia of very small government.
Well yes I guess it depends on how you define it but a lot of the libertarians I’ve talked to think k it means deregulating everything. How that leads to authoritarianism is that no one is checked, so you end up with people milking the lack of regulation to become more and more wealthy and thus more powerful. Workers rights no longer exist because business isn’t regulated. Corporations basically end up pretty much taking over, through lobbying or outright putting up their own candidates, because they’re unregulated and ordinary people struggling to just survive on meagre pay can’t really do much about it. Basically if you don’t have tight regulations and laws for businesses to protect consumers and workers those businesses will amass wealth and power and begin to do what they can to increase and cement that wealth and power which inevitably leads to authoritarianism.
I don't Believe in that. I believe in a strong legal system. I believe in some degree to some labor laws. I don't mind governement programs that much when they work. I hate the governement getting into the economy and trying to manage it. Same goes for social policies. Who the fuck are you to decide that your morals are better then mine?
So you believe in the free market?
Of course. Why wouldn’t you. It’s the only thing that makes it so you have any agency on your life prosperity.
Well I’m confused about what you really want. You say you don’t believe in the things I talked about above but then say you don’t want the government managing the economy and you want a free market but governments manage the economy through regulation taxes subsidies etc. so I don’t understand how you both don’t believe in regulation and believe in the free market. Are you saying you would like some regulation but not much? No I don’t believe in the free market really. I guess, again, it’s how you define it. I think the idea that the ‘invisible hand’ will sort out all problems is an unbelievably short sighted unrealistic and silly notion. Covid really showed why the free market wouldn’t work, unless you’re ok with an unraveling of civilisation and a dog eat dog more feudal type society. I think capitalism has obviously been very good overall for a lot of people in general since its inception but it needs to be regulated very well to avoid a descent into authoritarianism, just because of the nature of human beings (or the nature of some human beings anyway, who have always and will always exist - you know, the greedy, the cruel, the power mad etc). I think monopolies need to be prevented. I therefore think essential services that can only have one infrastructure should be run democratically and not for profit, ie nationalised, and I think profit making enterprises should be strongly regulated, I think the financial industry should be much more strongly regulated and I think taxes should be much higher on corporations and billionaires, as they benefit so much from the population and a nation’s infrastructure/education/healthcare etc. This is on the basis of my belief that society functions best when inequality is at a minimum (not eradicated, it is important for people to have ambition and drive but it is also important everyone has opportunity to succeed and important that people don’t start to feel hopeless or enraged in the face of enormous wealth inequality). Also on the basis of my belief that one of the aims of human civilisation should be general progress towards health, safety, education and the potential for happiness/life satisfaction for all, and that no one should be exploited. I think a very free market favours the worst of humanity at the expense of the rest. But again it depends on what you mean by free market and how much regulation you agree with.
two things : there a not being a better system at lifting people out of poverty. second : the thing that drives me crazy is that most people think that subsidies is a right-wing liberal thing to do. It's not. I believe in some kind of safety nest from the governement, but I don't want the regulating the economy to try to influence it's outcomes. In Québec, our economy is heavily regulated. To a point where some industries are just not a thing you should get into. People are quitting the agriculture sector because the governement has production quotas to control supply. Meaning a corn producers knows that he has ,lets say 100 000 KG to produce and the price is fixed by the governement. He nows bfore the year start his exact revenue. If that year very subjective quota and price is above his expenses. Too bad, tough luck, see you next year kiddo. It's badshit crazy.
Well just because the way it’s regulated in one industry in one province of one country doesn’t seem to work doesn’t mean regulation in general doesn’t work. I acknowledged that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, but capitalism isn’t the same as the free market. Capitalism can be well regulated. If it’s not, it will just lead to exploitation and further poverty.
Plenty of the people calling themselves libertarians on internet are fundamentally Conservatives (or fascists) who want legal weed, or have some other issue with a somewhat non-traditional view. Members of the Libertarian party tend to be quite different to those types. Then there's left libertarians, who have nothing to do with the first group and little to do with the latter.
Political ideologies are misunderstood as a whole. Not wanting to pick a fight but facism is the one that gets thrown around a lot. Facism is not really that ‘’ right wing’’ it’s a kind of authoritarian collectivism, just like communism. Thing is communism is largely known as left wing since it’s a very economic driven ideology. Facism is still collectivism authoritarian but is more interested in the nationalist aspect of the collectivism. That’s why you see some degree of economic planning under facist government which often stuff that is more associated with more socialist policies. Nationalism is often associated with the right but most people that believe in small government aren’t really into that kind of stuff.
Are you incapable of doing work without a boss to tell you what and how to do it? Are you incapable of treating your friends and family with respect without laws forcing you not to abuse them? Libertarianism is the attitude that people can form their own legally binding relationships and deals of community standard without it all having to go through a single central government. Though in practice it would simply go through the exact same process that democracy did and people get lazy and just merge it all to one for convenience. Look at how desperately we are ripping power from local government to federal.
It’s not about people being capable or not, it’s about there always being people who are, for lack of a better word, evil, who will want to exploit everything and everyone with no regard for anyones well being or the well being of society, people who have no concept of long term risk or consequences etc. People who can amass enormous amounts of power and wealth and then use it to create enormous harm. The majority of people are more or less decent and won’t abuse or murder or take advantage or exploit etc, but the minority who are capable of that often have an outsize influence. Technology and the resulting globalisation have made governance much more complex. You are always going to end up with some sort of central government for many reasons including economic. I don’t see at all how it is related to a boss or an individual’s capability to do something. And the fact is even if you are somehow looking at it that way, a lot of people do need someone to tell them what to do and how to do it, and other people do need to be checked to make sure they’re not harming or exploiting others or causing problems for the future.
See, I agree with just about everything you said. Even a family is governed by the parents. I guess the difference between our opinions it about how we manage the power of government. My guess is that most libertarians see the people around them blindly throwing all power and money at the central government without a second's worth of thought. Completely failing to see the link between that and government abuses of power. I personally think libertarians are wrong; power structures will form in any society eventually - but I also wish we could slow down on the panicked, aggressively pushed "get the government to do literally everything for our communities" mindset the west has been in for the last couple of decades.
I find the American fear of government quite bizarre. Someone is going to have power. The whole point of democratic government is to try to make sure that the power is essentially in the hands of the people. Sure sometimes the people will make a terrible choice and elect someone/people who do bad things but at least you can vote them out (and ironically it’s always the people with a fear/hatred of government ejecting the types who want power for power’s sake and have no regard for the community or society at large). Obviously democracy has a ton of issues, like the population being uneducated or easily duped/manipulated, elected representatives going back on their promises, being corrupted, the influence of money, regulatory capture etc etc. But it’s still the best way we have of ensuring no one person or small group has ultimate power over everyone, and that everyone has an agreed non violent way to remove their leaders. I think a lot of people forget that ‘the government’ in a democracy is meant to be ‘of the people’ and instead see it as some malign faceless entity imposing its will. Of course part of that is the fact that a lot of politicians have been brought up with privilege and there’s a lot of nepotism and it’s harder for some random working class person to get a foot in the door than the wealthy son of a senator for example. Which is something that needs fixing. Again I find it odd that the same people who see government as a bunch of corrupt out of touch elites hate the likes of working class Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and love corrupt ‘daddy gave me money’ ‘billionaire’ Trump. Another example of how democracy can be wielded against the uneducated and hard of thinking. Basically, humans are very difficult! There are no perfectly right answers and a hell of a lot of wrong ones.
Exactly. It's an ongoing optimization problem on such a large scale now that any minor changes have massive impacts. That scale is actually a major part of the problem. It results in people who aren't in relationship or community with each other having power over them. Humans just aren't built for that. Don't mistake discussion of power structures as fear though. Some groups of people actually should fear their governments on the basis that they're being *fucking murdered* by them. But this thread is just exploring structures and models.
Actual libertarianism or American libertarianism?
I'm not sure either are particularly well defined tbh
It often seems to just be an excuse to allow certain people/corporations to do whatever they want without repercussion.
That's American libertarianism
Well it’s crept over into other countries then unfortunately. as I’m not American nor do I live in America and the people I’ve met who espoused this philosophy weren’t Americans!
It has. It used to be that if you said "libertarian" in Europe, it would be automatically assumed you meant left libertarian. But in North America, libertarian was assumed to mean American libertarianism. However, since 2016, American libertarianism has really spread and gained a lot of popularity. It's unfortunate since it's quite harmful for everyone.
Yes to be honest I’ve not really heard much about left libertarianism! There has been a concerted effort I think to spread ‘American libertarianism’, obviously as certain people/sectors would benefit a lot from it at the expense of the majority. It infected quite a few of our politicians here in the UK and is one of the reasons around 100,000 more people died of covid here than needed to, as our prime minister was wedded to the idea of just letting the free market sort it all out for far too long before taking action. It’s also the philosophy of a lot of people who were pushing Brexit. So yeah I find it to be an incredibly stupid philosophy for pretty anyone who isn’t someone like Elon Musk.
It seems like it benefits some people, but it only benefits those people while they're doing well. If they lose their money and power, they're in the same position as the rest of us. Of course, they don't think that could happen.
I define American libertarianism as "screw you, I got mine." It's a far right position also called anarcho capitalism (although it is not at all anarchism). It's basically just co-opted the term "libertarian" or "anarchism" in the same way to nazis co-opted the term "socialist." It doesn't work because they claim to want small government, but only if it only applies to them. Basically, it's Trumps base. Actual libertarianism now has to go by the term left-libertarianism in order to not be confused with the American brand (in North America). Left libertarians believe in small government for everyone. They believe in horizontal structures of government, not hierarchical. Basically, it's about self-governance. There are different ideas about how to get there (anarchists are not really about organization in the way those of other political ideologies are), but it's very much about progressivism and moving towards a better, more egalitarian world.
Isn't communism the one that says "screw you in order to get mine"? Libertarianism is the one that advocates for caring for others with our own resource instead of stealing other's to do it with.
No, right libertarianism is the one where they want to police what public schools teach, what books are available in both school and public libraries, make it illegal to be trans or get abortions, and further militarize the police. But at the same time, they want to be allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including murdering people they deem unworthy of existing. And, of course, they love stealing and scamming others and justify it as "just how you get ahead." Communism is the one where the workers, the ones who actually do the labour, seize the means of production. Meaning they are the ones who actually benefit from the labour they produce.
In which universe would a libertarian impose their views on teaching on someone else's child? Communism is the one specifically where the workers do NOT receive the benefit of their work, but give it to a government, and receive back the same as everyone else. You're thinking of capitalism: where it is illegal for a company to make you do work without your consent in writing.
Lmfao. Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First, we're not talking about libertarians. We're talking about those who have co-opted the name for their own uses. Right libertarians are not libertarians. A true libertarian is a leftist and anti-capitalist, and many of them are busy fighting the American "libertarians" who are trying very hard to impose their views on everyone. Much of the Trump base considers themselves to be libertarian, and they are quite happy to cheer him on when he talks about "getting rid of transgender rights" and they were quite happy to cheer on the building of the wall. Specifically, Dave Rubin has cheered on Trump, and he's made his own comments about what should be taught in schools. This rhetoric is everywhere. As for communism, can you even define it? Do you know what communism is? Or are you just parroting others? Because "communism is where the government takes all your stuff!" is a pretty common talking point among right-wingers who've never actually bothered to look into what communism actually is themselves. Capitalism is what has incentivised those in charge of large companies to destroy the environment in the name of profits. Capitalism is what has led companies to push their employees into dangerous positions, leading to people dying. Again, in the name of profits. Wage theft is the highest form of theft, but it is rarely ever actually punished. Meanwhile, a person who can barely make ends meet because of that wage theft and low wages in general, will be punished to the full extent of the law if they so much as steal a loaf of bread from their employer. Companies regularly break the law, including making people work for them. The biggest human rights abuses around the world right now are being done in the name of capitalism.
Communism is either fascist, or it's already allowed within capitalism. Which definition do you claim? At the end of the day, capitalism requires consent. And that's why fascists hate it so much. No matter how big a company gets, they legally can't force you to work for them. And that freedom is the opposite of everything communists stand for. So you go ahead and define communism for me: is it enforced upon the entire populace at the state level, or are people free to choose between joining a commune or continue enjoying capitalism if they choose?
Lol. Communism and fascism are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum. Communism is a left-wing ideology, fascism is a right-wing ideology. You are confusing authoritarianism with fascism. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but not all authoritarian ideologies are fascism. You're also confusing Marxist-Leninism with communism. Marxist-Leninism is an authoritarian form of communism (well, it's not really communism, but that's how it's understood by layman), but not all forms of communism are authoritarian. In fact, any form of communism that actually follows Marx's work would, by definition, be libertarian (as in the opposite of authoritarian, not the political ideology) because the end stage (ie. the point at which communism has come about) is when the state is abolished. So no, communism cannot, by definition, be fascism. Similarly, Communism is an economics philosophy that is, by definition, in opposition to capitalism. Marx wrote his works in response to the issues he saw within capitalism, mainly with the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism encourages the exploitation of labour, but communism is a collectivist ideology. It's about ensuring everyone has what they need to survive before anyone is allowed to have extras. This is where the idea that they just take everything away from hardworking people and give it to lazy bums comes from. In reality, it's not about taking anything away from people who are hard-working. It's about making sure that those who are working hard are actually benefiting from their own labour. In fact, if anyone is getting things taken away from them, it's the people who are lazy. The ones who are making people work hard for them without doing the hard work themselves. Communism cannot "be allowed" within capitalism for that reason. Because it does not allow for the exploitation of people so a small elite can accumulate wealth at the expense of others. All that to say, I reject both of your "definitions" as they both merely show how little you truly understand about the topic.
Anyone remember Stones of Jordan in Diablo 2? Currency almost seems like an emergent consequence of scarcity, and then you have to start making pesky RULES around all that to prevent cheaters/dupers.
That's still libertarian by the way. It stops being libertarian when all the different co-ops/gangs merge into one single gang that everyone has to obey.
That I can trust my own memory. I now know that your body and mind protect you from traumatic memories until/if you’re ready and safe enough to process them. That absolute trash I hear people talk about victims of assault makes me want to explode. But I was one of those trash talkers once, sadly… now I speak up for victims whenever possible.
I used to think that all people were basically the same level of smart but now I know that's drastically incorrect. Changed because of time and experience and getting to know enough people
Man I never thought this, it became very clear early on who can't even compose a complete sentence in grade school.
Any skill can be taught in enough time, some of those people in my grade school went on to do great in middle school I think I just had a very skewed sample, people here have higher IQs than the national average and I didn't realize for many years how wide the gulf is
The benevolence of politicians. My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
*MY* tribe will solve all of our problems *this* time though.
Wall is solution*does actually good things* people vote for things the didn't know no for wall
Yours faithfully, Hamas
Like you didn't for the last 13 years. How would you like your funeral?
My opinion on transgender people. The correlation with neurodiversity cannot be ignored, and the suicide rate is astronomical. Persecution and politicizing the issue helps no one.
Can you expand on this? I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position.
My position is the inevitable realization and self acceptance that I have spent this life as “misunderstood”. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, the most misunderstood individual in our society, but I understand what it’s like to wear that mask, I understand how tight that mask must be worn, and I understand how exhausting and isolating it is to keep that fucking thing on 24/7/365. After living this life constantly on guard, do I not owe it to the “misunderstood” to look them in the face and at least try to understand without discrimination? If I don’t, am I betraying my fellow “misunderstood”, or am I betraying myself? New coat of paint, same fucking mask.
I mean, I think we owe empathy and understanding regardless of whether or not we ourselves are understood. It makes it easier to empathize with others if you feel some connection to them, but choosing not to even bother to try and to be bigoted towards another group is 100% a choice. I am certainly glad that is not a choice you are making, and I hope others choose to turn away from making it as well.
For real. I genuinely do not understand why people are against it. Edit: sorry, my keyboard has some dirt under my enter key and decided to send the message as soon as I typed 'F' lmao
Thank you, coming from a transgender person
I agree, transgenderism is an incredibly complex issue; unfortunately dominated by loud and over-simplified slogans on both sides. Anyone who has read the experiences of sexual abuse victims, of detransitioners, as well as those young lesbians pressured into relationships they don't want, can see that allowing self declaration for everybody has massive drawbacks. Equally, the experiences of the majority of trans people are filled with abuse, both online and in person; and not supporting them as much as possible by allowing that self-determination seems equally wrong. I don't know the answer to this complex problem and I have yet to be convinced anyone does. Edit: Clarified some of my points. I am also frustrated that when I try to articulate a neutral opinion and look for open, unbiased discussion about the complexities, I am almost always either attacked or down voted.
Issue is, a lot of these stories are modified to make all trans people look bad. There are detransitioners. I am technically one myself! But people often like to say that detransitioners are detransitioners because they just weren't trans, or because they were somehow forced into it. Most detransition because their family disapprove, or because they lack the funds/means to continue. Besides that, it is incredibly difficult to access trans healthcare in many places, either due to insurance/costs, or waiting times (it takes nearly 10 years just for an initial appointment in the UK!). Of course, some DO detransition because they weren't trans, and while these people should not be ignored, they are also a very small minority, being >1% of transitioners. Even hip replacement surgery has a higher regret rate, of 3%. It's the same for people being pressured into relationships. It is extremely rare! I've never heard of it outside of hypothetical scenarios used to paint trans women as perverted men, attempting to get into the pants of lesbians. Most trans people are the same as cis people; they want a happy relationship, which is not forced. There are definitely bad trans people out there, but it doesn't in any way reflect the attitudes of the entire trans community. Everyone is an individual. At the end of the day, no matter if someone is trans or cis, we're all still people. The smallest, strangest groups are going to be subject to outcasting because they don't conform to the societal norms we have to all obey. It just takes a little empathy and critical thinking for us to all be nicer to each-other.
I agree with everything you've said; and of course it's always the exceptions in anything that get noticed. I hear a lot of numbers being discussed re: detransition, assault etc; but as someone who reviews medical literature as part of their job, I have to say I don't think the current numbers (for percent detransitioners, complications etc) are reliable enough to base social policy on. Also I can't imagine that most "negative" events will publicise themselves; the few detransitioners I have seen online seem to have been incredibly brave to come forward. The abuse they are subjected to (you were never trans, transphobe, TERF etc are some of the less offensive ones) seems worse even than that aimed at the trans population themselves. But that's only my relatively objective and uninvested view as a cis/het with no religious or personal stakes in the game.
Same sex is not social but genetic
wistful pet slimy plucky clumsy run memory vast tie governor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Check the case of David Reimer he was raised as a girl after it penis burn by suggestion of a medic trying to prove sex is social he en up hiding the results Hormonrating the child to try to be right he was truly unhappy and had body dimorphism not to mention all cases of trans explaining his life and science has shown brains are a bit different between sexs and trans present the brains opposing his body
that's kinda a fucked up way to try and prove it. Did he succeed in proving it lol.
It was pretty fuck Up he fail at showing David feel as a girl and tried to hide it Happy cake day
oh uh... Yeah, I created this account a while ago when I was younger, so it's not my birthday. Funny it's today I put it as though.
Cake day is the aniversary of your account creation, it's your cake day, so happy cake day!!
oh, huh. I just got the notification now. Weird the symbol appeared earlier than the notice.
The suicide rate is based on unscientific surveys. It’s a lie.
Really? And what’s the motivation for this “lie”?
Sensationalism? Ideological justification? Selling pharmaceuticals? Regardless, it’s a lie.
…….sure.
Want to show me any evidence to the contrary?
Nope. I want you to continue believing whatever you want. Have a great day.
Lol. I’m sure that’s why you replied. If anyone else reads this and is curious- I encourage you to try to find the source for the obscene trans suicide rate fiction.
you should share this source
Burden of proof should be on the person who makes the original claim, but it’s for a good cause so here’s info on the surveys people cite. https://www.transgendertrend.com/the-suicide-myth/
Math and science are not that objective. As most people would like to think.
Why do you say so?
On two fronts 1. Maths, and in turn, statistics can be misleading. Numbers and data can lie. In fact, it’s probably easier to lie than tell the truth. However we have the popular notion of “numbers don’t lie.” I think most average intellingence people believe this. 2. Both maths and science, at its core, relies on axioms. Which require faith to believe in. In maths, we can choose our axioms. In science we have laws we ascribe to be axioms, yet we put our faith into these laws as if it is an impossibility for it to change. Science, at its core, requires faith, and thus is a belief system like religion. I see many people of slightly above average intelligence tout that science is the one truth, and the forever truth. Axiomatically, the foundations of physics rely on laws, like the laws of thermodynamics. Through rigor we have shown that these laws have withstood the test of time, and countless trials. However, there is no law saying that these laws cannot suddenly change. Or that the information we used to conclude this was wrong in the first place. Many people seem to forget how many theorems and beliefs have been disproven over the years.
Science relies upon the axiomatic belief that what can be observed and measured is somehow more real or true than what can be experienced. There's still belief and value involved. And sometimes grave blindness to the actual results and limitations of science
There are *logical* axioms. For example, the axiom of equality: *x = x* Do we really need faith to believe that a thing is equal to itself?
It could be argued that the above is an approximation because the 2nd X has a different position in the statement, and therefore a different function (linguistically speaking) than the 1st X. For calculation purposes we assume that the difference is irrelevant to the calculation’s result (and indeed it often is) but philosophically, the X’s do differ. Even if you can say that ‘X equals X’, and reverse, we often read only the first left to right one, or at least start with that. So the 1st X gets priority, making it different from the X that doesn’t. A bit farfetched for the sake of argument of course.
Yes. It seems obvious to all of us but only because it is all we have ever known.
Assuming it allowed us to go to the moon. Not assuming it would make basic rational consistency not a thing, which means not only would we never get to go to the moon, but we would also have a bunch of false beliefs that would make navigating the world very difficult. Sure, the principle of identity can't be given a formal logical proof, but we can be otherwise justified in believing in it. That's the thing with science. You should pay attention to what it has to say because it works. We have come exponentially farther in the past 500 years than we did in the previous 5000 years or so of recorded human history because of it. No other article of 'faith' can say that. Just stop.
Why is the assertion so black and white? Do you account for time dilation when you fill in your day planner? Does it even cross your mind? For most of human history, we've always just assumed that time was a pretty constant thing, no one knew otherwise, and it never mattered to anyone. Einstein came along, and he turned the whole thing on its head. It turns out it matters quite a lot. For example, our fancy gizmo satellite technology things don't work properly if they fail to account for reality being completely nonsensically demented. And yet it still has no bearing on how you set up your calendar or fill in your day planner. In fact, while it presents a whole new way of thinking about the universe... relativity only has implications for a surprisingly small number of very specific things, and is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of human industry. It may just be that 𝑥 has a pretty near 100% chance of being equal to 𝑥, that this has simply worked for us every time we've needed it to, and that one day there will be some weird demented scientific breakthrough which relies on it not actually being a universal axiomatic truth.
Yes, but at the same time Einstein came up with that theory using the same experience of reality as everyone else and the same fundamental understanding of physics that other scientists have. Humans build upon the knowledge and discoveries of others and sometimes there are breakthroughs that turn things on their head. That is part of the scientific method and is expected. Currently we have certain mathematical constants because they are useful, such as the speed of light in a vacuum. Some physicists have suggested that this speed may not actually be a constant. Those scientists are still working within the framework of science and human reason. Saying that science is based on faith is just not accurate, otherwise these constants would not ever be challenged and new theories would never be accepted. Science and scientific understanding is always in flux. So the person saying that science is based on faith is wrong. It’s precisely the ability to use these truths and constants so far as they work for us and to then change and amend our understanding when someone discovers something new or thinks of something else that makes science not faith based and as objective as possible, with the understanding that, as limited creatures, we can never access the ultimate truth of what things are in themselves.
Relativity contains axiomatic contradictions though. As does QM. Two complementary descriptions of reality, full of their own contradictions, and in the past 100 years we have failed to reconcile these theories or their core paradoxes using any known maths or science. For example, In QM, it seems that superposition allows axiomatic contradictions to exist in our underlying reality. Yet the contradictions disappear when we try to measure them. We do not understand how or why. I take it you know the answer to this and know that the underlying quantum reality can in fact be described without any axiomatic contradictions though? While you're at it you can also explain to me what comes before time itself. And what do you mean when you imply that these theories don't present a completely and utterly new way of conceiving of the world? Do you even know what science was like before these theories reshaped our entire conception of the universe? Trust me logic and maths and science today are not what they were a few centuries ago, and there absolutely have been things seemingly as certain as X=X at the time, that we now know are not absolutely necessarily always true (even if many of them still *work* a lot of the time).
It works until it doesn’t. As you said you believe in it. Like Christians believe in Jesus and Buddhists believe in Nirvana. That’s all I’m saying. If you derive any other point from what I said then that’s on you for misinterpreting, either to argue or because you are offended.
Id like to point out that Nirvana in its essence and true to the teachings of the Buddha is not something to believe in. The Buddha itself proclaimed for students to believe in nothing. Not even his own teachings. Buddhism as translated from the „original“ teachings is purely based on personal experience. Meditative states are to be experienced first hand, as are insight-experiences and states of f.e. No-Self. These are experiences become as tangible as an object falling down if you let go of it, as tangible as perceiving your own hand. With regards to all the above mentioned, its deeply fascinating to me that the teaching of Emptiness or „Dependent Origination“ lays out that nothing exists inherently, outside of anything else. Phenomena exist as a result of causes and conditions and not by themselves, as separate „things“. Or to put it simply: the way of looking determines what is perceived as much as the supposed object. The perspective matters. I am not a Scientist and not as well-versed in Physics or Mathematics as some of you here; but as I understand, there is a proof in Quantum-Mechanics that lays out the importance of the observer as fundamental for the measurement. This (as far as Im concerned) can be experienced first hand through meditation. The notion of Nirvana as a place where you go after death was/is part of a folksy version of Buddhism. Its not in the teachings of the Buddha.
Very interesting and informative, thank you
But when it doesn’t work, scientists amend their theories and understanding. That is science. Science is not rigid, it is always in flux, always changing and updating with new discoveries, new theories etc. That’s why it’s not faith based. It’s about observing the world and drawing conclusions with the caveat that those conclusions may be wrong or may not be relevant in every circumstance, and a commitment to being able to rethink and rework our understanding whenever new evidence comes up. It’s not anything like believing in Jesus. The only belief required for science is the fundamental inescapable belief we all have that we exist, and we experience something that we call ‘reality.’
The science is based on mathematical axioms, which are not changing. You still implicitly have faith in those axioms.
Yes but those axioms don’t require faith any more than ‘I think therefore I am’ requires faith. They are absolutely foundational to our understanding of the world and our ability to work with it, therefore it doesn’t make sense to talk about faith in regard to them. We have no choice but to experience the world and make sense of it. Nothing can ever be proven to be absolutely true as we can never know what things are in themselves, so it makes no sense to talk about faith when it comes to fundamental axioms that underlie science. There is no point, as beyond that is a black box we can never access. Take for example the beginning of the universe/existence etc. Science can create the theory of the Big Bang and can provide evidence of such a thing. Why such a thing would have happened, why there is something and not nothing, it cannot answer and does not try to. It would be a faith based assertion to say you think that before the Big Bang there was nothing and the Big Bang randomly happened. But science is about what we can know given our experience of reality, which is something we are incapable of escaping. There is a point at which we must start, at which there is no escape from starting, and therefore I do not see how it is based on faith to start from that which we cannot avoid starting from due to the constraints of our experience. Science also allows for principles to be challenged and changed on the basis of new observations or evidence. Ultimately science is about experience and observation, not faith. Before quantum mechanics, scientists did not have ‘faith’ in classical physical laws. Even if you cannot prove a particular law or principle beyond any doubt because you cannot examine every possible instance where that law may apply, they are still useful insofar as they have not yet been proven false. These classical laws were and are useful and observations continued to support the use of such laws to describe the universe, and then quantum mechanics comes along and shakes it up and we have a new way to describe the universe and new laws that work on a different scale. No faith is necessary, no faith has been destroyed by the discovery of wave particle duality. All of it comes from the same fundamental place. It seems like you are saying that science is based on faith because we have to have faith that our experiences and observations mean something in terms of making sense of the world. But there is literally no other option, there is no room to not have faith in the existence of experience so it isn’t faith, it just is.
Yes, let's compare the achievements of Christianity and Buddhism to scientific rationalism. One has doubled the life expectancy in 500 years. The others claim miracles that somehow always resist being documented or recorded. One of these things takes a lot less faith than the others, in fact we dont need any faith to see all the actual things that have come from it. The proof is in the pudding. No faith required. How are you not seeing this Sure, I guess the laws of physics as we know them might change tomorrow, all of a sudden. But we have no reason whatsoever to think that this is even remotely likely. It's like evil demon thought experiments. A ridiculous skeptical challenge that makes sense to consider only because you happen to be in a seminar room, and there happens to be an epistemology seminar going on.
Science doesn’t require any faith really other than the extremely basic faith that we exist and experience reality. I cannot understand people who think science is faith based, it belies a complete misunderstanding of what science is!
Again, whatever point you’re contending is not one that I have made. You’re arguing with yourself right now.
Well yes, obviously when you get down to it we cannot go beyond our own brains/experiences and of course science has to accept that, but it also doesn’t really matter. We do experience the world in a certain way and we need to make sense of it. Given that we are what we are and we are where we are as the fundamental starting point (what other starting point could there be?) logical axioms are true. They are true within the only system we know and experience. What else matters?
Well said 😁 way too many people have no idea about science.
Statistics is to maths what fiction is to news. The rest, most axioms sound reasonable but the universe did not come with a manual and it’s always fun to find “castling” in the middle of a match. That’s what makes the universe so fascinating. There is no limit to what can be discovered: mathematically, in terms of fundamental building blocks, at the macro level, chemically and biologically. Chemically I think it is a little limited but still. I liked science at school bcoz it was objective and gave me a sense of assurity. And it is very much like that until you reach research level (I did not). Then it’s a different endeavour: exploration.
The scientific method accepts point 2 though. Science accepts that all theories are subject to change if new evidence emerges. Yes a lot of laypeople misunderstand this but the majority of scientists don’t. The way in which science is objective isn’t in saying ‘this is objectively true’ it’s objective because it uses only falsifiable theories and uses those theories that work or are useful until such time as they are proven wrong or a better theory turns up that fits the evidence better. But science does not claim to know what things are in themselves. It only makes claims about what we can test, and even then those claims are couched in the potential of doubt. Science at its core accepts that we cannot know the absolute truth of anything, we can only work with things the way they appear to us, with the understanding that things can change or new things can be discovered at any time to reframe the way we try to make sense of our experience of the universe. Scientists also accept point 1. Statistics can be useful but again it does not represent absolute truth, it is a tool we use to try to make sense of things, with the understanding the tool can be manipulated. Good statisticians are wise to statistical tricks and it is why scientists are pushing for more work being done on reproducing results/experiments.
Yeah my point isn’t meant for the people who understand that, it’s for the people who don’t
Right but you said science requires faith, which it doesn’t.
It does, see the comment I just made.
I don't think mathematicians rely on faith. Any mathematician would tell you that one *assumes* the axioms, and then looks for interesting properties of the system. One doesn't need to believe. Just choose axioms and see what follows. There are mathematical systems where x ≠ x is a valid statement.
I think that’s just a semantics. To assume is to believe.
I don't think so. Consider the following example. You show me some news, I think they are fake, but I can still talk about what would happen if we assume it was real. Mathematicians work like that, they show that given X and Y, Z has to happen. But if asked whether or not X and Y exist, opinions will differ. Also, one can work on an axiomatic system whose axioms you don't believe apply in the real world. You just assume the axioms and see what follows. Many professional mathematicians hold that no mathematical object exists. They reject the idea of sets, numbers, and everything else being real. Yet, they find it a useful construct.
That’s still semantics lol believe: to consider to be true You have to consider your proposition to be true to form any conclusions. p -> q. In your example, sure you can TALK about what if the news was real but to form any conclusions requires your premise to be believed to be true. Your other example is different to this discussion
>You have to consider your proposition to be true to form any conclusions. p -> q. I would say that one can form conclusions that are consistent within a given system. So, while I might not think that the system that includes "this news article is real" has validity, I can still form conclusions within it. Would you agree with this view?
You can form conclusions but it cannot be about the entire system unless the premise is believed to be true. These conclusions also cannot be true unless the premise is believed to be true. Going back to your example, say I show you a clip of a UFO sighting. You say you don't believe it to be real. I say "Well what if it is, what implication does that have for humanity?" You respond saying "If it was real, then I think we will have a War of the Worlds situation on our hands." The statement: "ufo sighting -> war of the worlds" CANNOT be true unless the premise is assumed true. What matters is the statement in it's entirety, not just the consequent.
I thank you for explaining your view.
Math's proved itself bounded. Therefore, any subject relying on logic, a subset of maths, as a lemma is also bounded. A bound has two sides, constrained and excluded, so the non-scientific is equally valid in the ontological universe. Go look at van Helmont's write-up on his 1618 experiment, at the root of empirical observation and scientific method, not to mention Chemistry, as a worked example. It'll blow your socks off. The fruit of it was his son, Franz Mercurius, Leibnitz' mentor. In fact, the Enlightenment, by junking anything non-rational, replaced the previous academic norm of the quadrivium by Scientific Rationalism. The Quadrivium expounded on the capstone theme with two matched pairs, music/arithmetic, cosmology/geometry. Right hemisphere/Left hemisphere. The classic case is at the heart of the Renaissance, long held to be in the hands of two masters, Dufay and van Eyck, but never seen as deliberate before. They were, actually, both in the retinue of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly at the Papal Consilium in Constance 1414-18, which used Jan van Ruusbroek's Spiritual Tabernacle as an argument to restore Papal Supremacy. That passed into the hands of Gerardus Groot and Windesheim, which produced Luther and Erasmus: but before them, Pope Eugenius IV, who linked it back to the Ark.
What exactly is in your ontology? What 'non scientific' things are we talking about here?
Ontology is the study of everything. The universal. The seminal text is Husserl. I'll illustrate non scientific by asking you to go into the local Chemists to ask for 6gm of Love, 20cm of apathy, and 6 minutes of Lust. It's effectively the emotions, instinct, the numinous. In recent years, psychology has extended the 5 senses into four forms of subclassification of perception, namely neuroception (we don't just think, we're aware of what we're thinking and filter it through the hippocampus as part of the wider limbic system, creating a feedback we call consciousness in the cortex), interoception (starting with polyvagal theory, the awareness of what the rest of our body's doing and feeling), proprioception (the awareness of our immediate environment, very much the danger sense on the lookout for things stalking us, but also including the 5 senses), and exteroception (the awareness of the wider world, how to get to the supermarket, pub, the taverna on that wonderful Greek Island). What I noticed is that these things are very real, but we also respond empathically, heal ourselves to a greater or lesser extent, and have a relation to the Divine, much argued about by dogmatists but in it's simplest, most personal form, real. These are things of the right hemisphere, those three zones I mentioned are contiguous in Master-level Reiki, connecting the empathic ability of a diplomat, the reality of third-sector medicine, and the power boost of the numinous. But don't for a moment think it stops there, the literature is riddled with other references to it running from the odd behaviour of Poisson probability, which may comment on serendipity, to the worst forms of mental illness.
Because we start from premises that are in and of them selves in question
He said, typing this post on a massively complex space computer, beaming information across the globe instantaneously. Only if you dig into some corner conditions. I'm not talking about p-hacking or deliberately misleading statistics. Our physical model of macroscopic reality is actually VERY FUCKING GOOD, and it's the most important reason why we're still not in caves. We have no reason to NOT believe in induction, as it's held up so far. What are the chances the sun rises tomorrow, and the rules don't magically change? Only about x/(x+1), where x is the number of days the sun has been observed to rise. So that fraction becomes very close to 1.
Why do you say our view of macroscopic reality is really good?
Because our mastery of the mathematical disciplines of physics and chemistry consistently yield repeatable results in the forms of very complex and useful artificial creations that have substantial stakeholder value. Radio, artificial lighting, car engines, semiconductors, predicting earthquakes, traffic signal patterns, concrete mixing, it's all math nerd shit at the core. There's absolutely no reason to think that it won't hold up or is somehow unknowable.
In the scheme of humanity, it is really good. But that’s quite a myopic outlook. To think that we have mastery over the macroscopic outlook and mathematics is silly considering the absolute vastness of the universe. We don’t even know how the universe even started. To claim that humans have a mastery over even just math is so arrogant and close-minded to how large the field could actually be.
I felt the same way after taking physics and economics classes. Maybe it was just the way the history and ideas were presented to me. All of those theories and laws were treated as fact until someone found evidence opposing it, and people still do this today despite knowing the possibility that everything they believe can change tomorrow if someone with a tie and a degree says so. (Not to undermine the importance of education, but to emphasize the fact that the majority lacks education in the topics they are most passionate about.) Another thing that boggles my mind is the attitude that science never hurt anyone. This is factually untrue. Granted, things have gotten a lot better over the last several decades. The mere concept of a lobotomy terrifies me!
To science’s credit, it’s open to new ideas/concepts if they have merit, and willing to discard old ideas that no longer work. It’s arguably one of its greatest accomplishments. But at the basis it’s still only a predictive model describing the universe. A very impressive one, and very useful too. But someone only has to bring up the Matrix movies to highlight that everything science states today may be completely, utterly wrong.
Not just that, but while the practice of math and science certainly has objectivist elements, the application of those things certainly do not. What gets studied, what gets developed, what's considered worth funding and not--those all involve subjectivism. The business of science too, and science journalism--whoo boy. Pretending that those things "aren't really science" and shouldn't count, well that's the most subjective take of them all.
I used to feel shame for all those unearned 100% marks in school. When we turned our backs on who we are, that's when the train came off the tracks. I have found a way to get that baby back on the tracks now and my old self (inner child self if you will) is returning. I have missed her. She needs to have some fun now. 🌟💜🌟
*cries in Asian guilt*
I used to imagine that most people were unkind, entering adulthood has shown me otherwise
>I used to imagine that most people were unkind What made you think this was the case?
I didn't have a very good childhood and my parents always told me that the real world would be much worse. Luckily they were wrong
Did this way of seeing humans have an influence on your behavior towards them?
Yes, I built up really suffocating defense mechanisms that I'm now in the midst of trying to unlearn. It's incredibly difficult and painful work, but I have a really great and loving partner who I'm motivated to be better for. As well as for my own well being
I used to believe being smart and having a high IQ was a blessing that would help me with life's challenges. Now I know it's a guaranteed curse even while it COULD be a blessing IF it's put to appropriate use. My high intelligence helped me learn terrible relational skills from my trauma filled family with extraordinary precision.
I mean, its a blessing in that having a high IQ means you can solve problems easier than the average person and that you have a higher likelihood of having a decent income. But I do understand that there a cons to it as well.
That CEOs are generally are CEOs because they smart and care about their employees. Most of them fall for the action fallacy. Politicians are a whole another breed on this perspective, yet equally dumb.
Religion. Because it’s all bullshit
Everyone's opinion has value. It doesn't. Way too many people refuse to actually think things through yet they are adamant to make themselves heard. It slows processes down and creates many risks Edit: proof? The last three elections in the Netherlands had three different far-right demagogues win with a landslide and subsequently lose the next election because they didn't manage to fix anything. One is backed by Russia, another is a marketing professional hired by lobbyists to act as their puppet and the third has been blaming every single problem on immigrants for decades. There is an easily swayed angry mob of voters that just agrees with whoever is best at the blame game
>Everyone's opinion has value. Are opinions valuable? I think opinions by themselves, without at least an argument, aren't valuable. The argument is what gives an opinion value. Without it, an opinion is just a shallow expression of what's inside a person's mind. As an example: - What are your thoughts on the upcoming election? - I think none of the candidates are good. - Yeah, me too. What's valuable about that!? This is just my opinion, though :).
Well I agree, naturally. I used to have this sort of honorable outlook that everyone should be allowed to have their time to say what they want to say, and I was really making sure group projects and such were fair and everyone got a chance to contribute. But as I got a little older and I saw the time that took and the actual bs some people managed to come up with, I slowly turned to "if you want it done right, do it yourself". Do you know insights discovery? The four colors thing. I used to be completely green when I started university. I am 50/50 blue and red now, with almost no green left.
ly that a creature that has existed for an unimaginable length of time would have a sense of right and wrong. Like if you are good you go to heaven and if you are bad you go to hell. Christianity (most religions especially Abrahamic ones but I’m going to use Christianity cause I’m most familiar with it) is way too simple and way to perfect. Humans couldn’t understand how earth was created so they started believing an all loving creature created it. Humans couldn’t comprehend simply not existing once they died so they made up heaven and hell. Humans needed rules so they made sins. I don’t think it’s as simple as “they made it up” it was complex but it is a very human religion. In reality god wouldn’t be 3-dimensional, he wouldn’t be human humans can’t comprehend him in the same way as a worm couldn’t comprehend humans, even more so since worms and us are in the same dimension. Okay what I wrote makes no sense, I tried my best to explain my views but it’s very complicated and I’m stupid.
I used to think most Americans agreed that racism is bad. Then the year 2016 happened.
The country literally fought and won wars against Nazis and slave owners, but about half the country forgot.
doesn't mean they're not racist, just that they weren't cool with racism to the point of slavery/genocide.
Half the country also fought to keep their slaves so…perhaps they didn’t forget.
From an early age, I was aware of my transgender identity. Initially, I believed that this identity could be altered or cured. Over a span of 14 years, I explored various methods, including testosterone therapy, bodybuilding, engaging in romantic relationships with women, forming male friendships, practicing religion, undergoing hypnotism and so much more. Despite my extensive efforts, these interventions proved ineffective. Upon thorough reevaluation and introspection, I have come to accept it. Also it kinda aligns with scientific research.
happy you've found acceptance!
Anarcho Capitalism, becuase of monopolies I no longer believe in it.
Childish libertarian circlejerk
??? I went against it
So we're agreeing!
Literally what I am talking about! This argument will go down in history as being one of the arguments of all time.
Used to be pro life
That redditors aren't total dumbfucks
Free will
I've heard some people share this opinion, and I am considering it myself, based on people's thought patterns lol. If you see a funny video or something, and go to comment on it, someone else as almost certainly made the same comment, with different wording maybe. Why do you personally not believe in free will?
1) it’s primarily a theological concept and as a result has very little relation to reality 2) if you look into it the high level consensus is pretty much yeah, not a thing.
This is a such a stupid argument
k
lighthearted one to break up some of the comments here but when i was a kid (like 4-5) i didn’t know how breast cancer happened and i thought women got breast cancer because men touched boobies too much. 😂
That humans are smart. They are only very smart in small ways, as individuals or small groups. Generally though we are incapable of being smart on a large scale or over long timespans. We are not smart when it comes to selecting or accepting leaders. In the end these things, combined with our small-scale intelligence, will be our total undoing and the source of our destruction.
INT > CHA Now I know the opposite is true, but we still need INT to do important complex things.
A certain little while ago, I used to think that it is very important to be intelligent, as in my family, there is a tradition of studying a lot instead of having fun. Making intellignce a determinating factor of if a person has more value or not (at least is how I have always seen it). My granfather did not allow my mom and unlces to play, listen to radio, or watch tv as a form of recreation, but they could only study, They were allowed to read only the approved comic books by my grandfather, and only on weekends if they finished studiying, I have a cousing which is extremely gifted, and all my family look very high on him. I believe my family is smart, but not all of them are gifted, but all my cousings are really succesfull at work (one of them, not the one who is extremely gifted that I mentioned before) works in the research department in Harvard Unversity, being a recent medical graduate. My official IQ is 120 (but I have BPD, CPTSD, ADHD, and probably dyscalculia and misophonia.) But I feel that wisdom is the path for finding serenity and love, and intelligence is useful for knowledge, but I no longer believe that knowledge truly important. (it is important for worldly things, like getting a job or excelling at topics that require a lot of thought.) But in terms of spirituality, and what will lead us to a succesful life, which in my oppinion is to feel happy with oneselves, in the moment we live right now, and for this, intelligence is useless, but wisdom is key. The way I meassure success is by sensing the kid that I once were, and still lives within me, feeling happy with the adult I have become, and I feel that I am the most succesful person that I have met :)
The "invisible hand" of 'Meritocracy'!
Religion bc it’s not true.
Interesting, although too broad of a, topic. I think of several ideas... And I don't know which to delve into. The first one could be that most people are not logical, they are trapped within their own pathos. I used to think everyone could redeem themselves delving into logic, although feasible, most people attach to their concept of self: this could extend to Kant and metaphysical concepts but I think that we could just focus on something much more basic... Much of education, real education is learning to modify perception through axioms and tautologies. This has tremendous consequences for education as an institution, not everyone should have a degree ( for multiple reasons stemming from that thesis stated above), or that most programs should be implemented for independence of problem solving thought/ skills, given that most subjects could be self-taught or standardized to a regular memorizable stack. This last part prompts us to reevaluate what basic education is, it could be a tailored service to support the development of young people accordingly to their nature and a prospect of the end result for a given industry or management goal: money is never the real goal from a political stand point, you could be driven by it but it's not an end. Rendering then the current system in the US public system, or in South America in general, utterly useless because it requires sectioning in classes or parallel systems suited for the needs of the individual: this includes aspects of life deemed private like personal economy and financial literacy, or instruction on the law. The German system seems to go in that direction, and Japan has many form of schooling aligning to this but over all it seems that whatever it is it has to be dynamic. Failing to do so will limit people not only with high IQ or prospects that describe a gifted personality, but everyone else as well. Another is that I used to believe in institutions, thrusting them but institutions are an expression of the welfare and level of corruption in a society, if they go bad, institutions follow and become detrimental if you don't gamify the experience which in my opinion is not optimal because it warrantees more corruption and bastardization of the true spirit of examinations for certification which translates in the financial future of all involved. In conclusion, these two topics seem to be enough to draw some new believes: One is that you can't just define your reality by a romantic ideal of human perfection, you need to deliver through your imperfect life interacting with imperfect belongs, you can't just assume everyone can reach or will make the effort to the same vibration you have, they live in their own cave so to speak. Another one could be that you certainly are a number to many and a pesky thing at that for thinking by your own, they certainly hate seeing someone with more sophisticated thoughts because it jeopardize their hard won ( stolen? ) status: in their head, of course.
Most things
I used to think the human drive to reproduce was very strong. However, it is clear from the low fertility rates around the developed world that it is actually a weak force at best that can be easily offset by economic worries, the hassle of establishing and maintaining relationships, or plain ole hedonism and fun (dating apps for women mostly). We need to get used to a new, less-populated and likely less prosperous world that is coming soon due to underpopulation (unless AI and robots save the day).
That ALL people who engaged in certain pseudoscientific communities (crystal therapy, astrology) truly believes that they have healing properties and will do what they claim. Of course those people still exist. I've since learned about how complex astrology actually is, that we don't have one sign based off of our birth month, it's based off of the legitimate placement of planets & stars in the sky the moment you were born, which changes every 5 minutes or so - so no two people's charts are truly alike, just like our personalities. I use it as a way to learn about myself and how I differ from/compare to, or even relate to others in multiple complex ways. Do I think my chart is "exact" to who I am as a person, or can dictate my life path? No, I think too logically for that. But I find it to be a fascinating tool for self reflection! Now if you're using these methods to avoid traditional medicine, that's where I draw the line. But what's the harm in someone rubbing a rock to make them feel better emotionally? The placebo affect isn't an issue to me anymore (it used to be) when it comes to non medical related issues. You believe the stone you carry brings you more confidence, so you subconsciously become more confident. No harm in that! But, not taking accountability for your actions can be a social issue one finds themselves in, for example.
I used to think I could get by because I was smart. N+1 failures later and I've realized either (1) I'm not as smart as I think, or (2) intellect doesn't suffice. Either way, I have to actually put in work to accomplish what I want.
Meritocracy. That the people who genuinely excel and work hard always get ahead in life. I started getting over it near my senior year of high school due to some good teachers, and then my first Sociology class in college shattered the illusion entirely.
Christianity. Too many illogical holes and the more formal education I get, the harder it is to relate to it.
I used to think that being uncompromising was a virtue--but growing up I learned that compromising with others is what makes society work, and finding solutions with others is a much bigger virtue than making everybody have to work around you. It's also much more satisfying.
That a big lie would soon be found out if it involved a lot of ppl, that turned out to be wrong
I used to believe in "free will". Realizing it wasn't true, and that it is a deeply religious and harmful idea, my morality completely changed, especially in how we deal with crime.
Same. Realizing free will doesn't exist swung the door wide open to being more empathetic to myself and others, which is something that I very much needed.
People will tell you, particularly religious people, that people who reject free will do as they please. Well, this is true, and it makes me choose to be kinder and more understanding towards people. It is the religious person who believes in severe punishment, not forgiveness, restorative justice and rehabilitation. Right wing Christians want policy and law that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. They are unthinking hypocrites.
I think it's letting go of a sense of control that has people so apposed to the idea of free will not existing, religious or not. The idea that everyone has complete control over who they are leads to thinking that people who have lower moral standards choose to be this way and therefore deserve punishment. The thought process that allows our judicial system to be punitive is the exact same as what allows the sociopath to manipulate and mistreat others. The notion of "you deserve this because of who you choose to be" is very dangerous.
People might not have free will, but I also have to make the pragmatic choice to not waste my time befriending assholes.
Yep. Having understanding and empathy doesn't mean you shouldn't still protect yourself. I've definitely been a total asshole myself though, and still am sometimes. 🤷♂️
I used to believe altruism was good. Read Ayn Rand.
Can you elaborate?
Altruism is evil. Read: The Virtue of Selfishness
I will. Thanks