Absolute Randomness

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:20 pm

See? I told you. Rhythm is everywhere.

https://streamable.com/afpdt
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:47 am

promethean75 wrote:See? I told you. Rhythm is everywhere.

https://streamable.com/afpdt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsk3aNYlxiI
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:29 pm



promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:17 pm

Attachments
3n9f1t.gif
3n9f1t.gif (197.1 KiB) Viewed 540 times
3n9dgx.jpg
3n9dgx.jpg (48.7 KiB) Viewed 540 times
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:39 pm

sarty pants wrote:Decided to waste my time by watching the Grammys this year. regretted it, almost immediately.
But I finally understood what they mean by "diversity". For a moment I thought it was an African musical show.

I'm not going to comment on the quality of the "music". Suffice it to say that none of that noise will be remembered in six-months - six months? Make that three.


https://streamable.com/gr355
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:46 pm

and now happens the fact-checking to tally up the total number of lies trumpf told during the address.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... e-n1130311

now i would suggest that trumpf couldn't really have 'lied' regarding any of these examples, because in order to lie, he'd have to know the truth. and this kind of data is not something he'd have known the truth about. hence, he's a bullshitter, not a liar... at least not concerning the statements he made in the address. fortunately for politicians the public usually doesn't know the truth of the data either, so they can throw around numbers without being called on the bullshit.



are bullshitters more reprehensible than liars? let's find out...

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:42 am

https://www.quora.com/How-different-wou ... chtenstein

You'da never thunk ol' Vlad was such a pivotal figure in history. So much bullshit coulda been prevented had that dude lived.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:21 pm

"Lenin used severe methods only in the most necessary cases, when the exploiting classes were still in existence and were vigorously opposing the revolution, when the struggle for survival was decidedly assuming the sharpest forms, even including a civil war.

Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated, and Socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy, when our party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically. It is clear that here Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality, and his abuse of power. Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V.I Lenin..." (Nikita Krushchev)

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org ... ad9419c995
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:24 pm

promethean75 wrote:and now happens the fact-checking to tally up the total number of lies trumpf told during the address.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... e-n1130311

now i would suggest that trumpf couldn't really have 'lied' regarding any of these examples, because in order to lie, he'd have to know the truth. and this kind of data is not something he'd have known the truth about. hence, he's a bullshitter, not a liar... at least not concerning the statements he made in the address. fortunately for politicians the public usually doesn't know the truth of the data either, so they can throw around numbers without being called on the bullshit.

You're not at al inclined to recognize the lies of the party that moved for impeachment?

I always wonder about the one-sidedness to which politics seems to give rise.

It looks a little bit like politics is a force too powerful for humans to face, rationally. With the exception of Mr. Trump, of course!
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:05 pm

From the motovlog files.

https://streamable.com/r3xjl

(hey I had a chance to get some funny shit on vid in the home depot but it didn't work out. I'll tell ya about it. I see opportunities for this kind of stuff all the time. I'm telling you... I shoulda been a producer for jackass)
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:43 pm

Motorcycle diaries, episode 2

https://streamable.com/fsdvg

In this installment I shall address:

1) the resident Nietzsche expert's - professor milikowski - claim that N did not advocate a master/slave system of morality.

2) the irony contained in the concept of the oobermensch as it is contrasted against the opposite type which it, itself, is responsible for creating via the culture forming powers of the aristocratic elite who shaped society.

3) the modern reevaluating required of the ubermensch in order to give the concept any political significance in a world where capitalism, due to it's late stage of existence, is no longer revolutionary or remarkable.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:51 pm

Could trumpf win in 2020 because of woke culture?

Remember that today's leftisists with their oversensitivity and moral panic/outrage didn't evolve in a void. Their neurosis is manufactured from within the diversifying cultural wastelands of capitalist/consumerist society.

s'what makes conservatism so powerful and insidious; it mutates, weakens and destroys any possible opposition. Look at millennial liberals and how soft they are.

s'why the Bolshevik millennials were nothing like this. They didn't grow up in a shallow culture of consumerism.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:01 pm

Run nigga!
Attachments
rsz_1img_20200214_155453176_hdr.jpg
rsz_1img_20200214_155453176_hdr.jpg (131.21 KiB) Viewed 292 times
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:40 pm

https://youtu.be/KELzDHXBNUQ

This is... it's... in so many ways this is just... aw fuck it. Nah. The jazz is good though. Fitting too.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:02 pm

https://nationalpost.com/news/jordan-pe ... -addiction

Mm-hm. I suspected as much. Went and got himself pwned by Sam Harris in debate, then snuck off to get him some downers to deal with his new found existential crisis.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:46 pm

i love to watch peterson squirm...

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:50 am

https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman ... /ch02.html

This Harman fellow's got some good stuff. He's another one of the 'x made easy' authors that writes with simple, clean accessibility. Even yo gram mama would be like 'ohhh okay.'
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm

i've watched four and a half hours of harris/peterson debate and can provide some navigational information about it. in the second debate of the series peterson began to rest on a single question he felt harris was failing to answer. harris, in turn, tried to answer - and in fact did in his own way, but i was dissappointed in how he did so. peterson wants to know how harris can ground his claim that there are recognizable differences between the 'good' and 'bad', 'suffering' and 'bliss', etc., in the facts alone... without appealing to what peterson wants to call a kind of 'apriori intuition' that gives us the capacity to value these things and be able to identify a difference between them. now harris should have simply appealed to evolutionary psychology/biology and argued that there needn't be any allusion to kantain transcendentalism in order to substantiate the having and holding of values (in ethical terms); this capacity is both instinctual as well as socially learned. peterson insists that there is something else going on here in order for this to be possible. same thing craig does in his debates. it's the card moral objectivists play against moral relativists who claim intersubjective agreement can be made about what is 'good' and 'bad' without any recourse to some metaphysical foundation. peterson insists harris can't do that without implying the existence of god. harris replies that, essentially (and in line with wittgenstein's thought), we don't need to know why we are able to draw values from indifferent facts in order to experience the utility of agreeing on them and making them meaningful. for harris, altruistic and normative ethics is 'built in' neurologically, not a capacity added to the animal by some metaphysical source.

what got peterson going on this stubborn questioning that he kept drilling harris with was harris's apparant contradiction in his book 'the moral landscape' when he mentions moore's 'infinite regress of the good'... and then proceeds to claim there are obvious 'goods' and 'bads' despite the impossibility, via moore, of grounding any series of goods in a final good. this is why peterson insists that harris is actually admitting an apriori intuition of the moral good that allows him to conclude some things are clearly good or bad. for example, harris would say genocide is bad. peterson then asks 'but that's just a fact. how do you draw the value 'bad' from it?' see what's going on here? peterson isn't satisfied with a biological explanation and tries to push harris into needing to believe in some kind of transcendental structuring of the moral intuition. and kant is largely to blame for this stuff.

harris's main point is that while religious belief can be useful here (in the way that narratives and stories encourage human behavior), the same encouragement can be gotten from a rational approach that is completely free of religious dogma. science would provide the same useful stuff, but without all the negative baggage and collateral damage that religious dogma carries with it. then peterson comes back an says 'but your allusion to science to answer the question of how moral intuition is possible, is also dogma.' this goes back and forth for hours.

i'm in the third debate now. this one is a little meatier than the former two. finally harris is defending his position with more advanced epistemology. he didn't go this distance in the last two.

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:47 pm

Just out of curiosity did the debates ever focus in on conflicting goods that do not involve extreme situtations...like genocide.

Or that do involve extreme situations like aborting human babies in the womb but in which there is no where near a clear consensus that this is either right or wrong.

Instead, with abortion, there are millions who insist a woman must have the right to choose an abortion while millions more insist that the unborn have the right to life.

When it comes to extreme behaviors [like genocide or gang rape or torturing a child], sure, there is a part of me that can't shake the possibility that these things may well be inherently wrong. But, given a No God world, how on earth would that be demonstrated? And what of the arguments of the sociopaths, who justify any behaviors if they sustain their own self-interest. Their own fulfilment and satisfaction.

In other words, to what extent are the debates here not just a serious of intellectual contraptions?

If they are embedded substantially out in the world of actual conflicted goods derived from dasein, sure, I will invest all those hours in exploring their points.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:14 pm

No 'particular examples' really in the debate.

In that third one, on the subject of immigration, Peterson makes the worst analogy - and the lamest attempt to rationalize - I have ever heard in the history of public debate at 1:42:27.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:00 am

promethean75 wrote:No 'particular examples' really in the debate.

In that third one, on the subject of immigration, Peterson makes the worst analogy - and the lamest attempt to rationalize - I have ever heard in the history of public debate at 1:42:27.


Figures.

I can only imagine them reacting to me. No fucking way I'd let them pull that "serious philosophy" crap at ILP.

After all, I've never allowed any of their ilk here to. :wink:
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:56 am

I can only imagine them reacting to me. No fucking way I'd let them pull that "serious philosophy" crap at ILP.


calm your horses, biggs. harris ain't no 'philosopher', and the fact that as a thinker he's grounded in neuroscience and common-sense, is, for me - someone who has spent decades traversing 'serious philosophy' - a very great relief. ten years ago i would've thought 'harris isn't going deep enough'... but now after having gone to those depths myself and discovering there is nothing there, i am delighted to find someone like harris... and relieved to know harris is gaining popularity within contemporary philosophical circles because we need someone like him in there, bro. somebody's got to cut through all the bullshit while at the same time leaving the spirit of intellectualism intact.

you'd probably find that there's much in common between the two of you... and you'd be hard pressed to find another guy so willing to 'explore' and engage in open conversation about the problems we are faced with, but without all the pedantic pretense of the typical serious philosopher. the dude couldn't be more down to earf, biggs.

on abortion:




on freewill:




the biggs is an illusion; a realistic and workable position between material reductionism and emergentism:




on the meaning of life:




promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:02 pm

hahaha... I'm almost done with part 4 of the Peterson/Harris debates, and I noticed something funny evolving throughout the series. There's a slow intolerance and impatience for/with Peterson that's slowly building over. The debates began with a feeling of congeniality, but over time Peterson becomes less and less credible in Harris's eyes - despite Peterson's genuine well mannered enthusiasm. Finally you notice Sam wanting to imply 'enough is enough with the ubiquitous rambling', although he wouldn't say it.

Go to 1:42:00 in the 4th one to catch a glimpse of Harris's exasperation at Peterson's obscurity. Lol.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:56 pm

You can't enjoy this hilarious piece (not as much, anyway) unless you've just finished listening to them go back and forth for seven hours.

random audio excerpts patched together: https://youtu.be/jJTnbSQ-xNQ
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Absolute Randomness

Postby promethean75 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:53 pm

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users