in the debate between Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett we witness the effect genes have on memes.
Semitic blood versus European blood.
It shapes an individual’s relationship with reality.
His/Her spirit.
Slavishness can be inherited as a potential towards that psychological demeanour.
Ideologies are gene specific, because they emerge from within particular tribes relating to specific environments.
Race is about inherited potentials.
Indo-European genealogy versus Afro-Asiatic genealogy.
That’s obviously why Harris doesn’t believe in freewill, and dennett does. Harris’s great great great great great great grandfather was a negro Zulu shaman, while dennett’s was a noble Viking warrior.
How far you go when you are the perfect example of a confused Semite.
All these crazies on ILP share your mixed-upness.
Is it coincidental?
They’ve recently discovered a gene that makes Cartesian dualism incomprehensible to those who carry it. So far the gene has only been discovered in negros, Asians and camel jockeys.
Sarcasm is defensive.
Belief in an absolute, call it god, call it on, call it universe…is part of a heritage.
Usually, recovering Abrahamics go into Marxism.
The need for an external authority is too strong. Famine spirits.
Missing fathers.
you got me. what can i say. my sarcasm isn’t really a mode of addressing something so ridiculous, it can’t be taken seriously… but instead a means to conceal my embarrassment before insights too extraordinary for me to comprehend.
The power of the nil.
Negate, dismiss, reject…laugh.
The formula works for you.
The inclination towards authoritarianism is genetic. Yet, genetic inheritance can be cultivated or allowed to atrophy - Nurture/Nature.
An inherited weakness can be cultivated.
Semites inherit that weakness.
Yup. The other day some guy tried to tell me two plus two equals five. I disagreed. And do you know that guy had the nerve to call me a nihilist? I told him ‘yeah, I’mma nihilist, but not because two plus two doesn’t equal five.’
There ya go.
It’s been working for you.
Has anyone watched E. Michael Jones?
The problem is not 1+1=2.
It is the belief that the one exists independent from the mind. The literal belief in a one.
That is psychological, and psychology is inherited.
Like confusing a representation for the represented.
I have not. Would you like to tell me a bit about him?
Nah…I’ve learned not to waste my time on the brain dead.
Let’s keep it light and smarmy.
Give me a pun…
Let’s laugh…like the buddies that we’ve become over the years.
We’ve been through a lot, you and I.
I know shit about you, you’ve never told. It makes me feel close to you.
Plus, you’ve posted so much material…videos lectures, you shouting at your mother.
I have enough material.
It’s this kind of radical berkeleyean empiricism that has sabotaged philosophy for centuries and made of the word ‘mind’ something completely unintelligeable. Following this, all manner of linguistic problems arise that are thought to be conceptual. See Peter hacker on this, but not wittgenstein. Stay away from that guy if ya know what’s good for ya.
I’ve always been a star in the tabloids.
I use philosophy forums for social media platforms. My premise: they’re smarter than the Facebook crowd, but not quite smart enough to do philosophy. My conclusion: do what I would do on Facebook, here, instead, and keep an eye out for anything philosophical.
So far so good. I’m around people who are just smart enough to recognize my greatness, but not smart enough to solicit my interests in bothering to argue with them over their nonsense.
… although I admit, sometimes I fail and post something other than a joke or a video.
Aren’t you one of many 'great nos" on ILP?
Hard to keep track of so many geniuses.
on the contrary, my good man, i am one of the ‘great yeses’, the great yea sayers! as long as there is an abundance of action, irony, comedy, and tragedy in the world, i am perfectly content with everything else that comes with it, and i have yet to discover that all the things you find so terrible in the world are really any cause for alarm. buffoons, messiahs, and all manner of excessively verbose grandiose clowns of no significance… none of this is a real problem. in every world there are ‘extras’, filler material… like the parts of the song that are just there to lengthen it but give it no real substance… that don’t make that world worth looking at but are necessary for it to exist nonetheless. but i understand where you’re coming from, what you’d like to see, and why you’d like to see it. especially what you’d like to prevent. i never objected to any of that provided you did not try to justify it philosophically. i’d rather just hear you declare ‘i don’t need to explain myself!’ and charge forth on your horse. that’s something i’d watch. but when you try to explain yourself philosophically, create excuses, and grant yourself license, my eye-lid starts to twitch and i have to say something. i just gotta. i can’t bear to look at it, man.
so it’s not ‘that’ you are what you are and do what you do, but ‘why’ and ‘how’ you defend yourself in being/doing so. this is where the comedy begins, where i shout ‘yes! some action! it’s go time!’
and regarding my recent turn back to the left, let me explain what has happened. it’s really just a matter of aesthetics and taste and i wouldn’t dare try to justify it philosophically. now as you know, i’ve never denied the basic principles of social darwinism or the economic processes through which we see it expressed. what has happened, though, is that i have found that the result of a specific predator/prey relationship (capitalist/working class) does not justify the advantage the predator is given over the prey. this is to say i’ve yet to see a capitalist that is great enough to justify my not wanting to interfere with this relationship, this social darwinistic dynamic. i’m not seeing a great enough distinction between exploiter and exploited to allow myself to respect and admire that dynamic. instead, what i am seeing is one ordinary person experience a great number of benefits at the expense of many other ordinary people. that being the case, it would make no sense to deny many ordinary people a number of luxuries so that a single ordinary person might have them.
now if you show me a planet on which a superior alien species has enslaved an inferior native species, i might not be disturbed by the social darwinism we observe there. this would be justifiable, because look at how awesome those aliens are. but here on earf, i just don’t see it, bro. what i see here on earf is ugly, feeble, weak, conniving. those who rise to the top at the expense of the others, and who have been attempting to defend this rise by utilizing centuries of philosophical bullshit and subterfuge, offend my tastes. that’s all. shirley you understand.
what i’m doing i don’t do because i have thought long about it. i’m a nihilist. i don’t think anymore. rather i follow my nose. i can smell it.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUeru_Ws440[/youtube]
I haven’t heard of him, but I do keep track of all these Pro-Censorship Anti-Free-Speech trends going on. The blotting-out of Eric Ciarmella’s name, the supposed “Whistleblower” against Trump, is particularly interesting. Congress threatens anybody who “summons the name”. The First Amendment is under attack.