It isn’t even a take. I’m not like teaching a seminar on it ffs
Have you ever watched a YouTube video that was a response to someone else’s YouTube video? That’s all I was thinking about, this entire economy of foul discourse. Is this a super serious shower thoughts comm?
Well everybody has good and bad days. A disproportionate emotional response, especially one that gets apologized for later, is pretty easy to sympathize with. In many ways I like working with people who don’t pretend to be perfect. But when people like really dig their heels in, and start burning mental and emotional energy due to somebody else criticizing their work or positions, its like a reality warping tunnel created by people who are mad at each other.
Who said anything about “right mind”?
Wait why are you getting so upset? In what way have I engaged in toxic discourse, or I am a troll? I had a “shower thought” and thought it was funny and decided to share it. How have I been toxic, by like vaguely defending a view that I hadn’t thought about but for more than the time it took to post this and respond to you.
I’m not being toxic or performatively indignant. I’m not sure what you think my intent is, but I assure you it isn’t as negative as you are making it out to be.
You come across like someone who wants to pick a fight, do you care to explain that behavior?
How do you define a proper criticism? I’ve seen proper criticism taken as an insult. But perhaps you’re right its more likely to warrant a response with a strong criticizm in order to get a response, than to just flat out attack.
Or maybe its conditional?
So when people are celebrating their haters, they are insulted? No they are flattered that somebody else spent the energy being angry. If I can stir shit up and make you mad, as long as you won’t hurt me I’ll love the attention
Because you make a piece of work attacking my work and defending your own
This is such a doomed and haunted shower thought for someone who has a Marxist conception of technology and alienation
Well considering what the last dozen or so headlines you’ve read about banned books were probably about, I can see how you would make that assumption
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Ah yes because not a single Muslim has achieved an advanced degree in any science related field, or contributed to scientific advancement in the last half of the millennia.
I don’t always think, but when I do, I prefer not to
Great discussion, thanks for sharing your perspectives and sources as well! Good luck on your inquiries!
Formally as in have had a university publish books and articles that I’ve written on it? No, I’m afraid I have very little university education, I’m largely self-educated. I support people having the opportunity to go to college, but my life just didn’t work out like that. I’m all libraries, discussions, book sales, book clubs, writing and IRL political organizing. I’ve had some articles published but most of my writing is in notebooks.
I won’t bore you with bio details, but after sort of rejecting Harris’s vulgar determinism, I eventually discovered Rick Roderick’s lectures on Philosophy and Human Values. The video quality is pretty old, but as a survey of western Philosophy course, I found this extremely useful and compelling. His course on Neitzsche is also very good. His course on 20th century philosophy, its first episode, Masters of Suspicion is a passionate defense of the self, free will, as well as the validity of exploring these questions.
I’m currently pulling on a thread where I am spending a lot of time thinking about Theses on Feuerbach by Karl Marx, the short but famous formulation wherein Marx “turns Hegel on his head.” Feuerbach’s formulation of God that begins the process of turning Hegel’s logic against Hegel’s own conclusions, established god as the embodiment of humans own best qualities, and externalizing them as an unreachable other, and how it functions as a tool of repression and intellectual domination finds some common ground with Harris’s antireligious atheism. But this thread leads us closer to a kind of humanism, whereas Harris’s atheism leads us further away from it. Its like atheism’s main disagreement with religion is that it believes that science and industry should be mechanism that alienates us from our selves and each other, not the church. Personally, I would prefer not to be alienated from myself or from other people by any extrinsic mechanism of repression; I’d rather throw it off entirely.
They would have to have their own sorts of media
Okay, I apologize I went back and read your first post which said something like “the self doesn’t exist is a fun concept to play with” when I was pretty sure you had said just “the self doesnt exist.” I’m sitting here trying to find the thread that connects “the self doesn’t exist” with your seeming acknowledgement of every aspect of it.
I agree its useful to test “wrong conclusions” for the reasons you state. You end up constructing consistent logic justifying it, and can witness for yourself where the reasoning goes wrong, and can speculate as to why. I think it makes relating to people convinced by faulty logic and conclusions easier to relate to, as well as gives you a hint to where their reasoning is off and you cans start to argue against it
But what is experience, how can you find experience without a self doing the experiencing? I’m not trying to put it on you but it is consistent with your logic, as I understand it
At what point does an EM jamming signal just become electricity running through the wires? That’s what would happen in a so called Harrington event, right?