dont need to argue about any definition of bad, just that you use the category.
your preference of this over that creates the immaterial category.
but since they are no objective truths to ground those preferences, we are back to Thrasymacus and might makes right.
unfortunately feeble grounds to try and fight against the state
you speculate about some fantastical reality where all that exists is matter, and invite me into your gnostic bubble.
it’s just as invalid and stupid as all other gnostic theologies.
u use language, speak to others, attempt to persuade them that your way of thinking is better, should be adopted, all while denying the thing the that makes it all happen
how order came to be is of primary importance because it’s what determines man’s relation to reality.
we find some alien spacecraft, and you want to focus on what color it is, instead of understanding how it came to be.
thx for the mental exercise 🫡
but imma enjoy my saturday
Yes, you do eventually go back to might makes right, unfortunately. all you can do is set norms within trusted communities and attempt to establish extremely competent defenses against outside intrusion that doesn't conform to the norms. Defectors who choose the zero-sum coercive strategy might have an edge in some games, so some of us try to play positive-sum games which reverse that.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone that my way is better. I'm merely saying I'm going to do it, and for anyone who runs the same open protocol as me we'll be doing it together. Feel free to opt-out. that's sort of the whole point...
"How order came to be" is irrelevant. you're describing investigations into how things work, what they do, what they might do, etc. Hopefully you can allow the available-to-you history to contribute to your present analysis as much as possible, but even if the history is totally inaccessible to you, you can still attempt to make sense of the present.
It's very obvious that you're trying to smuggle in a justification for believing in the supernatural. Just say "I want to, even if it might not make sense to you" rather than attempting to force it into the worldview I'm describing. I don't care if you want to believe weird shit.
We're on opposite sides of this: you think it matters (to outcomes) if the weird shit is there, I don't think it matters (to outcomes) if the weird shit is there or even paid any mind to. At the end of the day these are personal preferences and there's nothing to be gained by attempting to shoehorn them into a single frame. They can just be separate.
“They can just be separate”
not if you follow logic
separation leads to impasses, problems which have no answer.
Putnam and Nussbaum were the first secular philosophers to acknowledge how “untenable” the task of keeping form and matter, material and immaterial separated.
reality is hylomorphic, a fusion of both.
if you don’t want to wrestle with that objective fact, then ur just retreating into a hyper reality invented inside your mind.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32491/chapter-abstract/269649237?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
