Re: social contact- thanks I am familiar with Mill.
This is dooming. Doomers, whatever else their motivations are, always ruin cohesive action and moral. I presume they are also aware of this. Why they continue doing it is anyone's guess.
Doesn't matter; anyone who follows them weeping and gnashing their teeth into Doom is automatically going to lose everything.
Everyone here is fighting to not become Venezuela so if you're conclusion is we're not aware of things but you have the big picture and informing, then you're reasoning poorly and from the wrong premises. No crime, it's a hazard for anyone who thinks about anything really.
Kennedy stole the elction from Nixon in 1960. The press covered for him. It happens. Nov 4 did not mark the end of the world.
We see the same problems and the same threats and the same possible terrible ending place but I see a war I intend to win and you see something else.
Some people see history and they pattern match it to us grossly, based on poor evidence and low IQ things like raw analogy and just so narratives. They indulge themselves in confirmation bia, reading things to confirm and amplify what they already know and seeing in all preivous events a roadmap to an inevitable future.
I know history broadly, some of it deeply and dig down into details when I encounter history new to me. I am not looking to confirm what I already believe, but to test it by looking hard and creatively for proof my theories are all wrong.
In that way I shed crude ideas and the ones I retain are solid. In that way I see learn to see through the errors other people are making because they allowed themselves to indulge in confirmation bias.
At best. that site is an execise in confirmation bias.
At worst, it's put out and maintained by our geopolitical enemies who always have the goal of dividing America and causing chaos here.
I don't fall vicitim to gross ideas and analogies like sites like that are offering up because once upon a time, I was just like everyone when they're starting off and I did. I checked myself by arguing with what I already thought was true as if to destroy it for some reason. I became my own worst critic. I was mercilessly skeptical of my own narratives. I still am.
Don't believe your own narratives. Be skeptical of them and suspicious of them. Doing that is no fun, so few people do it but if you want to know reality you have to do that and you have to take what you think you know and predict the outcome of current events. That will teach you how little you know.
Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.
You once wrote a paper on Mill. It wasn't on the social contract. Therefore, Mill is not about the social contract?
It was JS Mill who had the idea of blank slate and R who gave us the proto-Marxist " "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains" which is exactly what that is. R was all about the "noble savage" which itself is a set of assumptions about innate human character just as wrong as the blank slate which is probably why i ran them together in memory since I read them at the same time.
R just does what philosophers of that age do- assume a metric shit ton of stuff then start reasoning. The ultimate referents of their sentences are ideas popular of that time, ill defined and actually corresponding to often to nothing in the real world. Positivism is too dogmatic and leaves real questions not just untouched but untouchable but it was a welcome relief from R's modis operandi.
He wasn't a literal moron, of course. What he did was introduce a bunch of bad ideas into the world which have persisted. Here they are:
"People are born good and do evil because of the influence of a corrupt society" . This led directly to externalizing responsibility for negative individual actions onto society. It's society's fault- that's pure R.
This opens the door to massive numbers of assertions about why people actin negative ways with concomitant prescriptions for changes in society. That's all R.
The perfectability of humans- truthfully, this predates R but he popularized and elaborated on it and it is the most modern antecedent to SJW movements.
Scientific progress is the basis of immorality or at least amplifies it. Now we're in somewhere between the Amish and unibomber territory. This dovetails with his demands for economic equality, because science makes the powerful more powerful and will only be used to disadvantage mankind. It's like he couldn't see that people might help people with science.
(This applies not just to R but to all those guys)- they start with ideas which , uh, sound good to them, reason forward in a logically rigourous way and out the other ends pops truths about people, their nature, how they ought to live and what sort of government they ought to enact.
To modern readers, we just come away feeling like we just know more than they did about humans, largely thanks to science, and their ideas have scant referents in the real world. Their "logical reasoning" is not a way to produce knowledge about any of the issues which concerned them.
I had to jog my memory here on this guy since he did not impress me and it was a long time ago.
Meh, probably not many people are going to make a bragging point of having read R so telling me I didn't when I did, I am just not sure where that is coming from.
Re: social contact- thanks I am familiar with Mill.
This is dooming. Doomers, whatever else their motivations are, always ruin cohesive action and moral. I presume they are also aware of this. Why they continue doing it is anyone's guess.
Doesn't matter; anyone who follows them weeping and gnashing their teeth into Doom is automatically going to lose everything.
Everyone here is fighting to not become Venezuela so if you're conclusion is we're not aware of things but you have the big picture and informing, then you're reasoning poorly and from the wrong premises. No crime, it's a hazard for anyone who thinks about anything really.
Kennedy stole the elction from Nixon in 1960. The press covered for him. It happens. Nov 4 did not mark the end of the world.
We see the same problems and the same threats and the same possible terrible ending place but I see a war I intend to win and you see something else.
Some people see history and they pattern match it to us grossly, based on poor evidence and low IQ things like raw analogy and just so narratives. They indulge themselves in confirmation bia, reading things to confirm and amplify what they already know and seeing in all preivous events a roadmap to an inevitable future.
I know history broadly, some of it deeply and dig down into details when I encounter history new to me. I am not looking to confirm what I already believe, but to test it by looking hard and creatively for proof my theories are all wrong.
In that way I shed crude ideas and the ones I retain are solid. In that way I see learn to see through the errors other people are making because they allowed themselves to indulge in confirmation bias.
At best. that site is an execise in confirmation bias.
At worst, it's put out and maintained by our geopolitical enemies who always have the goal of dividing America and causing chaos here.
I don't fall vicitim to gross ideas and analogies like sites like that are offering up because once upon a time, I was just like everyone when they're starting off and I did. I checked myself by arguing with what I already thought was true as if to destroy it for some reason. I became my own worst critic. I was mercilessly skeptical of my own narratives. I still am.
Don't believe your own narratives. Be skeptical of them and suspicious of them. Doing that is no fun, so few people do it but if you want to know reality you have to do that and you have to take what you think you know and predict the outcome of current events. That will teach you how little you know.
Social Contract was Jean Jacques Rousseau. Not Mill.
[John Stuart] Mill wrote, perhaps most widely anthologized, Utilitarianism - more of a text on moral and ethical practice.
Rousseau's text is an early modern political work discussing the tacit agreement the freeman has with a body politic (state). I'd suggest reading it.
Cheers.
Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
I wrote a thesis on John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. You, clearly, have not. It is most assuredly a text on ethics, not political philosophy.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
Which is the point with R and them both.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.
More people than myself run blank slate and noble savage together:
http://forum.mit.edu/articles/the-blank-slate-the-modern-denial-of-human-nature/
You won't take anything form me so here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/john-stuart-mill-on-liberty-chapter-4-of-the-limits-to-the-authority-of-society-over-the-individual/
You once wrote a paper on Mill. It wasn't on the social contract. Therefore, Mill is not about the social contract?
It was JS Mill who had the idea of blank slate and R who gave us the proto-Marxist " "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains" which is exactly what that is. R was all about the "noble savage" which itself is a set of assumptions about innate human character just as wrong as the blank slate which is probably why i ran them together in memory since I read them at the same time.
R just does what philosophers of that age do- assume a metric shit ton of stuff then start reasoning. The ultimate referents of their sentences are ideas popular of that time, ill defined and actually corresponding to often to nothing in the real world. Positivism is too dogmatic and leaves real questions not just untouched but untouchable but it was a welcome relief from R's modis operandi.
He wasn't a literal moron, of course. What he did was introduce a bunch of bad ideas into the world which have persisted. Here they are:
This opens the door to massive numbers of assertions about why people actin negative ways with concomitant prescriptions for changes in society. That's all R.
The perfectability of humans- truthfully, this predates R but he popularized and elaborated on it and it is the most modern antecedent to SJW movements.
Scientific progress is the basis of immorality or at least amplifies it. Now we're in somewhere between the Amish and unibomber territory. This dovetails with his demands for economic equality, because science makes the powerful more powerful and will only be used to disadvantage mankind. It's like he couldn't see that people might help people with science.
(This applies not just to R but to all those guys)- they start with ideas which , uh, sound good to them, reason forward in a logically rigourous way and out the other ends pops truths about people, their nature, how they ought to live and what sort of government they ought to enact.
To modern readers, we just come away feeling like we just know more than they did about humans, largely thanks to science, and their ideas have scant referents in the real world. Their "logical reasoning" is not a way to produce knowledge about any of the issues which concerned them.
I had to jog my memory here on this guy since he did not impress me and it was a long time ago.
Meh, probably not many people are going to make a bragging point of having read R so telling me I didn't when I did, I am just not sure where that is coming from.