Thought Experiments Are Stupid
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2023
- thought experiments are stupid
gondola
🐾 Social Media 🐾
Blog kasperanza.com/
Twitter / kasperanzaa
Instagram / kasperanzaa
TikTok / kasperanzaaa
#thoughtexperiment #trolleyproblem #utilitarianism - Jak na to + styl
If anyone is interested in why there is war (besides making huge profits for certain people/corporations) I'd suggest looking into mkultra survivor Cathy O'Brien's book Trans Formation of America and learning about Trauma Based Mind Control by 1 expert who also worked with anothersurvivor, Cisco Wheeler, Fritz Springmier.
It's because capitalism requires imperialism to continue growing
Capitalism by it's nature can never be stable because it relies on constant material consumption when a country runs out of its own domestic materials it will inevitably have to get them elsewhere either through diplomacy, war, or both as was the case with the contras in Nicaragua or the gulf war
It's due to uncontrolled growth
Have you ever wanted to invent your own thought experiment that is more logical?
I have a few ideas for fiction novels. If I ever write them, I would consider those my attempts at a thought experiment.
As I gave an example with Dostoevsky, I think he actually asked an important philosophical question(s) and designed a thought experiment with his novels to help answer that question(s).
Remarkable: you said you study ancient Greek philosophy as a foundation but you haven't mentioned Plato hating art so you leave the ways in which abstractions bring us further away from or closer to reality mostly unexplored. On a related note: Baudrillard's perfect crime: murder of the real by hyperreality. Like Stories of Old has made multiple video's about fiction brainwashing us with the idea that we are on a hero's journey but our lives are not like that.
If abstractions need a physical reference we create a huge blindspot. I can not verify nor falsify that Disney songs make sexual references like Arabian nights being hotter than hot in a lot of good ways or darling it's better down where it's wetter take it from me. There were micro-organisms causing disease before the microscope or is that just our imagination? The trolley problem and grifters like Vaush seem like particular weak targets to attack in a larger war between imagination and reality.
I didn't mention Plato because he wasn't on my mind. But if Plato has any relevance in this discussion, I think his Perfect Forms play a huge role in this discussion.
I don't know about Baudrillard's perfect crime, but yeah I agree that fiction does instill an illusion in us that we are heroes in a world that's actually empty. But that's why fiction is great because it's fun to imagine ourselves as a hero, and also, abstractions (in fiction, art, novels, narratives) are maps that show us the "correct" path or at least a better path than other paths. Of course we don't want to be idiot narcissistic heroes boiling the world down into blacks and whites, right and wrongs, good and evil.. but there is utility to these divisions. Even the most simple abstraction like words are like small stories or narratives of things; they are all imagined and projected onto reality.
There could be all kinds of little creatures and things causing things that we don't know about. But imagining these things is like imagining unicorns and leprechaun. But even then, these imaginations, I think, can be grounded in the actual world. It all depends on the story and the amount of detail. If it's too abstract, if there's not much detail or connection to other real things in the world, then it's a useless abstraction.
Yes, Vaush's coconut island and the Trolley Problem are weak, but that's why I'm attacking them because people act like they're great when there's no utility behind them. And they demonstrate how ungrounded or floaty they are as opposed to a good fictional story with dynamic and complex characters that could very well be real, have utility.
Besides, I don't believe there is a war between imagination and reality. There's only a problem when one is favored over the other, when they don't have a proper dialogue with each other.
@@Kasperanzaa Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Isn't it obvious that proper dialogue, which I define as building towards a common goal, has been replaced by war? For example: does anyone care about the cause(s) of excess deaths? There seems to be two sides that have drawn their conclusions a long time ago and they've been researching and arguing based on their conclusions for years now and probably for many years to come. It's the same with any popular subject of debate: what is real and what is imagined about climate change, the war in Ukraine, the economy, democracy, our diet etc. Honestly sometimes it seems to me that the schizo's are closer to reality than the empiricists. Reality seems quite insane, after all...
@@unknownhollow4141 You're welcome.
Not sure what to say about the part of "schizo's," empiricists, and reality being insane. Did you call idealists schizophrenics? lol
But I think whenever there are two sides, people need to transcend to a higher "plane." Whatever that means.
@@Kasperanzaa I see two kinds of people arguing online: those who are only willing to consider in great detail and on a case by case basis the physical data provided by authorities and those who read between the lines and connect the dots. Both kinds of people are mentally handicapped: metaphorical autists and schizophrenics. Metaphorical autists reject anything and anyone outside of their playing field which they deem as rational, logical and rigoreus. For a metaphorical autist, to be irrational is synonymous to being of inferior intelligence. Unlike clinically diagnosed autists, metaphorical autists are not aware that reality can never be fully understood by a pure ''rational'' framework. They refuse to acknowledge their blindspot.
The metaphorical schizophrenics, by being irrational, are able to see what metaphorical autists can not or refuse to see. However, the metaphorical schizophrenics also suffer from illusion and like the metaphorical autists, refuse to acknowledge their flaw and deem themselves superior instead.
For example, considering a synthesis between autistic and schizophrenic narratives about the needlecraft, it has not been safe and effective as advertised nor has there been a genocide. No study, debate or hearing will conclusively verify or falsify one narrative or the other. Narratives both within and between groups will continue to transform. Outside the box of arguing about the facts, how the facts are selected, presented and interpreted, is the consideration that researching and debating a subject consumes time, money and resources which can be profitable for some and exhausting for others. Stalling for time can be a tactic to cool down a hot potato and prevent getting burned. Notice how abstract, how imaginary, how ungrounded in any physical reference it is to consider such a tactic as possibly real. I may be deceiving myself and others with such delusions or I risk being deceived for not considering my delusions as reality. Such is the autistic versus schizophrenic conundrum. I don't know what is imagined or real.