ValyrianJedi
ValyrianJedi t1_isoho84 wrote
Reply to comment by movieball in On Reading Literature as Philosophy by lucaruns
If you're out the door at 4:50 am and not back home til after 8 or 9 most days you take what you can get! The alternative isn't paper books its nothing.
ValyrianJedi t1_isog5yd wrote
Reply to On Reading Literature as Philosophy by lucaruns
In terms of the "who has time" for it part I really can't recommend audiobooks enough. I was in the same boat, in the office from like 7 to 7 or 7 to 8 with most of my free time full. I hadn't read a book for fun in years. Started listening to audio books and now manage to go through 1 or 2 a month.
ValyrianJedi t1_isnuo1r wrote
Reply to comment by Parking-Mud-1848 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
My point is that the abolitionist movement, which did a whole lot more to change the law than slave revolts did, was literally lead by and made up of slaves and ex slaves appealing to the moral sense of their oppressors...
And, again, the ruling class very obviously though that it was important to free them before the security of the union was on the line. Because them freeing them was literally the very reason that the security of the union was on the line... And I don't have the first clue what slavery existing for 400 years is supposed to have to do with anything, since the entire point is things changing...
It's genuinely kind of blowing my mind how backwards your logic is on all this.
ValyrianJedi t1_isnu1u2 wrote
Reply to comment by AdvonKoulthar in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
And you somehow think thats cheaper?
ValyrianJedi t1_isns972 wrote
Reply to comment by get_it_together1 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
"It wasn't people convincing their oppressors to let them go on moral standing. It was abolitionist movements!". "And who lead abolitionist movements?". "Slaves and ex slaves, trying to convince oppressors to free people on moral standing".
Good lord this guys logic and reasoning is through the floor.
ValyrianJedi t1_isnrniq wrote
Reply to comment by Parking-Mud-1848 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
What do you think was the catalyst for the union needing saving? A moral shift taking place in half the country but not the other half... And you think England doing the exact same thing even sooner is somehow evidence against there being a moral shift?...
I can't tell if you're just being purposefully dense to argue or not, but what you are saying is literally nonsensical.
ValyrianJedi t1_isnqmns wrote
Reply to comment by AdvonKoulthar in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
As opposed to the paid workers for your fields that evidently don't need food or shelter?
ValyrianJedi t1_isnqiqv wrote
Reply to comment by Parking-Mud-1848 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Not owning slaves yourself and pushing for legislation making it where nobody can are two drastically different things... And you mean the war that came about largely as a dispute over half the country already wanting to get rid of slavery?
What you are saying just doesn't make any sense. That is an extremely obvious case of a moral shift.
ValyrianJedi t1_isnlkbw wrote
Reply to comment by Parking-Mud-1848 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Free labor was too costly to continue?
ValyrianJedi t1_isdbwkq wrote
Reply to comment by SpacelandSam in Schopenhauer and the insatiable will to live | To reduce suffering and forge a better world we must resist desire and our metaphysical individualism. by IAI_Admin
We aren't in a natural setting with limited resources, and haven't been for an extremely long time though... That just seems like a massive stretch to me.
ValyrianJedi t1_isb2cyu wrote
Reply to comment by ThePinkParadox in [IMAGE] Give yourself more credit by ThePinkParadox
Yeah there is just no chance of us agreeing on this one
ValyrianJedi t1_isazx9f wrote
Reply to comment by ThePinkParadox in [IMAGE] Give yourself more credit by ThePinkParadox
Pretty sure the privileged person is the one who is able to act like 30% is a win
ValyrianJedi t1_isavlfe wrote
Reply to comment by ThePinkParadox in [IMAGE] Give yourself more credit by ThePinkParadox
Advocating that someone only completely a piece of something seems plain de-motivational.
ValyrianJedi t1_isas4zd wrote
Reply to Schopenhauer and the insatiable will to live | To reduce suffering and forge a better world we must resist desire and our metaphysical individualism. by IAI_Admin
This seems to have a whole lot of thoughts that go from point A to point C without any B putting them together. And makes a few just straight up faulty analogies...
The entire point about evolution is based on a foundation of not seeming to understand how evolution works. Fish didn't will legs on themselves. Carnivorous plants didn't will the ability to trap flies on themselves. The author is attributing desire and action to raw happenstance on that front...
Then as things relate to people they make a fairly massive leap between "people have a will to live and have things they want" and "this IA inherently combative/violent/etc, and they always want to do so at someone else's expense"... And the part about optimism being a moral outrage just seems like someone being petty and wanting the rest if the world to be as miserable as they are.
ValyrianJedi t1_isaltgt wrote
Reply to comment by EatSleepCodeCycle in [IMAGE] Give yourself more credit by ThePinkParadox
Maybe if they actually had motivational content instead of just a mountain of useless feel-good bullshit it wouldn't be a problem.
ValyrianJedi t1_isa2ijg wrote
Reply to [IMAGE] Give yourself more credit by ThePinkParadox
30% might as well be 0% on a good many things
ValyrianJedi t1_is6k7zt wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in [IMAGE] You can start now by ThePinkParadox
You can definitely get there! Believe me, I know the feeling. Heck, this time a decade ago I was working 100 hour weeks, $100k in debt, with few friends nearby, no family for 1k miles, migraines 3-4 days a week, a perpetual stomach ulcer from stress, and seemingly no end in sight. Literally regretted every decision I'd made every morning when I woke up... For the last few years though I couldn't be happier that I made those same decisions, and haven't wished that I could go back and step in to a different life in years... Things do turn around!
ValyrianJedi t1_is64zbh wrote
Reply to [IMAGE] You can start now by ThePinkParadox
Can't upvote this enough... Spent a lot of my 20s wishing I could change things and make different decisions, but now I'm damn glad I wasn't able to because my 30s are significantly better than they would have been had I been able to make those changes.
ValyrianJedi t1_is1d03e wrote
Reply to comment by archseattle in A Quote on Healing Your Inner Child [Image] by true90sstory
Yeah I'm in the exact same boat. Right after covid hit my company had us working from home for a couple months, and I realized pretty quickly that the whole sweatpants under the screen thing just plain didn't work for me. Like if I had a remotely important client meeting, even if it was just audio and no video, I had to get fully dressed up down to socks and shoes if I wanted to be at 100%. And from what I heard from other people thar definitely wasn't unique to me either.
ValyrianJedi t1_is18za8 wrote
Reply to comment by MuscularBeeeeaver in A Quote on Healing Your Inner Child [Image] by true90sstory
Or if you don't have one in the first place
ValyrianJedi t1_is18t68 wrote
Reply to comment by AwkwardVoicemail in A Quote on Healing Your Inner Child [Image] by true90sstory
Clothes can make a big difference too. How you're dressed can make a big subconscious confidence boost.
ValyrianJedi t1_irydbqy wrote
Reply to [Image] Just because things could've been different, it doesn't mean they'd be better. by sylsau
They still can be, with things being how they were. My 20s had a lot of "things could be better if I'd made different decisions", but now my 30s are better than they would have been had I made those different decisions.
ValyrianJedi t1_irr1me4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in [Image] "Nothing is permanent. Don't stress yourself too much because no matter how bad the situation is, It will change." by Butterflies_Books
To a lot of people it is
ValyrianJedi t1_irnglxz wrote
Reply to comment by Vast-Material4857 in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin
Jesus Christ... No. It isn't. I can't tell if you are being purposefully dense or are genuinely incapable of following, but it's pretty clear that you just plain aren't going to understand at this point, so this is where I stop responding.
ValyrianJedi t1_isppo43 wrote
Reply to comment by I_have_no_ldea in [image] Failure by ShibaHook
Definitely not. Especially when it comes to big things