chiefmors
chiefmors t1_jd31w3f wrote
Reply to AI Apocalypse: A Psychoanalysis of Reality by Otarih
This was mildly interesting until it claimed that not acknowledging rocks as entities capable of being subjects (in the same way we do brains) was sexist and because my ontology took too many cues from penises rather than vaginas.
Ah, psychoanalysis, I hope you never change.
chiefmors t1_jb6uem5 wrote
Reply to Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
This reads less like an attack on the 'self' and more like a call to not be a shallow person who builds their sense of self by trying to fit in with others.
I also have little tolerance for people who pull Hitler into their blog post though when he has absolutely no place there. There are very few more decisive ways to say you lack confidence in your argument than to invoke Hitler.
chiefmors t1_jayh25d wrote
Reply to comment by The_Vegan_Chef in Žižek Has Lost the Plot by elimial
I think it's pretty obvious that this just happened to be a subject that the author wasn't willing to read in the same mood and spirit they read other Žižek pieces. Or possibly that it's all fun and games reading Žižek playfully and in good faith when he agrees with you, but fuck that when doesn't.
I don't agree with the Žižek's article in question, but I also don't agree with much that Žižek writes, so it's amusing to read from a sycophant that \ Žižek lost the plot because in a single essay he disagrees with them.
Yet another reminder that everyone is willing to be intellectual and openminded until you disagree with them about something they've made integral to their self-worth, and in our era that's increasingly the political tribe you belong to. Žižek can be more progressive than 95% of the population, but if he disavows one of the progressive doctrines then he's still reprobate in that group's view.
chiefmors t1_jayera6 wrote
Reply to Žižek Has Lost the Plot by elimial
I find it telling that the author just decides Žižek has 'lost the plot' on the grounds of a single essay he wrote because it doesn't agree with her politics.
I hardly agree with anything Žižek writes, but in that freeing situation I also wouldn't decide to cut him off or denigrate his intellect just because in one area of debate he goes the other direction than I do.
This just seems like so much virtue signaling and not actual philosophy. Sure, I think anybody in the Marxist camp has 'lost the plot' but it's pointless and lazy to spend time trying to cast them as defunct relics and much more interesting to read, engage, and debate their ideas without implying they belong in the dustbin for the audacity of not agreeing with me.
chiefmors t1_iwvzq6u wrote
Reply to comment by glass_superman in For world philosophy day 13 thinkers share the philosophical questions that will define this century | Including Noam Chomsky on destruction, Naomi Oreskes on climate crisis and Carissa Veliz on innovation by IAI_Admin
I grew up devoutly Christian, and there's a strong, storied strand of their beliefs that everything ends and gets wrapped up in the next generation or two. Augustine to Edwards, plenty of people thought they were living in the end times and thinking super longterm was less relevant.
chiefmors t1_iwvvmj4 wrote
Reply to comment by glass_superman in For world philosophy day 13 thinkers share the philosophical questions that will define this century | Including Noam Chomsky on destruction, Naomi Oreskes on climate crisis and Carissa Veliz on innovation by IAI_Admin
Certainly religious traditions all have some sort of eschatological collapse in their narratives (with many hoping in a renewal the other side as well).
I think on the scientific / humanist side we've seen the following all come and go as apocalyptic concerns that never played out as they were originally prophesied:
- Fear of overpopulation / food scarcity
- Fossil fuel scarcity
- Nuclear war
- Ice age
- The original round of global warming concerns in the 80s and 90 (after the ice age scare ended). Most of it in the 80s and 90s said we'd be hosed by now)
That doesn't mean that existential threats to humanity can't exist just because we seem to be horrible at actually identifying them and rarely factor in continued scientific development and improvements.
chiefmors t1_iwvaep6 wrote
Reply to Social media makes us feel terrible about who we really are. Neuroscience and philosopher Guy Debord can explain why – and empower us to fight back by ADefiniteDescription
I think it's very obvious what social media is good for (casual communication) and what it sucks at (explaining and providing meaning for life).
As always, having confidence, discipline, and self worth to be independently capable of happiness and moral goodness matters.
chiefmors t1_iwuw44t wrote
Reply to For world philosophy day 13 thinkers share the philosophical questions that will define this century | Including Noam Chomsky on destruction, Naomi Oreskes on climate crisis and Carissa Veliz on innovation by IAI_Admin
It's bizarre (but telling) that so many philosophers are claiming non-philosophical questions as the answer to the query.
A lot of this seems to be around political philosophy as well, which while conveniently dramatic and clickbaity really needs us to resolve more fundamental problems of philosophy and ethics to advance on.
Still, with technology spreading information far and wide while lowering dramatically the barrier for entry into philosophical discussions, it's going to be a fascinating next few years for the discipline, both as it exists professionally and organically.
chiefmors t1_jd39j7e wrote
Reply to comment by Otarih in AI Apocalypse: A Psychoanalysis of Reality by Otarih
I don't like mixing phalluses with philosophy of mind, but I've long suspected I'm also just not cut out for continental philosophy.