Comment on oh man

LovableSidekick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  He should read some Kant and Hume.

  Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.

  Reason is and ought only to be a slave to the passions

  source

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    He may have - apparently he’s very well read. My guess is he would disagree with that second one, but I don’t know the guy.

    source

    • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Well Hume was right. Reason can’t derive axioms. It can’t create purpose from nothing. It can’t solve the is-ought problem. Passion can. Passion can say “the world should be like this. Why? Because I want it to be”. Reason can’t do that. And thus, reason should exist only to serve passion.

      source

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        OTOH reason has kept a roof over my head when my passion would have had it doing Arduino projects or D&D campaigns instead of working.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        IMO it should be cyclical. Passion provides ideals and goals, reason can help work towards those but also evaluate them and refine them.

        Like once upon a time, I wanted a high end sports car. But over time, through reason, I realized that owning one would be more of a net negative than a positive in many ways and now I wouldn’t likely get one even if it would be trivial to afford. I’d like to not even need a car at all, but reason has me recognizing that that also wouldn’t be a positive given that I live in an area where mass transit infrastructure is poor.

        This boils down to having conflicting passions/goals and using reason to resolve them (like wanting a sports car while also wanting to afford other things and to reduce my environmental impact and not driving a sports car is a very easy way, trivial even, to have less impact than driving one).

        source
      • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I feel like I’m learning a decent amount from this thread. I definitely consider myself a (overly) rational person. I haven’t really thought about it before, but obviously I’ve still got some passions driving things.

        If I was to put it into words, I’d probably say I’m passionate about learning how things work and finding elegant simple solutions to problems. Which is generally tied to my selfish goal of having more free time to just experience the world without responsibilities.

        Thanks for inspiring me to think about this, maybe I should go read some more philosophy…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Comment105@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I don’t think they’d find that very insightful.

    It’s plain hedonism.

    source

    • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Hedonism is obviously the best ethical theory. Bentham had the right idea

      source

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Bentham developed hedonistic calculus. The foundation is a multivariate ethical vector space. He rationalized hedonism to the extreme. The passions are explicitly tempered for a calculated greater good.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • yetiftw@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I mean it’s the only one that explains why we actually do anything at all

        source
• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I was constantly lurking on rarionalist forums until late 2016, and much less so now. When Bernie made his arguments the entire community shifted left. Given Yudkowsky’s positions on responsibility (in short all of us should do everything we can to maximize utility) I am entirely unsurprised to learn that one of us is the person who merc’d the guy. My raeicalization started wit Yudkowsky and then it was set into overdrive by watching the DNC be selfish while the GOP had been abjectly horrid.

  Whether we’re successful more often or not the rationalists are mostly trying to reduce suffering and maximize pleasure for as many people as possible. That’s why we’re so into tech; we see it as a way to improve as many lives as we possibly can. Luigi likely saw this as the way he could do the same. The fact that he was spurred to action by his own particular suffering doesn’t change the fact that he was probably right.

  source

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thanks for the comments on rationalism - the more I read about it the more it feels like I tend toward that way of thinking myself. But assassinating a CEO only seems rational at meme level. Historically, industries consistently soldier on after incidents like this. There’s an immediate reaction - in this case suddenly allowing more insurance claims - and then normal business practices gradually resume as the public loses interest. And the public reliably does lose interest, due to distractions, ever-diminishing attention spans, and the fact that all news becomes boring as it gets older. I don’t see how Mangione could have expected shooting a CEO to have a different outcome if he were thinking rationally. IMO he wasn’t. This shooting seems like a pretty typical, ultimately ineffective act. The people it will affect most will be the cheering multitudes currently flying high with revolutionary zeal, who will crash the hardest when nothing really gets better.

    source
• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  AKA generic I-am-very-smart libertarian, AKA just another smug Republican. People who think ideologies are like accents - they’re what other people have. Them? Nooo. They’re the default!

  source

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    If this guy is generic, then maybe they’re not all just Republicans. He correctly identified the NAP violation.

    source