The philosophy thread (reminder philosophy is not politics nor conspiracy theories)


I will counter the ‘might is right’ philosophy with asserting that, instead, humans do whatever is the easiest option to do, and this includes satisfaction of ones own conscience.

People aren’t inherently good, nor bad. They are inherently lazy. The most efficient and economic (I use the word to mean all forms of economics) option is the one that we are biologically evolved to seek and prefer; as is every animal on this planet.

Which is why we have a difference in social behavior in person and online as a society. One realm requires a far more difficult and costly tax for the same behaviors than the other.

So, “might is right” shoving its weight around isn’t a matter of requirement or not. It’s simply an easier solution for those who use it. They would rather not design alternate solutions than objectification and exploitation of others because, for them, to do so would be harder and less economic; which would be pointless and senseless to them.

For others, the emotional pull of their consience is too great to prefer other alternatives than whichever way they currently live in regards to contexts outside of their normality.

Generally speaking, people are non-violent and non-confrontational in most invironments because it’s easier and more efficient than a regular iteration of violent or confrontational exchange.
This gets somewhat flipped when pressures are intense and enough humans are piled into a small area and their emotions are kept on edge at a consistent rate.
The confrontation inherently increases because lashing out is easier than bottling up, and it aids in survival skills where everyone else is too busy pushing everyone else around because they are focused on their own bubble and all of its pressures in an environment with very little pressure release valves for tension.

The human body and brain inherently prefers the easiest and fastest solution with the highest reward return.

‘Might is right’ is simply easier, faster and more rewarding for some.
For others; not at all.



People who want peace and freedom will generally dismiss bullies… if the bully persists it becomes the moral duty of the peace lover to defeat the bully… at all cost and no holds barred.

Let the bully beware…


I assume you’re trolling.

You realise that, acccording to this setup, we should be bullying you, right?

In any case, this kind of bestial logic doesn’t really have anything to do with philosophy.


I have no doubt convictions such as these can benefit you in the labour market, but apart from that, I doubt it will make you happy in the long run. But that depends on how you will define your happiness in the future, and it might still be in terms of hierarchies and economic loss and gain - up to a certain point. I will not comment on that form of moral nihilism, since I already commented on nihilism above, and that was enough philosophical negativity for this month :smiley:


You realise that, acccording to this setup, we should be bullying you, right?

I would welcome it since I actually like to be messed with. I’m not afraid of a challenge. I would say I thrive off ov it.

In any case, this kind of bestial logic doesn’t really have anything to do with philosophy.

How is it not a philosophy? It’s a worldview, an idea, a dicipline, a mindset to live by. It just sounds like you dismiss it becauz it’s a philosophy you don’t like.


A different question, if you may.
How do you REALLY identify if someone or something understands you in the sense of conscious thought and elaborate cognitive processing or only reacts to impulses or is mimicking understanding for some reason?
And does it really matter if the response is consistent?


@metaside You dont really know unless your psychic, erry day be hustlin

Honestly I’ve come to somewhat adopt certain Aspects of the philosophy of what is the hustle…I feel like stuff like kant or whomever focus too much on the meaning of fickle social dynamics and looking to find the meaning of life and what is reality…

I find that such things ignores stuff concerning leadership, machiavelli and sun tzu do cover this but they aren’t concrete enough…and besides looking for the philosophical equivalent of m theory is kind of ridiculous because reality is a balance between random choas and order…

Also imo its love which gives life meaning other than that we make up our own purpose that is why some questions can never be answered…

Without philosophy there would be no science


Since everyone has a unique perspective, it seems almost impossible that someone else would share my personal understanding of something (in all details). My understanding of my own thinking seems limited as well. And if I don’t understand myself, then how can I possibly understand anyone else?

In simple matters, it’s possible to share some degree of understanding, though.

Lets say, for example, that I ask the strange bearded man at the dinner table to pass me the salt.

He passes me the salt shaker, - which was in fact exactly what I wanted, - and in doing so he seems to have understood my thinking perfectly.

But does he share my understanding of salt?

My own understanding of salt is a mess (I think, as I shake the little container vigorously over my eggs).

I have some idea that sea-salt is made by evaporating sea water…

In my mind I begin to see see a picture of the sea – and some workers on the shore, busy with some kind of shovels – shoveling small mounts of salt into small three-wheeled cabin-scooters with the word “SALT” painted on their sides (the scooters are light blue with handpainted white letters)

I’m pretty sure modern sea-salt isn’t made that way, - but the imagery apparently plays a big part in my (rather childish) understanding of salt.

I make a mental effort to get back on track, - attempting to access some of what my chemistry teacher told me years ago, - but he chemistry involved remains frustratingly fuzzy. I would probably fail a chemistry 101 exam if someone put me on the spot at this moment.

I smile stupidly at the stranger and say: “You know - I feel like I can barely understand salt at all”, vainly hoping that he will somehow intuitively understand my cognitive processing.

But it seems almost impossible that he will.


Great example. If communication implies direct action, basic understanding can be tested up to a point. But even so, it’s not necessarily reliable, just a good rough indicator, especially if the entities communicating share a common background.

Let me give you a different example from one of my fav books by Terry Pratchett (Spoiler warning :wink: )


In “Nation”, a native boy and a girl from Europe find themselves alone on an island that was wiped out by a natural disaster. In one scene, the girl gives the boy a picture with an arrow pointing to a destroyed boat. She is waiting in the boat. But, because of different backgrounds, he is not familiar with the arrow symbol and assumes that she wants him to throw a spear at the boat, which is exactly what he is doing. She is not happy about that but reacts as if it was a normal thing to do, leaving his action kinda open for interpretation. So, for him, what he did was the correct response, even in hindsight. And the boat picture still worked as a common ground for interpretation of where the meeting would be.

For the salt example, I would interpret it as people with a roughly common background, talking about things they have very simple and basic practical interpretations and uses for (“it makes food taste better in moderation, so it can be good to put on food” or something like that), if you don’t dive in too deep. But maybe the person was an intergalactic spy on a secret mission, never heard of salt and just gave you that strange thing you pointed to, making the success of the communicaiton dependent on your body language instead of verbal language… :wink:


This is the single best citation I’ve ever seen in a philosophy discussion!
Hail to the badass!

Also, if you want another great Terry Pratchett example of the issues surrounding the theory of mind, read Monstrous Regiment.
The entire book is essentially a stroll through half the problems with the theory of mind.
The other half of the problems are contained in Feet of Clay. :slight_smile:

The man was a bad ass.



Haha, thanks for the pictures! Really cheered me up earlier this morning :smiley:

Also thanks for a good reason to re-read Monstrous Regiment and Feet of Clay, I was much younger when reading those two and from the first one, I only remember some funny cross-dressing action :wink:


It’s a great book, full of pointed comments on social expectations, the lunacy of normalcy, theory of mind, and the issues of inherited religious tradition.

We’ve been reading our way through the series. I read nightly to my wife, and we laugh and chat.

We have just five books left and we’ll have wrapped the whole series. :frowning:

Glad it made you some cheer!



Just had a thought smart littering, disposing of organic foods (i.e. an apple) in nature away from human population and letting nature take its course, the idea is to feed the ecosystem by providing nutrients from unused or leftover organic matter


You just described composting.


Actually composting is one way of returning some of our depleted soil to a healthy condition. At the same time it would help heal some of the vitamin deficiency so prevalent today


Has anyone went on dicotomy tests yet?


lol cannot tell if I comprehend all or if I’m just an indecisive philosophical turd. More likely the latter.


Randomness is simpler than most people take it for, it basically means unpredictability.

If a coin has a 50% chance of landing on either side, then you might be tempted to think that it would land on heads every other time. But that would be predictable wouldn’t it? You’d be able to tell in advance how it would land if that was the case. Randomness means that you can’t predict it, so it will naturally deviate from a predictable alternation, resulting in streaks of heads or tails.


Well that was interesting. Quite a staunch difference here. Lol.