Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
How could you teach someone how to think without introducing a frame that also teaches them what to think. How to think is a slightly larger space than what to think. But both are indoctrination.
People need a foundation of knowledge that doesn't derive from every individual having to reinvent the wheel, intellectually, but that doesn't come from people's mere curiosity.
I agree that you need to do that to create functional people, but it's still indoctrination. The unfortunate truth is that you need to indoctrinate children.
You need to uncritically build that foundation in people, as an authority figure; from first principles.
First principles are, by their nature, arbitrary. Actually, that's not fair, they aren't arbitrary, they are selected because of their relative usefulness. But they cannot be more or less true than other first principles exactly because they are first principles.
Biblical Truth: Everything the bible says is true. The bible should used as the decider for any dispute. Is a first principle.
The law of non contradiction: "Not both A and not A" or "¬(p ∧ ¬p)". Is another first principle.
There is no way to show that one is fundamentally more true than the other, because they are first principles. You need to use first principles to evaluate the truth of a statement.
Therefore, all education is indoctrination. In many ways, but at the very least in terms of first principles. Which is already going to account for a lot of indoctrination.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
9mo ago
I don't think that is what I said but I am trying to follow your point. morality is an evolved shared thing. It often stops the strong from imposing on the weak. Again, I don't see why that requires it to be objective. It is a cooperative custom.
Regardless of what justice is the strong will impose on the weak. Different cultures will evolve different customs to limit that. Limiting the strong being cruel to the weak seems good to me and also seems to be selected for in the evolution of morality. I think it is a blessing that that tends to happen.
might is not the only factor, culture and argument can affect things certainly, but maybe in this context you would see that as might too. People who can make convincing arguments or manipulate their peers will impose on those who can't
The first post in this chain said that morality is subjective not objective. Which I agree with. morality is crucial but not a material fact. It is based on inherited axioms that are evolved.
The response to that post that I replied to argued that that position leads inexorably to nihilism. Which I disagree with. I believe I can have a substantial moral position while recognizing that it is relative. The post I replied to said:
I think moral relativism collapses into nihilism -- or, if we don't like that word, moral non-realism -- because a principal purpose of ethics is to provide a means of challenging the whims of the powerful with an objective framework, or else justifying their power. If you believe everyone can just make up their own morality and it's exactly as real as yours, you have no means for challenging any perceived mistreatment, or even waging any culture war. To put it bluntly, you have no justification for condemning the Holocaust, because the Nazis were just following their own morality in which the Jews were vermin polluting the land of the volk and that meant they got to kill them. The primary purpose of morality ceases to exist in a puff of logic. That, to me, is a non-real morality.
I don't see why morality can't do the things he wants it to do while being relative.
If I think that the Nazis are bad, which of course I do, I can fight them. Recognizing that my morals are not materially more true than their's doesn't stop me.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Yeah but that only helps people with ideological dietary restrictions. It actually is bad for allergy sufferers because legumes are one of the more common allergies. Peanuts and soy being the obvious culprits, but legumes in general being fairly common.
Protectionism applied to different areas of the economy is going to have different results. It's probably always going to lead to a reduction in total economic growth, but that doesn't mean it won't have other effects. They will have different externalities.
If your goal is something other than total economic growth or strict economic fairness - then I don't see how it's hypocritical to want to put your thumb on some areas and not others. He hasn't stated that his driving principle is maximum economic freedom for everyone.
Pure economic growth and strict fairness are pretty thin "neoliberal" goals. I think there are better things to set your political compass towards.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I know lots of bootcampers at fang companies making more than 200k.
They were the most talented of their classes but they made it.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Can anyone here recommend a specific translation of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics? I read it in college and want to reread it, but when I look at the different editions, I don't know how to pick. Any suggestions from someone with a more extensive philosophy background?
Thanks!
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
Totally fair.
You may not value this as highly, in which case you would prefer stricter gender roles.
I don't, and so yes, I do.
But there's more to said about it. I, like everyone born in America, was raised to believe that freedom and self-actualization were great things to have. My default starting point agreed with you exactly. It's only over time that I've come to question it. I said:
Why though? How has the reduction of the strictness of roles that modernity has brought on improved things for people?
I think that my question already kind of accepts that we have more freedom to determine the course of our lives. I just question how much that is actually worth. I live in a wealthy blue bubble. The people I have known in my life have more freedom and ability to self determine than almost anyone on the planet, and yet most of them are not very happy. Happy isn't the be all end all, but I'm not sure they are very fulfilled either, and that is the end all.
Now I think that the good life would be to live in a small village, raised by a shoemaker to make shoes, and to make shoes for people who need those shoes. That sounds more fulfilling. I know that comes from a place of incredible privilege to be able to want that, but I do.
A yearning for the meaning provided by being someone raised to make shoes for a town that needs shoes is probably behind the obsession to make and purchase expensive artisanal good that all of the hipsters in my circles have. But it can't be the same because the artisanal shoes aren't needed the same way, and also you have to be essentially independently wealthy to afford the lifestyle of making shoes for hipsters or of buying those shoes.
But putting away the shoe fantasy. The reality is that suicide is up, sadness is up. The people I know don't seem to enjoy their freedom all that much. With all of this freedom and actualization around me, why do I end up spending so much time with people who complain about everything? Everyone seems to know the answer. It sucks living in an atomized, commercialized society. We want to be part of something. Or, from a more leftist perspective "late capitalism is bad". Fair enough that seems to be true.
I'm not sure that end result can be avoided if liberty/self determination are put as highest goals. I recognize this is probable well mined already on the motte.
What are your thoughts? If liberty/self determination are making you feel really fulfilled and happy and super interested to hear about it. I don't feel like I hear that very often here, or in my real life, honestly.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Does it change your mind that DradisPing already said the source of their claim was their recollection? To me that strikes me as enough of a final answer. The other relevant factor for me is that this fell under the election fraud penumbra which in my mind tends to have too many of these types of claims uncritically presented.
Those are both good points. I think you're right that you have justification for posting a top level post about DradisPing's response and are not breaking etiquette.
Decision making and instrumental intelligence aren't connected for everybody. Most people don't make decisions based on thinking, they are followers of one kind or another. They follow traditional rules, or what the boss tells them, or their priest tells them, or they mimic what the people right next to them are doing. This is totally normal and probably essential for society or any kind of human organization to work.
But those people can still be smart. Even if they will never have an independent thought about what they should do, they could still be incredibly talented scientists or technicians. And we want those people. If you were the boss, you would want smart followers. It's stupid to say "why would we care if a bunch of instrumentally smart people died because they were told to walk off a bridge" - we should care because they have useful skills to put to work. We should try to stop their leaders from telling them to walk off bridges.
I don't think it would even be good to live in a world were everyone thought deeply about what they should do. Such a society would probably be incapable of cooperation at scale.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
9mo ago
Lily and marshall are in a long term relationship at the start of the show, and they still have a whole thing where Lily bails on marshal to run away to the west coast to do art. Sure, she regrets it. But the show still uses breaking them up as a source of drama.
Not as bad as the endless on again off again thing done by most sitcoms (and done in HImYm with ted and robin) but not as good as Parks and rec where the couples that the writers actually want to have be together never have temporary break ups used as a cheap source of drama.
Lol thanks man. I appreciate it. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for continuing this convo for as long as I have.
Your interpretation of my position is not correct though. And it is not based on what I have actually said. You've made big assumptions.
"Maybe I (@Crake) don't have a trivial knock-down argument against moral realism that doesn't do significant philosophical damage in other domains."
I don't think that. I recognize that my position on morality complicates other areas. I am happy to go there and discuss those areas and the damage done. You are not. I recognize that my position creates difficulties and problems in other areas, I think they are meaningful problems that are worth exploring. I don't think this is trivial.
It's the same sense of triviality that I've seen from all sorts of adjacent folks in the past who think that the material world obviously just is, trivially
I really really don't think that the material world just is, trivially. That was part of my point. I tried to make it clear that my vision of the reality of the material world is thin. I think that this is a profoundly not trivial question. I thought I had done a good enough job making that clear.
You're confusing "there is a material world" with "science has something to do with 'usefulness' (however ill-defined)". Your first section was a bit about the so-called "material world":
I did not say "there is a material world". I said the material world is something that is just inferred. I said there is something out there that we appear to be able to interact with in an apparently consistent way. my qualifiers were not accidental.
my description of science as a practice that, to our best perception, appears to allow us to effectively interact with something that exists beyond our imperfect lens should make it clear that I am not holding science or the material world up as the most real most important and reliable thing. It is just useful. It is not deifying science, it is the opposite.
that "science" just magically settles all questions, trivially. Yes, I'm aware this is the school of thought people were steeped in; just do the thing, say the words, and don't worry about the presuppositions or foundations; it's useful!
Where the hell are you getting that from?! I have not said anything remotely like that. Science doesn't and cannot solve moral problems because it is such a limited tool. That was one of my central points that I have repeated throughout this thread.
If anything I was trying to diminish the value of science. It cannot help us solve the greater mysteries. It is a notably limited tool that appears to work in a limited scope. And its value is incredibly contingent. The important stuff, like morality, is outside the scope of science. That is my point: morality is insoluble to science. Even you admitted that that was my position earlier.
Is there any way for me to say that I am not privileging science which will make you actually deal with that position? Somehow I suspect that even if I convince you that this is my position you'll find it just as odious.
It appears to be a system or substrate that follows mostly consistent rules that we, whatever we are, exist within or on.
Stop here. Someone could probably write something very similar about the moral world. Nothing about hazily-defined "useful" or "result" needed.
Yes. Someone could do that and it would be an actually meaningful and interesting argument. That is the kind of thing I was hoping this discussion would eventually lead to. I would love to hear you make that argument. Please do.
But instead of that you insist on guerrilla warfare tactics. Instead of actually arguing with my position honestly, you needle at my position while exposing no surface of your own position for me to argue back against.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Imagine if a democrat arrested 20 republicans for possessing an illegal firearm because they misunderstood an ATF statute and the ATF webpage said that particular modification / accessory was legal. And when Rs got mad about it, a democrat said "think on the meta level - from a pure signaling standpoint - if we want to prevent people from knowingly committing gun crimes, we have to arrest people who commit gun crimes, even if they possess a defense.".
That doesn't sound like an insane tactic. Making things uncomfortable for gun owners who have accidentally committed a small offense still makes things uncomfortable for gun owners. How does it not make sense?
Ok, at this point I don't feel like you're arguing in good faith. You don't specifically say that you think I don't hate nazis enough, but if I read you correctly you are implying it. You're saying that the way I find abhorrent people abhorrent is incorrect?
You're expressing pretty strong judgements and I don't feel like you are backing the up in a helpful way. If you have such a strong judgement, please say it straightforwardly, and back it up. I've tried to engage with you honestly. You are shaming instead of trying to convince me at all.
You clearly think the position I've put forward is despicable, but despite your questions I don't feel like you've actually argued with what I've said in good faith.
I don't see why what I've said is offensive to you. I don't see why saying that "who I am is what makes nazis abhorrent to me" is not enough. That seems like a strong moral judgement. Why do you think that is not enough.
I suppose you can be forgiven for using language too casually in a way that would normally seem to imply that there is something about Nazis that actually is bad, so long as you're able to clear it up. Would recommend you avoid using that language in the future, though.
I do think that nazis actually are bad. I do not think that morality is a material attribute. If you find that position so gross can you please attack the reasoning I have given. You have not even tried to argue that subjective things aren't real and only objective things are real, while I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not agree with that. I believe subjective things are truly real.
I think I've been very clear that I don't think that there is an objective badness attached to thinks that I morally oppose. I am using the term bad or evil to denote that my feelings towards them are much stronger than what "not liking" implies.
Your question was how would I explain to someone else that they were bad, and I said that if we had overlapping moral axioms then they would find my reasoning compelling. Between two people with overlapping moral axioms, there will be agreement on what is bad or evil. Is your point that bad and evil are fundamentally objective terms? I am saying I specifically do not think that moral badness or evil are material facts. They are subjective judgements only.
That's grounds for saying that you don't like them, but it's not grounds for saying that they are bad. That badness is not actually attached to the thing; it is merely a state of mind that is attached to you. Why do you want to go further and claim/imply that there is some actual badness that attaches to the thing?
If by actual badness you mean badness as a material fact, then I don't want to make that claim as it is not coherent. I think subjective things are still things. But if you are referring to badness as a material fact I would say that 100% does not exist. The physical world does not contain morality or "badness". That is reserved for the subjective world of humans. It is still very real, but is not a physical characteristic that could be measured using an evilometer.
Why do you want to go further and claim/imply that there is some actual badness that attaches to the thing?
This is getting pretty esoteric, but I guess I would say that evil and badness are states that I apply to things through judgement. Thereby attaching badness to the thing, subjectively. Another example would be beauty. It is real, but not a physical attribute. But I don't really feel strongly about this area of the argument, as it seems to be mostly semantic to me.
If you are only interested in badness as a material physical attributes of things, fair enough. my answer in that case would be that I simply do not believe that morality or goodness or badness exists as a material physical attribute of any assortment of matter. I think believing otherwise is incoherent and I challenge you to argue that it is coherent.
I expect most people to have slightly different moral axioms than me. Small differences are not problematic. The closer they are, the easier it is for us to make compelling moral arguments to each other. And there is a bit of flexibility to people's moral axioms so I may even be able to shift their moral axioms a little bit by making arguments using their other moral axioms. maybe I think some of their axioms are inconsistent and I can try to bring them closer to reflective equilibrium
But some people from cultures far removed from mine could have moral axioms that are bad or evil from my perspective. The grounds on which I would claim they are bad is that they violate the expectations laid out by my own moral axioms. Or that they always lead to ethical conclusions that I find abhorrent. Those moral axioms would be bad ones in my view. They are incompatible with my own to such a degree that I cannot tolerate them. It is likely that they would see my moral perspective as bizarre or evil as well.
I do not see morality as a truth claim. my morals are part of who I am. It's like my relationship with my family. I don't think that my family is the materially best family, that doesn't make sense. However, they are my family, and they matter to me more than anyone else does. They don't need to be the best, or most correct, or most true family, those aren't meaningful attributes of family. They are mine. Same with morals. They are my morals. They are part of who I am.
Can you explain why that account of morality fails or makes me a less moral person? I recognize that if I was born in a different place or time, to a different family, that my morals would be different. The children of christians tend to have christian morals, the children of muslims tend to have muslim morals, aztecs aztec morals. It seems pretty clear that morality is inherited, not reasoned out from first principles for normal people. Again, I would argue that that isn't even possible, moral arguments inherently need to rest on arbitrary moral axioms as a foundation. Any moral argument you make will ultimately be undone by agrippa's trilemma. I can keep asking why and you will eventually reach a foundational moral axiom that cannot be justified. It simply is your moral bedrock.
From Wittgenstein “If I have exhausted the justifications, I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: 'This is simply what I do.” Though I might alter that slightly to be "this is simply who I am."
I believe this is how everyone's morality is. I think your morals rely on a foundation of inherited axioms that cannot be justified morally. Which is fine as far as I am concerned. Can you make an argument explaining how your morals violate my view?
I am not saying that my morals are isolated. If Alice was born in a similar place to me, was raised with a similar culture to me, shares a religion or a nationality with me, then we will probably share similar moral axioms. In which case my reasoning for thinking Nazis are bad will be compelling to her. If she doesn't share my axioms, then my reasoning will not be compelling.
I have reasons that Nazis are bad that will be compelling to Alice based on her axioms, but that doesn't seem to rely on material truth, as the axioms are received.
On a larger scale, I think that morals are cultural traits that are evolved and mutated over time. Since they need to be fit in order to spread and survive they have utility, usually, but looking at them from that perspective we would still be making a mistake to argue that one moral position is "materially truer" then another. They represent different solutions to environmental and social problems. We can argue that some axioms have more or less utility, but that is not the same as truth. It's like saying feet are better than hooves. Which would be a weird argument - and also would have nothing to say about feet being truer than hooves. Saying that feet are truer than hooves doesn't make any sense.
I got my moral axioms through upbringing, education, cultural osmosis and to some extent reasoning, but that reasoning required an axiomatic foundation to work from and as that axiomatic foundation had to be received, the entire structure is built on received axioms. So it is all relative.
What, then, do you mean by "bad"?
I mean that it violates my moral axioms and causes me to feel revulsion. The same way I might feel uncomfortable seeing someone violate a cultural custom, but a much stronger feeling.
I don't need my morals to be materially true to be the most important thing to me. Because of the circumstances of my upbringing, they are fundamentally part of who I am. Why is that not enough?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Why? If anything, I would argue that if you don't think your principles in at least some sense apply universally they're not really principles at all.
Well this becomes sort of circular. You ask if I don't think my principles apply universally, and I suppose they do, but as I said my principles are against proselytizing to aliens. I don't think there's anything inconsistent there.
I think my preferred ideology and policies, like almost everyone does, would improve people's lives
I think being allowed to live in a society free from aliens who do not share your worldview trying to actively indoctrinate you into their way of thinking would improve people's lives.
I am definitely not so incredibly confident in the content of my own cultural practices, that I think that everyone would benefit from following them.
Maybe? But I don't care. Homophobic political cultures are inferior to those which are not and if their political culture gets 'invaded' then hurrah.
Yeah, I'm not interested in conquering other countries in order to convert them, by war or otherwise. Ideally we could all live well enough alone. And it seems obvious to me that a culture that is as conquest hungry as you are (or the west is) should be regarded with suspicion. That's how this thread started I think. Why would anyone try to compromise with someone who you know has no respect for you and is only accepting it as a temporary tactical action. The only reason someone would make that compromise is if they have no other choice, which is probably the case in this specific example. But it's a compromise in bad faith.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Do you see some creepy aspect in the story about American Evangelicals spreading their views on homosexuality in Ghana? Or is your only problem with it that you disagree with them?
The second one. I think evangelicals spreading their views in Ghana is bad, because I think the views being spread are bad. I have no particular issue with people trying to convince others of their viewpoints more generally.
I am with Arjin. My values are such that all proselytizing is suspect to me. Anyone who is proselytizing to those who are far away is very suspect. It's gross to try and impress your ideology on people far away.
Can you explain why you strongly disagree with that? Successful proselytizing is hegemonic, borderline colonial. It's clearly an invasive action by one culture on another. Especially in the case that theres a strong power difference between the two groups involved. Clearly that does apply in the case of western institutions trying to cause change to singapore, right?
How would you even stop this? Should Singapore not be allowed to participate in the global internet, because maybe they'd see things that would change their views on LGBT people? Does the Singaporean internet need to be censored to ensure their present social values are maintained forever and ever? Is it bad to show people ads depicting LGBT people as normal people if such ads convince people that bans on sodomy are wrong?
I don't think this conversation is only about government policy. Cultures and institutions within those cultures are clearly going to attempt to spread their ideologies. But I can say that that is morally bad, even if I don't want to ban communication between cultures which would be impossible. Cultures and institutions that are more aggressive about proselytizing are dangerous, immoral, and not to be trusted. For the obvious reason that they are going to try and covert me, or my people. Definitionally that is something I wouldn't want. It is hostile.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
10mo ago
Fair. I'm sure they did. But they didn't kill themselves very often and generally succeeded in reproducing their lifestyle to the next generation.
Cleary from what I said, I disagree with you. I think all teaching is indoctrination. Do you think I am an "ideologue hellbent on using his teaching position as a way to indoctrinate children". I am not a teacher. I am absolutely not interested in indoctrinating the children of anyone else. I am interested in indoctrinating my own future children.
The indoctrination position you lay out is left wing. I am right wing and still stand by my position.
I don't know about "hellbent" but I am in favor of recognizing that it is normal and healthy to indoctrinate the children of my groups into a worldview. Not just teach the facts, but a coherent moral worldview. I don't think that is possible to avoid. Or if it is possible to avoid you will simply end up with children who are profoundly alienated. More likely, you will end up with children who become indoctrinated into some other groups worldview, one that is hostile to you. That is what happens to many children today, they are not indoctrinated enough by their parents so they're indoctrinated by radical leftists.
Attempts to avoid indoctrinating children into any moral/political worldview whatsoever do those children a disservice. Humans are, as Aristotle says "Political Animals". In general we want to belong to a worldview. Failing to provide that for children just makes them vulnerable to being snapped up by hostile ideologies.
I am not a teacher, and I do not want teachers indoctrinating my children. But I would like to raise them to align with my worldview and I recognize that that is indoctrination. I am not a totalitarian about how to raise children, I am happy to make space for them to question things. I mean, I'm here on the motte, I love a good argument and hope my children will express a healthy level of contrarianism. But I will not attempt to avoid bringing them into my culture and worldview. That would be cruel, so I am comfortable with indoctrinating them.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I’m confused. Where does he actually state the non warm up problem? Was it edited?
I think a large contingent of people at the parties I go to drink that much at parties but don’t drink much at all other times. It’s definitely binge drinking but I don’t think it’s that unusual. Alcohol use disorder sure, but it’s common at parties in my experience
More options
Context Copy link