Philosophy

[Jorick]

Well this is obviously going fucking nowhere anymore. I don't think that unanun is actually trying to resurrect the Fuhrer's noble Aryan Empire, but that's for you lot to decide I suppose.

LET'S CHANGE THE TOPIC TO SOMETHING ELSE PHILOSOPHY-RELATED. LIKE HOW AWESOME DAVID HUME IS.

Yup, not spinning our wheels anymore is a good idea.

I'm not very familiar with David Hume's work or ideas. I know his work influenced Kant, but as for the specifics I actually knew basically nothing before reading the Wiki link Brovo posted. What about Hume's philsophical ideas do you consider so awesome, or are you speaking about him as a person being awesome?

 

[unanun]

Well this is obviously going fucking nowhere anymore. I don't think that unanun is actually trying to resurrect the Fuhrer's noble Aryan Empire, but that's for you lot to decide I suppose.

I don't want to drag you into this. But tell me you see what I'm saying. Just give me a sign. Adjust your shorts.

When your "hypothetical person" holds the exact same views and questions as you,

Yes ....... the whole point is to divorce the viewpoint of 'philosophy makes no progress / philosophy does not make falsifiable claims' from myself ... That is why I created a hypothetical person who is not me to do it ..........

Are white people capable of doing anything more efficiently or in a manner superior to other ethnic groups, collectively, as a group, against the other groups? No.

All of history suggests otherwise. The writing is on the wall. How can you claim otherwise? For a large part of human history the white western colonial empires dominated the world with might and mercantalism. It is completely true that they subjugated india and china for hundreds of years. It is also completely true that after the world wars they entered a period of rapid technological and economical advancement, perhaps at the expensive of their asian and middle eastern neighbours. Is it distasteful to put it that way? Yes. But is it true? I believe so.

I've done what you've asked. "Is there a falsifiable philosophical view?" Yes. Absolutely. Obviously. It's right there. The fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

Point 1) The fact that it exists shows that it is not falsifiable. There are people who believe in the aether theory of physics or other fringe sciences. However, the hypotheses they generate are not testable. Neither is fringe or pseudoscience falsifiable. So it is just an opinion.

2) They sure do exist. Not only that, there are other [X] supremacy groups that exist in a great number in the middle east. It is quite reasonable to assume that all "[X] power!" viewpoints are similar in sentiment. The very fact that today, you could have been born in a place where you ended up completely believing in a certain interpretation of a religious book enough to slay other men suggests to me that "[X] power" is far from being quashed as a falsifiable viewpoint.

3) As you claim that now white supremacy is a less popular view now, back then it was the popular one. Back then, that philosophy was the right one according to prevailing social sentiment. Before that, white supremacy wasn't really a thing. When theories are verified in science, it does not regress to more primitive points of view.

The fact you even asked this disqualifies you from any possible moral, ethical or any other similar discussion.

The fact that I can even ask this without being proved wrong on the spot shows that philosophy makes no progress. If I went to the middle east and joined with the isis brotherhood I (might) be welcomed with open arms.

You would have painted me just as outrageous for suggesting that we should sacrifice one hundred poor people a day to give the president of the united states immortality. But you can't prove that my claim is wrong - only that the weight of current societal sentiment runs against me. There are parts of the world and times in history where my claim could have had the strong majority.

This exact same discussion could have went a million different ways. I was unavoidably baited into it because Brovo choice a rather controversial point of view. But had we discussed the value of human life as a falsifiable viewpoint, I would have pointed out to you that the definition of it has changed over all of human history, and that in the present day the world over it is not universally agreed upon. Yet murder and individual liberties are a 'given' in 1st world countries, due to education and strict law.

No. You do not get to go "One thing at a time" when you ignored large chunks what people have written and switched arguing points many times BEFORE "falisfiable viewpoints" was brought up.

Well .. you brought up other viewpoints so I had to argue them. I also listed my credentials in an entirely relevant context, when people tried to educate me on the truthiness of science.

How about you address even half the criticism and point levied against you. You won't, you cherry pick and change the topic and then try to repeat a certain reasoning as if it would make you right in spite of everything else.

I have addressed every single point. Even the ones that are dismissing me via ad hominem. Ironic ...

I can ask the same thing of any scientific law. But at the same time the law holds regardless of my believe - I will never fly.

Well, you did give two good examples yourself, but here are the ones I think of.

Boundary number one: we assume that observation allows us to access reality.

Boundary number two: we assume that we are able to measure accurately its lack of movement.

Boundary number three: we assume that there are no forces acting upon it.

Boundary number four: we assume the frame of reference—in this case, I'm guessing the observer—also to be inertial.

One: This is a fundamental assumption that must be made to allow us to move forward. But even we can test this: the whole point of the michelson interferometer experiment was to show that the speed of light was constant no matter our frame of reference.

Two-Four: The beauty of inquiry by measurement is that at any time these assumptions can be proved wrong, by one piece of verifiable contradictory measurement. But as of yet, they have not. Newtonian mechanics is good enough for describing the motion of molecules to galaxies. It, like quantum mechanics, has been verified across a startlingly huge amount of reality.

I did a bit of reading. A scientific skeptic would not doubt the truth of physical law because there is no physical basis. It does not make sense to raise an objection that there could be a prime mover that could suddenly change the laws on whim, because it is not a testable viewpoint. In contrast, what you seem to be advocating is philosophical skepticism, where you can technically question all knowledge.

If it is the latter, I cannot argue with you whether this is reality or not. You can reject it and I can possibly never prove it to you, except maybe by asking you to try flying ;). To move forward, we have to make the simple assumption that repeated experiments done with many different methods that produce the same result are telling us something about reality.

 

[Brovo]

3) As you claim that now white supremacy is a less popular view now, back then it was the popular one. Back then, that philosophy was the right one according to prevailing social sentiment.

I just... Told... You...

#1: We're not arguing if the people who held the belief, believed they were wrong. You asked me to find you a falsifiable philosophical belief, and, there you go. It's right there.

You're not interested in holding a discussion. At all. The fact that you got angry at others for ceasing to respond to you is utterly amazing. The fact that you think, somehow, it's ethically okay to defend white supremacy to try and prove your points is utterly mind numbing.

You've blatantly proved that you're not interested in holding a discussion. This is a waste of my time. Please, don't bother responding, just listen to Grumpy considering he's completely right in saying that this is going nowhere, like I've said multiple times already. And which you've also ignored, unsurprisingly.

@Grumpy So what do you think of Hobbs and Rousseau each respectively? Because I want to talk philosophy now.

 

[unanun]

Let's not drag Grumpy into this. It is unfair to him.

I am trying to explain to you that white supremacy is not falsifiable. Genetics shows that all humans are roughly equal. The particular claim that white people are genetically superior is probably wrong. That is falsifiable.

But white supremacy claims that humans in western europe dominated world history for a thousand years. This is undeniable fact.

The term is also typically used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical and/or industrial dominance of whites (as evidenced by historical and contemporary sociopolitical structures like the Atlantic Slave Trade, colonization of the Global South, Jim Crow laws in the United States, and miscegenation laws in settler colonies and former settler colonies like the United States, South Africa, Australia, and Madagascar, for example).

In contrast, physical law remains constant regardless of interpretation.

 

[Brovo]

Let's not drag Grumpy into this. It is unfair to him.

I'm not. I'm trying to have a discussion with him. About philosophy.

Now please just leave me alone. It's really not that much to ask for.

 

[unanun]

Trying again ...

- Is it true that white people are genetically superior? No.

- Is it true that history has born sociopolitical structure that has given white privilege? Yes. If you claim white supremacy is dead, all you have to do is look at the prevailing power structure of the western world.

What claim are you making? Biological sciences have shown that humans are genetically equal. Psychological sciences have not concluded on nature versus nurture. And sociological sciences are still out to town on the idea of white sociopolitical power. Meanwhile, the political ideology is sliding in and out of popularity according to prevailing social norms.

Given education, such as for you and I, we can dismiss the genetic supremacy based upon much available data. But the idea that white power structures exist in the present world is something we should acknowledge. The problem with WS is that it makes many claims that are lumped into one package.

There are scientifically testable claims in there, but there are also others which are purely a function of opinion that we cannot definitively disprove. WS makes a testable, falsifiable claim about genetic superiority. It also makes a whole host of other claims that are far outside our ability to address.

I was afraid I would get roped into a discussion about this. For the record, I'm a chinese canadian, so it's not like I believe in white supremacy o_o

 

[Hecatoncheires]

A'ight chums, I think this argument has been exhausted now. You both had some good points to make, but things are getting a bit too heated now and if we don't shift onto something else I'm gonna have to lock the thread.

NOW THEN, MOVING ON.

Afraid I'm only really acquainted with Hobbs, rather than Roseau (or however the fuck you spell it). I'm a historian rather than a philosophy bod', but 'The Leviathan' makes for an awesome read.

 

[Brovo]

'The Leviathan' makes for an awesome read.

Any particular favourite part of it?

 

[Space Cowboy]

I just wanted to point out that Asia was given the short-end of the stick to develop culturally and intellectually (and when I say Asia, I include South Asia and the Near East).

You have to remember that Genghis Khan and his horde of ruffians, well... Pretty much eradicated everything. Like, everything. Even Eastern Europe felt the blow of his destruction. It's considered far and wide a poorer, less educated area for a reason: his horde began to skirt it and indeed make forays into the region (the area is also on the geographic shit-end of the stick, but that's neither here nor there).

All of the advances that the Near East made in mathematics were written down and skirted away to be developed by scientists in the West hundreds of years later. Who's to say what Persians during the Renaissance might have come up with if they had not had to contend with the volatile wave of human destruction that was the Mongol Horde?

 

[scribz]

No, really, it was a joke. As in, something to generate humour. I suppose I may as well respond anyway though, since y'all seem eager.

@scribz #1: Humour relies on absurdity. #2: Redefining every single term that inconveniences you isn't progress, it's damning the language because it doesn't suit your particular world view. The reason feminism is a nebulous term is because it represents something that isn't universally understood, a movement, an organic idea that is constantly changing with the times, and which fits a personal definition, much like Christianity or Capitalism: There are many differing variations on them.

I feel like I shouldn't need to explain that. If we don't have a universally understood language with which to have a discussion, than there can be no discussion because the opposing faction will constantly redefine every single term to fit their argument, and that's just shitty for holding any kind of fruitful debate.

Holy shit Brovo. That was one hell of a post for, which is ironic, me joking around.

But, if you want to get serious about it, then the first paragraph or so quoted is all I need. Words have connotations, connotations are forms of unconscious or conscious prerequisites that hold to the word. All of those are fallible, so the word's definitions can be challenged, especially on something like "Progress" in which any of the definitions submitted so far are entirely abstract. So, yes - language is formed around views and is in no way excluded from the grasp of common, demographic, or generational misinformation and opinion. If someone wants to challenge a specific word, as they feel that it passes faulty information, they can by constructing a new meaning for that word, using a selection of all the entirely unchallenged words that the rest of the English language holds (by describing it); a perfectly abundant amount of words that both parties can agree to accept as the dictionary definitions would have them. Universally understood words compromised? One, for the limited time of the discussion in which they're challenged.

As for your opinions of why feminism or Christianity are a different story, they're also wrong, it's for the reason I stated above. The prerequisites of either word is either connotatively or definably not fitting to the descriptions generated upon the object(s) in question when observed.

Boom.

 

[unanun]

Who's to say

You're right. My point is that the flow of history is chaotic - in the sense that given different initial starting conditions, the end results diverge wildly the more you evolve them in time. So white supremacy makes a bunch of claims, some of which are provably wrong, and others which you just can't test.

The provably wrong ones I call scientific hypothesis. The viewpoints I call philosophy. Of course, we can then descend into a bunch of semantic arguments about whether all logic based thought is philosophy. But there is a clear demarcation that can be divide testable and non-testable philosophy. And under that demarcation, my claim is that non-testable philosophy makes no progress because it never converges to a point of view.

So then, then next question is, how is progress defined? Well .. *references the rest of the thread*

 

[scribz]

And under that demarcation, my claim is that non-testable philosophy makes no progress because it never converges to a point of view.

And I concede to that entirely, withholding the exceptions in which non-testable philosophy through it's practise happens to lead to the generations of new topics that are testable. Which makes the practise of philosophy still useful (albeit much less so).

 

[Holmishire]

It might be wise that for those who wish to continue any sort of debate in relation to the subject of progress, that they do so through PM or wall-crawling, in order to comply with Grumpy's request.

@scribz @unanun

 

[scribz]

I didn't see grumpy's request but I haven't been here for the last few posts so sure i'll abide by it, but brovo made a silly point on a nuance side-related topic and I wanted to refute it because he tries so hard his darnest to save face in these kinds of things n'aww :> <3

 

[unanun]

It might be wise that for those who wish to continue any sort of debate in relation to the subject of progress, that they do so through PM or wall-crawling, in order to comply with Grumpy's request.

All I will say in closing is that you are correct in that we need to make some assumptions about what our instruments can see. If we can't agree on what part of reality is accessible, then we are dead in the water. For the record, many physicists operate under instrumentalism - that there is some fundamental, inaccessible reality our measurements will never tell us about. But our theories are consistent with whatever it is we see, and that is good enough for us - leading to things like computers and machinery and whatnot.

 

[Asmodeus]

Hey! I've just realized something!


White Supremacy cannot be immediately disproved as a philosophical belief, because there is always someone who can argue it, and people will always get tricked into thinking that there are individuals out there who believe it.... even if they're intelligent and polite Asian chemistry students from Canada.

The same cannot be said for someone who believes their farts are more powerful than gravity.



Therefore.... SCIENCE achieves what philosophy cannot. It achieves PROGRESS, defined simply as NOT HAVING THE BELIEFS OF A FUCKING TURKEY.







You all got trolled. If Unanun had asserted that his farts are more powerful than gravity, you wouldn't even have engaged him in outraged debate. You would have just considered it lunacy.


But instead, you entertained the possibility that he was in possession of a dangerous idea that could upset social harmony.





Science beat philosophy on this sad, sad day.






*has sex with the kind and reasonable lady*

 

[Diana]

Now that this has gone around in 20 silly circles, closing this thread for everyone's sanity! :D

Find a new topic, my loves! >:3