in light of supreme Court decision

The philosophy and psychology of why people have more of a problem with "preachiness" or "stridency" than they do with genocide.

This essay's also of interest to anyone learning more about double consciousness or the costs of autistic masking.

A modest first step will be to recognise that the eyeroll heuristic is deeply unreliable. The fact that some new norm strikes us as annoying, or that those advancing it strike us as self-righteous, preachy or otherwise offputting, tells us nothing about whether the norm is an improvement or not, whether it represents moral progress or moral backslide. The negative-experience of affective friction caused by the new norm isn’t evidence that the norm itself is bad or that we shouldn’t adopt it. Reactions involving awkwardness, irritation, even resentment are precisely what we should expect even in cases where old, unjust norms are being replaced with new, fairer ones. These feelings have their roots in norm psychology. And though they are very much a reflection of the genuine challenges of adapting to new and changing social environments, they are not sensitive to the merits of moral arguments or the moral value of different social norms. Far from it: our norm psychology helps us track and adapt to whatever norms happen to structure the social interactions in our communities and cultures. And, crucially, it does this regardless of whether those norms and conventions are just or unjust, harmful or beneficial, serious or silly.

i was going to quote the article text below but didn't want to deal with formatting. the sections 'becoming as ceaseless unrest' and 'becoming as quiescent result' in particular reminded me of Spiral Energy from Guren Lagann

edit: somehow didn't include the real URL originally, i swear i copy/pasted it in the first time... should be fixed now :(

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4842538

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4840505

*Forgive any formatting as I'm on mobile.

As I read in themes, I'm currently focusing on philosophy to try and understand it, see where I fit in the world and also reconstruct my own atheist/nihilistic worldview.

I just got done with Existentialist Cafe and got a really nice overview of all the main players in the Existentialist camp but want to finally take the leap into nihilism and absurdism proper. I've read The Stranger and Myth of Sisyphus and like Camus a lot so far but also wanna tackle Satre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty eventually but wonder if I need to read Husserl and specifically Heidegger and Nietzche since they are controversial because of their politics. Would I be able to get away with just reading synopses of their work? I do currently have Being and Time in my list of books to get.

Also, aside from Nietzche, who else should I read regarding nihilism? I'm currently working through The Trouble with Being Born by Cioran and wanna find some more by him but also have The Antidote by Burkeman and Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Ligotti in my backlog. I did read The Book by Alan Watts the other day and though it felt like reading my stoned friend's wild ramblings on society and how we exist in it, some coherent stuff did come through. But I don't know if it was what I was after. I did appreciate it for introducing me to some concepts like ego and self but maybe I should have saved it for another day?

Sidenote but I'm planning on moving back and force between philosophy and socialist theory so socialist philosphers are also welcome. Generally I'm open to all suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm

I think this is the passage he's highlighting:

“It will always remain a matter for astonishment how the Kantian philosophy knew that relation of thought to sensuous existence, where it halted, for a merely relative relation of bare appearance, and fully acknowledged and asserted a higher unity of the two in the Idea in general, and, for example, in the idea of an intuitive understanding; but yet stopped dead at this relative relation and at the assertion that the Notion is and remains utterly separated from reality;—so that it affirmed as truth what it pronounced to be finite knowledge, and declared to be superfluous, improper, and figments of thought that which it recognised as truth, and of which it established the definite notion” (26)

In logic, the Idea “becomes the creator of Nature.” (26)

Are most people here epiphenomenalists? Physicalists?

He was controversial, but he was in my opinion one of the best all-around living philosophers. He was enormously influential on my own thinking, as well as kind and patient every time I met him. Enormously influential, and a big loss to the discipline.

There is no philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage was taken on board without examination.

You play as Marx

A new humanity, a new seeing, a new thinking, a new loving: this is the promise of acid communism

My research focuses on panpsychism, neutral monism and liberal conceptions of physicalism (according to which the physical sciences reveal the structure, but not the full nature, of the physical). I am interested in how such views can respond to problems in philosophy of mind (such as the hard problem of consciousness and the problem of mental causation) and metaphysics more generally, especially the metaphysics of causation.

I’m also interested in Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory. This is one of the leading fundamental theories of consciousness in neuroscience, and it entails a form of panpsychism.

Bro he was going to give you the cake, no need to be so stabby

Credit: https://www.existentialcomics.com/

Credit: https://www.existentialcomics.com/

TL;DR: It’s good for:

• Questioning religion
• Coining concepts
• A jobs program for failed writers and mathematicians/scientists

Hans-Georg Moeller: My research focuses on Chinese and Comparative Philosophy (specifically Daoism) and on Social and Political Thought (specifically Social Systems Theory).

Google Scholar

He has a YouTube series on the history of media theory.

Maybe the last 500 years of Atlanticist colonialism has something to do with it.
And also maybe the CIA: Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism

In this regard, the Frankfurt School under Horkheimer played a foundational role in the establishment of what is known as Western Marxism, and more specifically Cultural Marxism. Figures like Horkheimer and his lifelong collaborator Theodor Adorno not only rejected actually existing socialism, but they directly identified it with fascism by benightedly relying—very much like French theory—on the ideological category of totalitarianism. Embracing a highly intellectualized and melodramatic version of what would later become known as TINA (“There Is No Alternative”), they focused on the realm of bourgeois art and culture as perhaps the only potential site of salvation. This is because thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer, with a few exceptions, were largely idealist in their theoretical practice: if meaningful social change was foreclosed in the practical world, deliverance was to be sought in the geistig—meaning intellectual and spiritual—realm of novel thought-forms and innovative bourgeois culture.

[…]

Finally, the evolution of the Frankfurt School into its second (Jürgen Habermas) and third generations (Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, Seyla Benhabib, and so on) did not alter in the least its anticommunist orientation. On the contrary, Habermas explicitly claimed that state socialism was bankrupt and argued for creating space within the capitalist system and its purportedly democratic institutions for the ideal of an inclusive “procedure of discursive will-formation.” The neo-Habermasians of the third generation have continued this orientation.