#empiricalness

[hjymcyqlsavwjt]

Standing fuck for a naughty blonde ass madura desnuda follando Pinay new scandal: filipina big boobs online seller Luscious BBW Moon Baby Reaches Orgasm with a Fucking Machine Bengali Amateur Couple Homemade Honeymoon Sex Scandal Full Video Ebony Slut Masturbating Blindfolded White girl bj BBC in gym parking lot Glamcore fantasy babe bounces on cock Whipping with a birch broom in a Russian sauna. Wet Masturbation and Orgasms. Horny Pregnant BBW

[todays-xkcd]

The problems started with my resolution next year to reject temporal causality.

Empiricism [Explained]

Transcript Under the Cut

[Cueball and Megan are standing, talking to each other.] Cueball: My New Year's resolution this year was to reject empiricism. Megan: And how's that been working out for you? Cueball: What does that have to do with anything?

[philosophybits]

All arguments from experience are founded on the similarity which we discover among natural objects, and by which we are induced to expect effects similar to those which we have found to follow from such objects.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

[tanadrin]

OK, so this post is going to probably look like I’m critcizing @jadagul quite directly, and I am, but only because he is a proximate example of something I find worth commenting on generally. This does not change the fact that I generally like and respect him, and find him pleasant to interact with.

There is a style of political thinking which seems to have an intuition that the law should work like mathematical formalism or computer programming, with a very close and literal relationship between any act of government (an executive action or an act of a legislature) and the constitutional or statutory text which enables that action. That even if the law is a messy and organic human institution, it shouldn’t be, and in ideal circumstances the whole system would be fairly mechanistic, with little room for human discretion. This line of thinking seems to work itself out in ideas like, “OK, discrimination is bad; but so is the government interfering in private actions; so anti-discrimination legislation is bad, too, in a different way.” Or “democracy is important, but part of democracy is free expression; and how you spend your money is a kind of expression, so limits on how you spend your money when it comes to politics is antithetical to democracy.” Or, in the anarcho-capitalist form I most strongly associate this line of thinking with, “OK, people seem to want a lot of freedom, low taxes, and the government not to tell them what to do; so we can (and should) construct a society where the government does very little--ideally nothing at all--and everything that can be is transferred to the private sphere, to be a matter of contract law and civil litigation. Since government power is very little or nonexistent, and all oppression comes from the government, everyone will be very free.”

This isn’t just wrong in the sense that the law is actually an irretrievably messy and organic institution because all human institutions are irretrievably messy and organic and we’re stuck with them; this is wrong because it is good that human institutions are messy and organic, and it would be bad if they were all purely mechanistic. I know this probably seems like a self-evidently silly thing to say if your intuition is toward the mechanistic and formalistic (and believe me, I share that aesthetic preference a lot of the time!) but it really is true. It is simply not possible for a legal system to reduce all potential coordination problems, political disputes, and breaches of social order to a set of general principles, and trying to would result in either monstrously cruel outcomes, like the ancient law codes that just killed everybody who broke them, or total structural collapse, like that town that got taken over by libertarians and then bears (because the libertarians didn’t understand the specific governance needs of the town, like how regular trash collection kept the bears away).

In particular, trying for this kind of metaphysical purity in your legal system often seems to cause people’s aesthetic preferences to short-circuit their moral ones; and because no legal system actually is metaphysically pure in this way, ultimately neither is satisfied. The thinking seems to go, we want a free and equal society without oppression; but government action is frequently oppressive, especially when it interferes with private business, so we don’t want to have anti-discrimination legislation. So what they get is a society without anti-discrimination legislation, that is also markedly unequal, because it turns out that bigotry just doesn’t go away by people saying “bigotry is bad, people shouldn’t do that.” Or, people want democracy; but they also want people to be able to spend their money how they want (that’s key to the liberal part of liberal democracy), so they don’t want to impose limits on spending around political campaigns. As a consequence, wealth inequalities distort politics by making the only viable candidates the ones who appeal to wealthy donors, putting a whole class of policies that poll really well outside the political pale--i.e., a profoundly undemocratic system where very popular legislation stands no chance of getting passed. Or, people want property rights and healthy markets; commensurate with that, they resist any effort to impose limits on those property rights or redistribute wealth. They get, as a result (and often hand-in-hand with the distortions of democracy that stem from the previous example), a system with a lot of rent-seeking and corruption where fair competition is almost impossible and there are a lot of monopolies that are bad for both businesses and consumers, far from the libertarian utopia of their laissez-faire dreams.

This isn’t meant to be a Chestertonian set of counterintuitive gotchas, where I try to argue that the real democracy was monarchy all along or something, just an observation that you have to look at, and argue from, actual outcomes, and not just what is conceptually appealing, even if you want to further quite lofty and abstract political ideals. Much the same way that abolishing your military does not keep you out of conflicts, if it results in you suddenly getting invaded by your neighbor, or abolishing anti-discrimination law would not result in a freer society, if you have a bunch of racists itching to discriminate against the minorities they don’t like.

I remember a post of Scott Alexander’s once expressing confusion at the idea banks would just decide not lend to black people in the midcentury US, because surely they would stand to make more money if they had more customers, and if they had more customers the banks run by non-racists would outcompete the banks run by racists, and I remember thinking, like, come on dude. There is a whole complex social ecology surrounding race and racial discrimination, which is going to drown out any possible weak effect that you are pointing to here. And he simply could not see it because it was not part of the world he knew, and he lacked the imagination to understand it.

Everything the law touches is like this. Law is not actually, nor can it be, a separate domain from politics, or economics, or private business, or religion, or any other aspect of human life. It is a loose category of thing we have drawn a fuzzy border around, like so much else. And because of the complexity inherent in the problems it presents, trying to decide which policies are best without reference to actual outcomes at best makes you prone to a kind of head-in-the-clouds idealism. But much more often, I think it means people support things actually corrosive to the principles they claim to espouse.

[hexagr]

Art is like religion in that it represents something that is beyond the reach of empiricism. The element of fantasy is inextinguishable. Spinoza made the chief distinction that religion, unlike superstition, was founded on knowledge rather than ignorance. But what if, in stark contrast to things forged from knowledge, art is, at times, profoundly further from knowledge than it appears? And there, we might see that art isn't necessarily deep; it's just a mirror, and the mind is an abyss. Yes, I say this as someone who both appreciates and creates art. Criticizing art; classic artist move.

[communistkenobi]

the thought I am about to voice is going to be very messy and rough and probably overly generalised, but I’m coming to the point in my education (& I’m picking out Fanon, Said, Cesaire in particular here) where I feel like empiricism as a system of thinking is at a crisis point for me. rationalism and positivism and scientific discovery broadly as a way of systemising information and thinking about the world has been so deeply bound up in projects of capitalism and empire, legitimising the “civilising efforts” of colonial occupations of various “irrational” societies across the world, producing “The West” as a political entity that is seen as ultimately rational, and creating this body of secular authority (“scientific knowledge”) that is imbedded in the maintenance of “The West” and its component states, an authority that can only be understood and contributed to as an academic via the same capitalistic market logics that govern everything else - that to be “empirical” about the world, to present myself as someone whose beliefs are informed by provable discoverable “facts” about reality, feels very similar to an allegiance to capital-E Empire in general.

And Marxism has been very clarifying for me in this regard, to be able to use empiricism and make empirical claims that are fundamentally counter-hegemonic to capitalism, but it still comes out of this same European enlightenment tradition. But absent that I don’t know what else there is lol. Like empiricism feels like the only game in town but it’s a game with so much blood on its hands that I don’t know if it’s something you can export out of capitalism. To use an example, is eugenics a “misuse” of science? My answer to that question is both yes and no - yes in the sense that a belief in eugenics is not backed by evidence, that when you put the idea that some “gene pools” are “better” than others and that you need to get rid of “the bad ones” to scientific tests, this does not stand up to scientific scrutiny because the categorical bins you use to define good and bad gene pools are also not biological or scientific (eg race), as well as a bunch of other issues, so eugenics fails the empirical smell test. But eugenics is also effectively “true” because the belief in it has produced unquantifiable amounts of imperial violence. It’s “true” in the sense that it has become a rational logic by which empire justifies itself, and so imperial powers behave as if it is true. And because eugenics emerges out of enlightenment scientific thinking, a project itself that emerges from capitalism/colonialism, can it really be called a misuse if it’s accomplishing exactly what European imperial powers need it to?

Like I guess basically what I need clarified for me is, is it possible to believe in empiricism as an epistemic authority without it being ultimately used for imperial ends. If you believe that capital-T Truth is discoverable, and that the more that Truth is used to inform the organisation of society, the better off society will be (which, as a communist, I generally do believe), does that lead you to fundamentally imperialistic conclusions?

[unopenablebox]

i will admit that i think it is intrinsically a bit silly and embarrassing to claim that it is more surprising to encounter known wildlife than a thing that absolutely should not exist in any way at all. but, you know, survivable. especially if you are interpreting 'surprise' to instead mean something along the lines of "which thing causes you to immediately shriek and slam the door" or similar, in which case you're probably just objectively right to pick the walrus. absolutely close door on walrus. this makes sense as a stronger instinct to have than any specific reaction to an impossible but humanoid thing

however it's extremely goofy to post a defensive yet smug tumblr-wacky-anecdote-toned post about how actually, you're completely right to think animals are more surprising than things that don't exist, because how could an animal ever get to and then knock on a door??? what situation could ever exist where a knocking-like sound precedes an animal outside a door???? checkmate, literal atheists

[bellshazes]

getting real ready to rehash my tweet from 2016 about the fact that """""canon"""" is a fake concept co-opted by victorians to undermine the history of collective storytelling as a response to the industrial revolution creating an increase in mass-market publishing capability for lower classes eventually leading to the rise of modernism as a literary movement resting on references to classical, """canonical"" literature in which the old literary traditions were forcefully subjugated to twentieth century inventions of intellectual property laws which demanded individual control over stories for the preservation of capital. but i've really lost the fucking point now

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"A lot of people think that what is unique about science is its empiricism: it relies on experience to confirm or throw out statements about reality. Of course, it does do that. But empiricism in that sense is hardly unique to science. All human beings make up their minds by referring to experience.

The question which matters is not “Do you rely on experience to make up your mind about objective statements?” It is “Whose experience do you rely on?” This is where the empirical rule produces its unique answer: only the experience of no one in particular."

-- Jonathan Rauch, "Kindly Inquisitors"

[notbecauseofvictories]

you should check out Martin Heidegger's work for really interesting explorations of "being and reality" that isn't theistic

I did an entire course in "On Being and Time" in college! It was one of the classes (along with classic logic, and Calc III) that academically, I didn't do very well in, but I loved sitting there having my mind warped, lit up, blown to pieces by those concepts. I still think about all those hours spent going over the concept of Dasein---how little I understood/understand it on a logical level, how much it made sense intuitively, how much I loved every single lecture where we grappled with that dichotomy.

[blueheartbookclub]

Delving into the Depths of Thought: A Review of "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" stands as a timeless exploration of some of the most fundamental questions that have puzzled humanity for centuries. In this concise yet profound work, Russell embarks on a journey to unravel the mysteries of existence, knowledge, and reality, offering readers a thought-provoking introduction to the field of philosophy.

At the heart of Russell's inquiry lies the quest for knowledge and understanding. Through clear and accessible prose, he tackles age-old questions such as the nature of reality, the existence of an external world, and the limits of human perception. Drawing on insights from logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences, Russell challenges readers to critically examine their assumptions and beliefs, encouraging them to engage in rational inquiry and intellectual curiosity.

One of the key strengths of "The Problems of Philosophy" is Russell's ability to distill complex philosophical concepts into digestible and engaging discussions. Whether discussing the nature of space and time, the concept of truth, or the problem of induction, Russell presents ideas with clarity and precision, making them accessible to readers of all backgrounds. His use of concrete examples and thought experiments helps to illuminate abstract concepts, allowing readers to grasp the underlying principles more easily.

Moreover, Russell's work is not merely an intellectual exercise but also a call to action. Throughout the book, he emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and skepticism, urging readers to question authority and think for themselves. By encouraging a spirit of open-minded inquiry, Russell empowers readers to challenge received wisdom and explore alternative perspectives, fostering intellectual independence and freedom of thought.

In addition to its philosophical insights, "The Problems of Philosophy" also offers a historical perspective on the development of philosophical thought. Russell traces the evolution of philosophical ideas from ancient times to the modern era, highlighting key figures and movements that have shaped the discipline. By situating philosophical problems within their historical context, Russell provides readers with a deeper appreciation for the ongoing dialogue that has characterized philosophical inquiry throughout history.

Overall, "The Problems of Philosophy" is a timeless classic that continues to inspire and provoke readers with its profound insights and thought-provoking questions. Russell's lucid prose, rigorous analysis, and commitment to intellectual honesty make this book a must-read for anyone interested in philosophy, logic, or the pursuit of knowledge. In a world filled with uncertainty and confusion, Russell's work serves as a beacon of clarity and reason, guiding readers on a journey of philosophical discovery and self-reflection.

Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 18.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 146

Language: English

Rating: 9/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[philosophybits]

Consistent empiricism ends in contributions toward settling misunderstandings, or in a subscription to truth.

Friedrich Schlegel, Athenaeum Fragments

[tagitables]

Ernst Mach ! 🙌

[mysticfemme]

why does Aquinas say we have innate knowledge of god and then say we have to discover it through experience 😭😭 just pick a side bro

[communistkenobi]

I’m no theory-head but I think it might be better to frame empiricism as a tool and a sort of social technology instead of the sole domain of imperial and capitalist power. Throughout history, people have looked for what we might call empirical truths in adaptation to their environment. You cannot survive in Norway or England in winter without learning empirical truths about supplies, the natural environment, the stockpiling of resources and building structures appropriate to the conditions, for instance, and the same is true of essentially every place around the world. Sometimes the ways in which these truths were conveyed were spiritualized, codified in religion or other things seen as unscientific / unsecular today, but that’s true of European imperial powers as well. Thus we can see that the use of science and empiricism is no more the sole domain of imperial powers than the wheel or the boat; it is as much a tool that can be used to liberate as it can be to oppress. You specifically brought up eugenics, and I think that while you make a good point - that it is a monster that empiricism made - the debunking of eugenics is also done (in my opinion, best done) by empirical thought, as you also brought up! If a thing can be justified by empirical thought, it can also be unraveled by the same scientific logic and debate, assuming the evidence is strong enough, I think. I think where things get hairy is where the evidence is not strong enough, where inherent assumptions in science produced by imperial powers interfere with that evidence and the moral quandaries of how to structure society at large with an empirical eye while also giving people a democratic choice in how that society is structured, but those are different, much longer conversations I think.

yes 100% and in particular I like the framing of it as a kind of social technology. I wonder if it can be framed in similar terms as capitalist modes of production - the mass production methods we currently have at our disposal are not bad per se, the issue is that they are privatized and owned by the ruling class, and that property relationship to production is the thing that causes suffering (ie the exploitation of the working class generally and the colonial expressions of that exploitation in particular, ie, exporting the most horrific and demanding forms of labour to the imperial periphery). and so I think "seizing the means" includes seizing empiricism from the ruling class and producing with it a more liberatory (and more truthful) form of scientific knowledge and authority.

But where my apprehension with this framing comes from is that I do not want to (accidentally or otherwise) smuggle in with it capitalist forms of domination, and so if we are to use empiricism for liberation, I think its imperial history needs to be reckoned with, and the point I'm at right now in my readings is that I don't know the scope or tenor of what that reckoning looks like

[unopenablebox]

i’m fascinated by how many people i follow have weird caveats about the “is fish meat” thing even though the poll results are so strongly in favor of ‘yes’