Philosophy poll

All sensations are just different forms of light. Matter is a form of light. Everything is light.

So what is light? Light is the substance of awareness. Light *exists*. Light is the medium without a message in McLuhan's terms.

bullshit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The sinthome.

Saussurean linguistics.

Depends on what the structures allow.

Phenomenological-Lacanian.

With their hands

not sure what you think that link demonstrates

but they cannot see them

that matter doesn't behave as light waves?

Marxism-Trashcanism
its fucking gay lol
slapping a broad is alright if she deserves it
fuck math

That's because they're blind. Checkmate, nihilists!

er… the whole point of that experiment is showing the non-duality of particles and waves. electrons and photons give the same results

rekt

they don't, only by observing them is it that they become matter, if everything were light, observing them wouldn't change their behaviour

Orthodox Marxism + Luxemburg, whatever you want to call that

I am a Rationalist

Unsure, I am not that into the study of ethics, I know that I don't like Utilitarianism at all, but I am meh on everything else. I do have the ethical maxim of truth however, idk what that makes me tho.

I believe numbers and other such things exist in a metaphysical sense, unsure of exactly what metaphysics I fall under however. I have been told I am not exactly a Realist.

My Theory of Knowledge is a mixture of the classical Justified True belief + Nozick's Truth Tracking method, to avoid Gettier problems.

For Philosophy of Mind I am a Functionalist.

I do realize there is a contraction between the materialism of Marxism (and Functionalism) and my other beliefs that I have yet to reconcile, I have Simone Weil however on my booklist, who was a Socialist who also believed in metaphysical numbers and forms, so maybe she might help me out of that.

Market socialism

Overdeterminism

Egoism

Monads

Early liberal analysis of the state and post structuralism

I might not subscribe to this position, but its interesting as hell.

no, by observing them they behave as a particle. which does not mean the same thing as becoming matter. electrons and photons both behave as waves when unobserved and particles when observed. I suggest reading your own link.

again, the whole point is that particleness vs. waveness is an illusory duality.

Isn't this Pilot Wave theory?

Market Socialism
rationalism
golden rule (doesn't apply to porky and his agents)
tbh most metaphysics I read in uni just seemed like people making up semi-plausible things with very little evidence, I do like sartre though
-Pomo and cultural relativism are cancerous. -Privileging lived experience over reason is retarted.
-I highly resent the idea that race/gender mean you cant have an opinion on certain things.
-Men and Women are naturally good and bad at different things broadly speaking based on evolutionary pressures.

Pragmatic leninism, though I haven't read enough theory to truly throw my lot with any tendency
Internalism, empiricism, fictionalism
Error theory, but in practice non-naive consequentialism
Nominalism, reductivist materialism, causal determinism etc.
Traps are gay

DELET

that's the use of being a trap if you can't fuck other traps?

ML
No idea
Unsure
No idea

Anarcho-Communism
Psychological nominalism
I'm actually not sure on this one lel. I'm fairly against any kind of normative ethical positions so idk
Base materialism/Aleatory materialism

Any other philosophical views?
Traps are straight and the cock makes liking them even more straight.

Holy fuck why does everyone here have horrible or non-existent systems of ethics? It's literally a question of how you should live your life and treat others and no one has a fucking clue.

Wow, what a shit answer. You seem pretty cucked by ideology tbh

You don't understand postmodernism and cultural relativism isn't what you think it is dipshit.
Dismissing lived experience outright is also fucking stupid fam
Seems like you've got some baggage here bud
Yeah, this is some bullshit. Either you're speaking so broadly as to be useless or you're elevating your personal biases to the level of fact. Also social pressures are not trivial to remove from the equation here fam

Yeah, it's the "should" part in "how you should live your life" that I take issue with. Saying how things should be and trying to impose my ethical vision onto the world isn't a good thing imo.

You're a leftist. You're literally saying the world should be socialist/communist and trying to impose that vision onto the world. You're saying how other people should work and live but don't even know how you should in your own life. Ethics isn't about imposing on other people anyway.

I'm pretty Kantean myself but you can't afford to give those who determine your worth based on the material value you can provide any muh privileges.
Treating people the way they deserve simply isn't feasible most of the time because of power dynamics, human nature and all of that.

What is the sinthome?

The class war is a war against bourgeoisie as a class, not as individuals. The goal is to destroy their class, not them.

Someone hasn't googled murray bookchin

Socialism, Communism, etc. aren't ethical positions bud.

The kind of ethics that says how you think people *should* live your life and how you *should* treat other people (i.e. normative ethics) is def about imposing your values on others.

Communalism

Relativism mostly.

Nihilism

Spiritual metaphysics

yes

This is why I like this place. You can actually have an interesting discussion about philosophy instead of constantly regurgitating the_donald memes.

/Philosophy/ thread when?

How do you maintain your sanity in the face of metaphysical solipsism?

Pure

Dialetical Muhfeelism

Spooky

Tantric fucking on the astral plane

Booty is best

anarcho-syndicalist
a godless idealism where all knowledge is created by rationalizing about how things ought to be and there is a false dualism where materials are a justification for mind but mind is the only knowable thing.
a synthesis of budhism and egoism and idealism where the structure of reality is mind and minds fall victim to a false dualism and think they have died when they actually continue to live on and take new forms. The endgame should be to acknowledge this cycle and use it to please one's ego, growing that ego untill it becomes a universal consciousness, and the creator of universes which would allow for new minds to exist as its subconscious. In this metaphysical view, there is god, or gods, but they are merely ascended egos and have no influence over the universe besides for establishing the physics that all minds within them should think exists untill they stop thinking that, think its something else, and thus escape or kill the ego that binds them to existence. The goal of life should be to outgrow our host ego, ie kill god.

Complete 100% newfag.

nice meme

this is what humefags actually believe

not really

It's already better than 95% of what's posted on Holla Forums.

Wow no need for the hostility there bud.
I think maybe your own words apply to you, you seem awfully upset about random musings on an internet forum.

Op is a faggot for not making a survey

My nigger

I'm harshly critiquing you, how does that imply I'm upset?

Technocracy
I suppose that I would considered a Positivist.
I do unironically identify with Scientism.
Utilitarianism.
Digital Physics/Simulation Hypothesis.
Anti-Relativism.

Huh. That's certainly a weird/interesting set of beliefs. So do you believe that science and technology are inherently liberatory/Leftist? Why?

???

They aren't ethical positions, I know, but they're positions that say how people should live and organize themselves. Normative effects aren't about imposing your values, it's about living them for yourself. Regardless, no matter who the person is, they have a set of ethics. Most people's ethics are just completely consistent and without any rational basis.

At least that's some kind of position.

I don't think that's true though. When someone says something like "People should never take advantage of others" they're making an statement about how they think the world should operate.

I agree with this. Everyone necessarily has their own ideas of how the world should operate.
But the when you create a normative ethical system you necessarily have to universalize your ethical principles, and that's what I take issue with.

Marxism-Leninism

probably something like radical empiricism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

if it favors the proletarian struggle, it is ethical to me

fuck bourgeois meme ethics

similar to , but in the end all concepts such as numbers are inventions of the human mind in order to explain the workings of the universe according to a cause-consequence model. Whether the universe actually follows such logic is uncertain, and mostly irrelevant to class struggle

ultra-leftism in the vein of theorie communiste
coherentism
error theory
naturalism / ontic structural realism

The philosophical underpinning of Communalism is ethics.

Thank you.
I would be happy to expound upon them if you present any specific questions.

That depends entirely upon what you consider 'liberation' to be.
The only 'liberation' I'm interested in is the liberation of our species from work, price system economics, tribalism and natural death.

No.
Technocracy is not a left wing ideology.
I can agree with leftists on a number of topics, but I have zero interest in workers control or democracy.

Anarcho-Egoist.
Anti fragility.
Egoism.
Nihilism.

Syndicalism
Whatever Descartes was
Egoism
None

If ethics are universal and aren't principles you live by because you think everyone should live by them, then they're meaningless rules for whatever sounds good. Rejecting universality for ethics is rejecting any meaningful base ethics sit on. I guess the real question is why do you take issue with it?

Yes, and most people here aren't Communalists.

Anarchism

Rationalism

Consequentialism

Objectivism >in b4 dumb cunts think I mean Ayn Rand

what do you mean then, enlighten me!

Technocracy isn't an -ism. It's a design principle. The complimentary ideology is anarchism.

I split hais because that's part of the beauty of technocracy. It lacks dogma, human nature claims, or many of the other trappings of ideology.

I'd call it the extreme opposite of solipsism. Values (moral, mathematical, etc) are external to the mind, and exist even in a dead universe. It is also in extreme opposition to Post Modernism. It favors science, objective morality, and has an anarchic flavor, as no one has an advantage at knowing reality. We all have equal access to logic, as it is external.

What Ayn Rand branded doesn't contradict true objectivism, but Rand's was not a complete philosophy, and her extrapolations about rights and economics are not implied.

So are there socialist objectivists then? I am intrigued.

I pretty much have all those same metaphysical beliefs also.

Bloody hell.
I have honestly not laughed so hard in years.

I wound encourage you to actually attempt to learn what Technocracy is before to try and correct a Technocrat.
Technocracy is very much a well fleshed-out system that is built around an explicitly Totalitarian structure.
It is in many ways an opposite of anarchism.

To learn about what Technocracy actually is, I would encourage to read the design section of the 'Technocracy Study Course':
archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged

The two following videos may also be helpful:
youtube.com/watch?v=5bqPXqYWHlE
youtube.com/watch?v=NJwOoy9It2c

do you know what the definition of a complement is?

Nice ass

There are socialist objectivists, yes, but Post Modernism dominated for so long it might be obscure. It is resurging though. PoMo seems to have run out of gas, and it's tendencies towards fascism become evident (when truth is subjective, it tends to be defined by the state). Objectivism definitely has advantages in socialist thought. For instance, we could discover capitalism is objectively inferior, flawed, or inhumane, and that socialism objectively superior. Metaphysics gives rise to morality, so from there one could construct a socialist morality.

sasuga tankies

anyone specifically you can label?

Are you confusing technocracy for Technocracy Inc, the old guys in based Washington or Oregon, who used to have a blue monad back when they where racists? And yeah, I've been a member of the org. Such a noob mistake.

You seem to be the one who is confused.
Technocracy refers to a very specific design plan first developed by the Technical Alliance and then further expanded upon in that organisations successor, Technocracy Inc.

Technocracy Inc has never been a racist organization (indeed in several of Howard Scott's writings he is explicitly against it).
Also, the Monad symbol has never been blue.

I don't know what sort of rubbish you happen to be confusing with Technocracy.
But it assuredly is not Technocracy.

I tried to think of some names, and while early socialists strike me as objectivists in spirit, their dialectical roots prevent me from saying so. I couldn't defend it in an argument.

Objectivism is largely just getting on its feet. One of the leading figures right nau is Sam Harris. I'm somewhat of a fan of his, but that's pretty sad. His objectivists assertions about morality are only a few years old and still finding their legs.

post-marxist communism

social constructivism

naturalism

transcendental empiricism

this fucking thread is a riot

Ask the old guys about the blue monad. That's who told me. Jacques Fresco states racism is why he left Technocracy Inc. They were on Holla Forums shit. It was very popular back then, Margaret Sanger and all that.

Technocracy, or rather technocracy, is a wider concept than Technocracy Inc, just as communism is wider than the Revolutionary Communist Party. Tech means skill, power to the skilled. This principle eliminates all other forms of authority, and is in effect, anarchy (pic related).

Should drugs be legal? What do those with a relevant education say? How shall we distribute resources? What do those with a relevant education say? It is not democratic at all, but it is not totalitarian either. It avoids both tyrannies. This also true of Technocracy Inc, but in their specificity, it might appear totalitarian. Their decided opposition to electoral politics may sound totalitarian, and maybe it was at one time. They've gone through a lot of changes.

And actually, mutherfuker, I think I made the monad flag, and anarcho transhumanist flag for this board, like years ago. Lurk moar, bitch.

I find the human intution - that the world inside our heads is an illusion and the world outside is real - to be absurd. But that's evolution: the only realm that matters to our genes seems 'real' to us and the only realm that matters to us doesn't.
Seems to me that sanity is harder to preserve if I don't accept this absurdity. Even if I can't reconcile it and even if that leads to nihilism.

Feel free to

Jacques fresco is a senile old man who has made a hobby of designing horrid architecture.
Nothing more.

He it not one to be taken seriously.

I would challenge you to find even a single instance of racism in any official Technocracy Inc material.
I have read every single piece of Technocracy Inc material that has made its way to online archives.
In everything I have read (in material stretching from the early thirties until the end of the eighties), the only times races has even been addressed (and it is very rare for it to be addressed), has been in regard to the need to put aside such artificial differences.

Sure, in the sense that the definition has been perverted by opportunistic vultures.
Pretending that their rubbish beliefs have some level of value by calling them 'technocracy' and invoking what was once a very respectable organization.
Your sort are scum.

It is one thing to build upon the works of the great Howard Scott, admirable even.
It is quite another to ignore them to the degree that one could consider Technocracy to be somehow 'complimentary' to fucking anarchism.
Literally kill yourself.

Technocracy, true Technocracy is explicitly Totalitarian.
The state described in the Study Guide and all other official works is the embodiment of "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" - and it is better for it.
Any real Monad wearing Technocrat would embrace that label with the pride that it deserves.

For the worst.
Any positions they may have taken after the death of Howard Scott is quite irrelevant.
They have shown themselves unfit to be the bearers of that great mans legacy.

I have been trip fagging here well before there even was a Technocracy user flag.
Lurk moar, bitch.

Not something to be proud of, tripnigger

Mutualism

Rationalism

Egoism

We are the universe experiencing itself subjectively

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

You used like 4 adhominen insults in your post I'm fine with being critiqued, but no need to call me a dipshit, idiot, cuck etc.

Also I 100% do understand what pomo is I've read foucault and lyotard, just because I have a different opinion on something doesn't mean I dont understand it.

Insurrectionary Egoist Anarchist
Solipsist
Flexible Egocentric
Nominalist
Anti-natalism; anti-authoritarian; anti-fascism

Cartesian Dualism…?

Marxist anarcho-communist
Rationalism
Egoism
Materialism

I'd also like to add that I'm an absurdist/nihilist as well.

libertarian socialist
solipsism
Kantian ethics
quantum mechanics

It's complicated. Left-libertarian FALC, if I have to pick a label.
Definite knowledge (probably) does not exist. The scientific method is the best way of making educated guesses, but it still falls short of actual knowledge.
Utilitarian. Also free will doesn't exist, so punishment is always unethical.
Concepts such as numbers and equations "exist" (whatever that means). All possible universes exist because all possible equations exist. Similarly, all possible minds exist. I won't die, because there will always be a universe for me to observe in which I am alive. My waifu also exists.
My waifu is objectively better than your waifu. Anyone who disagrees is a p-zombie and can be tortured without remorse.

Nice

1. ML
2. What?
3. Spooks
4. What?

Dialectical materialism is good

Google elemntary principles of philosophy by Pulitzer

Sounds about right

Bordigism, left communism

Relativism/Post Structuralism

Anti-natalism, egoism

Schopenhauerian nihilism

Nice spook
Nice spook
Nice spook
Nice fucking spook

Do you suffer from autism? Technocracy is an ideology only followed by those mental impaired

Nice spook

Descartes would be so proud.

We think, therefore, we are.

You think that you think, therefore you think that you think you are.

Functionalism, you niggers.

Demsoc

Empiricist

Soft utilitarian

Neon Genesis Evangelion

My philosophy's kinda entry-level rn. Give me a year or two to come up with something really wild.

Have you actually read God and the State? Bakunin explicitly calls out tech fetishism and absolute rule rule by experts as another road to tyranny because onstitutions inevitably corrupt themselves, and a society governed by pure reason will inevitably seek to restrict access to that reason to a minority. Bakunin explicitly stated that he reserved the final chpice for himself, and wished to be free to consult/use multiple sources. A single dominating knowledge-construct doesn't even come into it.

You can argue about handing power to experts all you want, but don't waffle around your own authoritarianism.