Posts
Comments
I'm guessing either you're an aspie or you feign curiosity to yourself because you think it's a trait intelligent people have (maybe both).
It's pointless to ask question you don't really want to know the answers to. Even if you do reatain it chances you wont get much out of it, other than the knowledge of someone's opinion of the said thing and you'll be focusing less on the things you want to know. You're always going to get more out of something if you have a genuine interest in it.
I sometimes do is to try to answer the question myself and present one or more answers as my "guesses" and ask if one of them is correct
I'm pretty sure this is what normal people do. If someone interprets it as you trying to make them look bad it's probably due to the fact that you're socially unaware. The best thing you can probably do is just learn not to care about their reaction
Toyota makes cars, their macro optimization is already set. Imagine if they were using something other than the assembly line and just focused on micro optimizations within an outdated macro. They would run out of business within a year whereas if they used outdated micro optimzations they'd just experience a relatively mild loss
The logic of the context is just as important as the logic it contains.
I don't see why.
The post on the importance of macro-optimization over micro basically explains it. Macro optimization creats the context for micro optimization.
I get it man, and I absolutely agree.
As a quick sidenote, the fact that there are patterns in micro functions that contain answers to the macro is something that things like Freemasonry are built off of (from what I've read of it at least). The first degree itself is about using different mason tools symbolically to help with everyday life.
Anyway, yeah, there is a heirarchy of logic that we should take into account so that we can learn what to apply ourselves to in the first place, and from there how to apply. You're definitely right in saying learning to be social is an important semi-macro application. Money may be the most tangible form of power, but people (the ones who give money its power in the first place) are the biggest source of power.
To clear everything up: The first in the op argues morality as logic because it isn't logic "all the way down". Yuan is saying that all the way down doesn't matter because it works within its own context and that, that is all that matters. Obviously this is wrong; creating a context just so you can work within it to prove your point is known as a strawman. The logic of the context is just as important as the logic it contains.
How did this merrit negative points
That's a strawman argument. You're implying your idea is the only on she'd ever hear. If that same highschool dropout (not sure why she has to be a girl you feminist) were to hear more ideas on the subject, with her opinion conforming with the winning argument, eventually she'd land on the correct one. I'm sure there are a few accepted incorrect scientific theories running around at the moment, but we have to accept them while they're the best we have in order to come to the next logical conclusion.
You're probably right about the subjective/relative thing. He admits that things like this are contextually based while being marxist enough to say that the context itself doesn't matter, only that the logic is able to work within it.
Ethics are inherently logical, not physical. Obviously you can't shoot it but you can disprove their value easily enough by attacking what they're contingent on. Not all logic is created equal, and don't bring evolution into it. You can just as easily say that this is the common belief imprinted onto us by society only because the masters society us to be more easy to rule. Considering many other things, this is probably the case.
So according to you morality is not only relative..it's subjective. Interesting But in this article I'm pretty sure he was addressing the commonly agreed upon 'most good for the most people' morality. I'd go so far as to say that, that is morality.
Culture isn't biological, though I get what he means, culture is an inherent byproduct of intelligent life. But culture itself is an axiom built on a singular intelligence. This singular, relative intelligence comes first. You don't experience through the minds of society, but only your own mind. Think about the idiocy in your own mind putting the minds of others before itself. It makes no logical sense. If you want to argue of a "greater good", which for the most part is fluff, it's basically arguing from a hivemind point of view. A mind coming from all collectively Let's take a look at this mind: it's composed of a number of very different minds. To any sane person this mind would appear batshit crazy Now imagine of one mind took over all of the others in this hivemind. That's sanity
No matter which point you argue from, logic is nothing but a higher form of selfishness
I generally get what you mean
I only experience from my own experience Therefore other people and their experience should only matter insofar as they affect my own
This simple rationality throws away just about all philosophy of morality, because morality is irrelevant