TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:47 am
You did call it.
So how come you can’t call the fact that if we don’t get off this planet we will go the way of the dinosaurs?
Irrespective of how much “truth” and “knowledge” we acquire.
Because you are ignorant of ergodic theory.
Entropy - you see
If you can’t put it to practice your knowledge is worth nothing
Ridiculous
If we can't survive on our own planet, then we won't survive anywhere else either. You know, probabilities. Our best chance is, by far, here on Earth. Humans evolved for millions of years to be part of exactly this environment, this planet.
Okay we may need to leave it in the distant future, like a few hundred million years or something, but that's hardly a concern now. If we'll survive that long we'll have technology that is unimaginable right now.
Starting to think that whoever created a playpen for herding philosophers (to keep them away from really important decision-making) was a fucking genius!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:58 am
Starting to think that whoever created a playpen for herding philosophers (to keep them away from really important decision-making) was a fucking genius!
And let them think they are “intellectuals” too!
Fucking brilliant!
Or you're just an idiot who doesn't consider that some decision can't be implemented right now. Your wishful thinking doesn't make you better than the "philosophers".
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:58 am
Starting to think that whoever created a playpen for herding philosophers (to keep them away from really important decision-making) was a fucking genius!
And let them think they are “intellectuals” too!
Fucking brilliant!
Or you're just an idiot who doesn't consider that some decision can't be implemented right now. Your wishful thinking doesn't make you better than the "philosophers".
But the STRATEGY going forward can be decided upon. Beaded on our OBJECTIVE moral goal of avoiding extinction!
You have been too busy looking for truth to to remember your grandmoter’s wisdom: never put all your eggs in one basket! And we don’t have another one...
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:19 pm
Of course we "should" invest tax money into it. Why state the obvious.
Most people don't care about this however, and that's not the fault of philosophy.
Have you met average people before?
So why do philosophers CHOOSE to muddy the waters by claiming objective morality does not exist?!? On this VERY forum.
THAT is the fault of philosophy! It is a truly harmful idea!
Pfft they don't choose it, there is no choice. All morality IS ultimately made up.
But most people already agree that we should survive. It's in our genes. Most of them still refuse to do anything about it. The world is governed mainly by the psychopathic games of geopolitics, not a unified attempt for survival.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:28 pm
Pfft they don't choose it, there is no choice. All morality IS ultimately made up.
But most people already agree that we should survive. It's in our genes. Most of them still refuse to do anything about it. The world is governed mainly by the psychopathic games of geopolitics, not a unified attempt for survival.
Yes. So is the word "objectivity" We MADE IT UP. Out of pragmatic necessity. But within the framework we have invented - we are perfectly capable of making decisions and reaching consensus given the standards we have all agreed to.
And yet - philosophy doesn't want to. Despite best efforts for 3 weeks. Reaching consensus with a philosopher is infuriatingly difficult.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:28 pm
Pfft they don't choose it, there is no choice. All morality IS ultimately made up.
But most people already agree that we should survive. It's in our genes. Most of them still refuse to do anything about it. The world is governed mainly by the psychopathic games of geopolitics, not a unified attempt for survival.
Yes. So is the word "objectivity" We MADE IT UP. Out of pragmatic necessity. But within the framework we have invented - we are perfectly capable of making decisions and reaching consensus given the standards we have all agreed to.
And yet - philosophy doesn't want to. Despite best efforts for 3 weeks. Reaching consensus with a philosopher is infuriatingly difficult.
Your framework is too irrational, so why agree with it.
And philosophy can't make decisions for humanity. Is philosophy the One World Government?
My framework is battle-tested (figuratively and literally) against entropy - real-world complex systems. Applied science, risk management and decision-making affecting the well-being of millions of people! Your framework has been "battle-tested" on a forum.
As far as I am concerned - rationality is risk management.
