Milky Jade

I know why people dislike the idea of knowledge, and urge to vanquish it. Knowledge gives you something clear. It gives you something intelligible. It gives you something absolute and incontrovertible. Which also means.. that people, should they accept knowledge as possible, cannot persist to "be for everything". Their basic concerns, gasp, invalid. What now? The pretext for their movement is what you said it is: based on the assumption that scepticism furthers our understanding, and any claim to knowledge is undercutting it... But it is the other way around, love. Scepticism is not " well, i'm going to use my mind to the fullest of its capabilities, lead the march of science, while humbly swinging the banner of guesswork ". It is in principle the attempt to edify an either-or - a false dichotomy - between itself and basically, nonsense. Any claim to knowledge is false because it is a claim to knowledge - including that punch I just threw in your face, you also have to stay sceptic about it. Shame on you, if you retaliate and take your revenge on someone you can neither prove has hit you, nor prove he even exists... Another prominent pretext of scepticism is the "questioning" of everything, as if there were merit badges waiting for anyone smart enough to question something. It's all fun, at first. But once you start questioning your own mind's validity (which scepticism stands accused of), you are drawn into an infinite regression, a void you cannot escape from. I don't think you have to do this. Make yourself aware that you are typing on a keyboard that directs impulses to your computer which are being converted to commands made visible on a screen consisting of a million-odd lights and are transmitted across the world via a network of cables and satellites, to be faithfully relayed to a person you have never seen in your life.

See - Kant managed to creep into modern philosophies, infecting people, and at the end of the day, even with a considerable contingent of people not having read more than a few pages of him, declare happily that their reasoning is invalid because we aren't omniscient. You did the same: You've already assumed that your perception is invalid. Now, Kant's view is that you can't prove the correctitude of your perception - of any consciousness, in fact - and of existence and identity. Therefore, he concluded, knowledge must come without a form of cognition. But I'll choose to harp on that: Why do you assume that you don't see things how they are? Bold italic underlined: The way we view everything is restricted by logic. Well, I.. agree? Because people don't typically use it.. in fact, don't most people operate on intuition and faith? Logic restricts us because it 'believes' in causality. It believes in consistency. You are free to contests these principles... just as you are free to assert that knowledge is impossible - but for the dignity of us all, don't say that you know...

You already seem to understand what Kant is trying to do, though.. as far as I could see? His split of the phenomenal world and the noumenal world - in other words, the unreal world and the unknowable world.. It should be clear to anyone that Kant is not a big fan of reason, and denies the validity of it. According to him, all epistemology is false. Everything has to be taken on faith. Reason has to be thrown out to make room for it. Why? Because our consciousness is delimited to specific means in which to function, given no choice to function in another way than in which they do. He divides it therefore into 'categories'. The fact that your eyes grant you the ability to see, according to Kant, is why you actually can't see at all. Just randomly open any of his works, and try not to vomit.

To not agree means to not approve, and what you don't approve of, you don't like. This is the base reason why I suspected "liking philosophy for effect". However, you can go ahead and point out the more agreeable parts. You could point out the poetic value, if you want. But if you disagree with a work's intellectual fruit and ideologies, don't say that you like it on that basis. You won't get away with it. Funny you should bring this up.. despite my obvious dislike for the kantian philosophy, I'd suspect myself of being a wee bit arrogant to not have a book or two of his on my shelf. As for the noumenon? Yes... the idea of 'superior' truth. Of unknowable truth. Can anyone ever call themselves intellectually serious and not contest this idea on the basis that it's built upon?

Have you philosophers ever had this thought: "whenever someone starts off with 'I enjoy multiple contradictory ideologies as well as this and that philosopher', they should know that they kind of appear to be liking philosophy "for effect"? Because if you did, you should know that you kind of appear to be liking philosophy "for effect". I don't mean to sound mean, it's just what my experience tells me. Because here's the thing - in order for a philosophy to work, you have to prepare yourself to predicate your basic choices upon its tenets and basal assumptions. If you don't (which is undoubtedly the case if you subscribe to more than one philosophy), you'd stand accused of not giving a fuck about it, and I would not enjoy seeing that. Philosophers construct their philosophies. Anyone of you could subsume their validations for their philosophy, had you read a single article or book published by them. That's what I'm interested in: Can you validate any philosopher's philosophy? Wouldn't you like to do that? For starters?

All discussion pertinent to this topic belongs in here (obviously) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/us-cites-end-to-cia-ruses-using-vaccines.html?_r=0 This practise, using inoculation against hepatitis B as a pretext, was designed to discover a "DNA trace" to Osama Bin Laden. Dr. Shakil Afridi conducted a vaccination campaign for women between 15 and 49 years. A cut on the skin will first be made for a blood test - which is then tested for hepatitis, and no vaccination is no longer possible. That was the trick to get ahold of the blood. They wanted to grab at least a Bin Laden child in the house to determine, at least, that a direct relative lived there. Needless to say, 8 health workers were killed by the end of 2012. Come to that, our genius CIA worker actually only issued one instead of the three required hepatitis-B vaccines - which is actually contraproductive to the immunization of humans (in this case, human children) against this virus. Well, it's all up there to check it out.

From where do you procure 15KGB anyway?

@, It has never been conclusively proven that a 'subconscious' exists. It's this little plaything of psychologists that take its existence for granted.

1. Yes. 2. "k", as far as I'm aware, stands for "kilo"(from χίλιοι which is the greek for "thousand"). (SI) As for bits and bytes, the capital binary prefix "K" denotes a value of "1024". 15k gigs means 15*1000*GB = 15000GB. 3. I think you're misunderstanding HTML is used to structure content CSS is used to format the structured content

So then, am I to understand this is the hipster thread?

What can you expect from people with three-digit-IQs?

Who's a good pony? Who's a good pony? Wai wuv wuuuuuu

That is a good observation, thank you for making it. In order for you to tell good from evil, right from wrong, we have to first know what it means for something to be either of those. First of all, let me state that there is no such thing as "inherently good/evil". It's a contradiction in terms. I'll soon come back to this. "Right and wrong" are concepts in reference to chosen values. If that chosen value is "freedom", then everything which furthers your freedom is "right" and everything which diminishes it is "wrong". There is a large accent on "chosen". That's correct: "Right" and "wrong" presuppose a choice. Where no choice exists, something cannot be either for or against something, that is to say, something cannot be intended to further or destroy a chosen reference value. According to the philosophy I subscribe to, "life" is the primary value, and "freedom" is a direct corollary. If you want to make a statement about right or wrong, it is implicit in its nature that you need a system that is built upon your liberty to be an "evaluator". If someone makes a choice for you, then it is no account of what you did right or wrong, but it is certainly an encroachment of the value of freedom, and thereby wrong by necessity. Now back to inherency: If you wrapped your head around the above, then it's time to explain what inherency means. Inherency means to import some property by compulsory means. E.g.: "the army is inherently bad because they are trained to kill". Inherency presupposes no choice (re: compulsory). Where there exists no choice, you cannot by definition tell right from wrong, because only our choicemaking ability can have "for" or "against" (a value) as a consequence. Fire and knives are, similiarly, inable to make a choice. So are all inanimate objects, and all other animals. And no matter to what benefit or ail fire/knives are used, they will never be moral. Inanimate objects are choice-free and therefore not in the province of morality. The user of them can be (im)moral: You can cook meals to further the life of the ones you care about, or you can set fire to orphans. In neither case is fire the saint or offender. It is strictly contingent on the acting, choice-making party, that is, the cook or the arsonist. They do tell a great deal, and that is exactly why I'm concerned for today's policies. Taxation has benefits and downsides. It is beneficial in that you can have street damage repaired from the comfort of your armchair without having to arrange a meeting with the township, bottom line: have others arrange these kinds of necessary investments for you. It is detrimental in that you repose your trust to authority that doesn't need that much money to begin with, does (excuse me) fuck-all, and pumps an unnecessary large contingent of taxpayer's money into arbitrary institutions and the military. The problem: the government doesn't cost that much. Why are they driving these sorts of cars? The fundamentals of taxation are built on the tenets of socialism: The basal assumptions of socialism are assumed in the following, that we cannot be counted upon to do the right thing. It assumes that a government of moral betters is needed to impose law that will elicit the morally approved actions that people are too selfish to be expected to do freely. It insists that force and guilt are the motivators needed to weave the fabric of a proper society. And the champions of socialism declare that it is the banner under which the good human beings must march. Remember that inherency and morality are mutually exclusive. To have important, impactful choices be made by political surrogates cannot be encouraged as virtuous. I abhor socialistic principles for this reason: they subordinate freedom and choice, (re: indespensable prerequisites for morality) to compulsion and a collective, a "greater good", in the name of moral sanity and empathy. It is an inversion of what it intends to be by definition and I resent it massively for that reason. That's already what I hoped to achieve (though I hoped to resolve this quicker). You already show a degree of understanding exceeding that of certain posters I've clashed with. If you're asking for transparency in government, well.. I might go into this topic later, but for now, this'll have to do. It's been a pleasure.

I know that you can't relay an inflection with text messages, but know that was at least being half-sarcastic. There is a reason we put down wild animals that pose a threat to peace and civilization. I think a delayed reaction to a murderer would be vigilantism (let's say: delayed to ensure a sufficient amount of time for revenge planning), and I think that death sentences are barbaric, but I can't deny the moral fortitude of self-defence, either.

This is really along the lines of saying "fire is bad because as it creates, so can it destroy". Similar to knives: Have we ever blamed knives for any wounds they inflicted? Am I to really ask you: Were knives created for a constructive purpose? Are knives and fire therefore evil? Are they a cause for evil? Using this tautology on money, I will leave to you. I think I have nothing more to say, it's all up there for you to read. All I really wanted to make clear is that issues can be either resolved by being rational about them, or you can shift the blame from the perpetrators (humans) onto their tools (money) and not get anywhere by the end of the day. I'm a fan of reaching constructive ends. That is why I really, really, wanted to first make this clear and inductive to everypony.

Now we are getting to the core of the issue. The questions are: What are the proper functions of a government? Is involuntary taxation a way to solve problems efficiently? The questions to you specifically are: Why should a government be entrusted with the responsibility of spending your money? You said it yourself, I think, unintentionally... you wouldn't even trust me to do that for you. And you are suspicious of a government's spending policies because obviously, problems aren't* being removed, but created. I'll leave these questions in the open. To answer them myself would create another wall of text I don't have the time to create, but in the meantime... well, you can attempt to. The answers are pretty much implicit should you have read any of my former posts.

What? Yes, I daresay I have a degree of insight into economy sufficient enough for sophisticated discussion. No, the etymology of economics is not interesting to the discussion at hand. Repeating myself is stupid, but once more: Greed is a prerequisite for creating goods and services. We wouldn't advance from where we are if all we were concerned about was feeding ourselves and keeping ourselves warm. Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The lowermost castes can barely be resolved with anti-selfish systems (like socialism), how do you expect to uppermost to be resolved without a great deal of economic greed? Surplus is what makes progress possible. Our fundamental needs are not driven by greed, but greed and selfish interests (such as food and water) go hand-in-hand in this sense: they are both direct corrolaries of human interest. Computers and technology, quality of life, it all needed a wherewithal to fund their inception and development. Humans typically work for more than they can eat - they demonstrate a very real interest in progression, in making life even simpler, raising their standard of living and quality, and tend towards a more comfortable future. Every statement about "greed" underlies the presupposing question: of benefit to whom? and to what purpose? Even if you accused me misrepresentatingly of white collar devotion: What is the direct consequence of someone trying to amass more money they will ever be able to spend in their entire life? Huurrr... well, it's jobs. At least we can agree that the amount of economical power you (would, in a free market,) possess is directly proportional to the amount of jobs you create to achieve that power. Well, if you cared to read any of the above or of what I said in my last post, *or* of how I spawned this discussion in the first place (StormBolt's suggestion that money is a cause, and not a tool), then you should be left in no doubt as to what I think is true. I'm saying that money is a direct consequence of humans wanting to deal with each other. Humans wants to deal with each other because there exists billions, and among those billions are some that are more proficient at something than you are, and therefore we can create a society in which all goods and services are accessible to all people regardless of how much they could perform themselves. That is the proper function of money, to make human interaction seamless and time-independent. I'm saying that that is in implicitness in saying "money is evil". To say that money is evil is to say that humans interaction is evil.

False dichotomy much? Greed, in the economical sense, is a prerequisite for goods and services to be created. Tell me, what economy doesn't run on greed? If it wasn't for the healthy and personal interest to create products in order to trade them for something you want (re: greed, though if you're willing to use the more absurd definition that greed is tantamount to theft and constitutes an exuberant interest* in goods and market share)? It is literally what creates jobs. In reference to what I said earlier: Unless you want to make it painfully obvious to anybody that you think money can only be created at the loss of another, then we're talking about the same thing, right? Where money (value) is created, there was productivity. The incentives to produce something are firstly governed by the nature of our economics (we might as well say economics is part of our nature), and secondly, made possible by money. So if "greed" means "wanting to make tonnes of money", then I really, really don't see what is bad or destructive about it. No... no, and I relay this to anybody. I don't think human productivity is destructive. Is that now clear?

@, Instead of repeating myself, I'll refer you to my (regrettably) long reply I directed at StormBolt. there isn't really much to add, though it's slightly entertaining that people didn't see through the rhetoric of my question. I wanted to induce StormBolt into my logic, little by little, by answering the important questions and see where the problem seems to lie.

I think I made myself expressly clear with my last post, but you ask me a good question. Yes, I think greed is a good thing.

Well, you answered my question anyway. See, in order for you to make a statement of money which is of interest, I first need to know if your understanding of what money is, is sound in the first place. I've had the same concerns for another thread I've read yesterday. If money is bad, why don't we get rid of it? And why do you continue to deal with others in terms of money (read: a good thing)? Since these are obviously contradictory, one of the premises has to be wrong. Do you know why I think that money isn't bad? Well.. I think the concern of the people that blame money is real, but they are blaming the tool instead of the carpenter. The question is: In what way can a tool be responsible for the bumbling of carpenters if they're being used for the construction thereof? I don't think anything is heaven, but I do recognize the importance of currency. It is a utility and also a reminder: that there are working persons willing to deal with each other for mutual benefit, because if people wouldn't be keen on dealing with each other, then money would have no reason to exist. So... if money is the root of all evil, then what is the root of all money? Money represents a value. Not any specific value, but more like the "promise" that it represents some value, so long someone is willing to exchange it for other values, giving it a personal value. It is what allows us to be a step-up from trade and exchange. It is what allows us to not trade 10 pairs of shoes for a washing machine, it is what allows us to save up for something that you couldn't've attained per trade, because the momentary needs and wants of people are unpredictable and your 10 pairs of shoes are prone to lose all their value in a few year's time. It is what allows you to go to universities. The values that money represents are the ends of a production and the means to trade it for other people's results of productivity. It is the middle man of cooperation. To reach constructive ends, you need to be able to offer your product and trade it for something that you want, but cannot produce yourself. To say that money is evil because of the specific wants of people is shifting the blame onto something you and I consider to be constructive. It would be to blame human productivity and their tools of trade (you know, that thing which made that box of dancing lights you use to communicate your messages to me possible). And, sorry, if I may - if that is what you're saying, then I haven't the foggiest idea where you're coming from.