modern_prometheus's recent activity
-
Comment on Hi, how are you? Mental health support and discussion thread (June 2024) in ~health.mental
-
Comment on What are you supposed to be doing right now that you're not doing? in ~talk
modern_prometheus LinkLiving.Living.
-
Comment on What creative projects have you been working on? in ~creative
modern_prometheus Link ParentThe industry leading mascot might just be my favorite part of the project. What a lovely blobfish.It comes armed with a wide range of processors, a lit mapping language, stateless windowed processing capabilities and an industry leading mascot.
The industry leading mascot might just be my favorite part of the project. What a lovely blobfish.
-
Comment on France re-elects Emmanuel Macron with 58% of votes in ~society
modern_prometheus Link ParentAs a relief living in Macron who's never been to Le Pen I still feel France. Wait...As a relief living in Macron who's never been to Le Pen I still feel France.
Wait...
-
Comment on How to want less in ~life
modern_prometheus Link ParentIt seems people in this thread have already decided they don't like what I have to say, so while this may be pointless I still think it's only fair and courteous for me to try to address some...It seems people in this thread have already decided they don't like what I have to say, so while this may be pointless I still think it's only fair and courteous for me to try to address some points of contention.
Why? I don't follow why striving for e.g. contentment would stem from a "misunderstanding of everything". That seems like a very broad statement.
It is meant to be. Please realize that I'm talking in a much more expansive sense than the individual.
At its core the justification for it will be some kind of value judgement like "satisfaction is better than new experiences". That is something people can reasonably have different opinions about. Some might feel they've already had enough excitement and thus agree with it. Some might feel they haven't had the chance to realize some of their dreams. Dismissing the first groups value judgements as nihilistic needs some form of justification.
I can agree that in the context of the author's individual life their shift of focus into the "internal" rather than the "external" is at least somewhat conducive to a healthier perspective and I'm not trying to take that away from them. However, the reason I quoted the last paragraph is to show that while they try to appear nuanced throughout the article their conclusion still ends up giving them away. Qualifying our constant striving as an "affliction", "a problem", "vestigial", "[something to which we're] doomed", "the dissatisfaction curse", "a lifefong battle against the inner caveman" is an incredibly negative characterization of our existence. It certainly doesn't sound like the talk of a healhty spirit but rather someone who's grown weary of life, for life is that constant striving, and that still wants to look at it as something that should be, if not somehow "solved" or "transcended", at least agressively tamed instead of embraced and expressed healthily.
Case in point:
These were the ideas I related to my daughter that spring afternoon. She listened with interest, then made a brief rejoinder. “So what you’re saying is that the secret to satisfaction is simple,” she said. “I just have to go against several million years of evolutionary biology,” plus the entirety of modern culture, “and I’ll be all set.”
The fact that this whole argument could be framed as "go[ing] against several million years of evolutionary biology" is the very problem. You are not a "victim" to evolution, you are evolution!
Satisfaction is not a prerequisite for life nor physical health (probably not mental health either).
Well... it actually is. I mean, sure, you don't specifically need a flashy car or to be famous (in fact such things can be so obscene that they become self-defeating) to be satisfied in a healthy sense, but some degree of satisfaction/contentment (inasmuch as there is in stability and safety) is absolutely crucial to our health and is exactly why human individuation exists in the first place! It's the same reason that people build homes instead of nakedly weathering the elements; when the walls that once constituted a home become a prison then you have a problem, but only then.
I think there is a valuable distinction to be made between intrinsic and external motivations. External ones require feedback from others (e.g. adulations, comparative wealth, or subservience of others). Intrinsic ones are known by you without needing to be validated by others (eg. mastering a skill). That said, we are social beings, so we do have a deep seated need to be validated by others. But, beyond a certain point it will become unfulfilling.
Isn't it ironic that we touched upon buddhism, which emphasizes the unity of life, but are still unable to abandon this rather relativistic stance overly concerned with individual, subjective viewpoints? At risk of sounding harsh, such thinking is incredibly unimaginative. I think Nietzsche put it very succintly:
"Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.—Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.
The gap between you and others is largely illusory, so to think this way is to miss the forest for the trees.
The author seem to ascribe to this out of experience. I.e. they had the respect of their peers, a good job etc etc, but noticed that even though they had achieved a lot of their dreams they were still feeling unfulfilled/unsatisfied. For them the answer was to want less and focus on what they judged to be truly meaningful and stop wasting energy on the things that only gave them a quick burst of dopamine...
To be fair I did come across as overly critical of the author. Then again, I actually think that given their story their paradigm shift is for the most part commendable. My grip is that to view the relationship between "external" and "internal" as an either-or (or where one ought to topple the other) instead of acknowledging that they are dispositions that exist in a superimposed state, are ultimately part of the same thing and are therefore inextricable is precisely the root of the insanity that drives people to become caricatures of themselves in the first place.
No worries, I assume good intentions from others and don't think your an ass :) Interesting to read your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I know I can come across as overbearing and exacting but I think topics like these demand it. For what it's worth, I don't think your perspective or those put forth by other commenters are "wrong" since they're all bound to have something valuable to offer/reveal, but even then we can still have some degree of perspectival objectivity.
-
Comment on How to want less in ~life
modern_prometheus Link ParentI could make a joke about your username, but I guess that would make me a huge ras. I guess you guys aren't ready for me yet.I could make a joke about your username, but I guess that would make me a huge ras.
I guess you guys aren't ready for me yet.
-
Comment on How to want less in ~life
modern_prometheus Link ParentI don't mean to be an ass as I understand you may be approaching this from a more regular practical perspective, but topics like these demand a level of nuance that can make even the bravest...I don't mean to be an ass as I understand you may be approaching this from a more regular practical perspective, but topics like these demand a level of nuance that can make even the bravest uncomfortable, so allow me to elaborate.
My point is that the very idea of "contenment", "satisfaction", "freedom" or whatever you want to call it as an absolute ideal is nihilistic and stems from a misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Of course it only makes sense that one would desire stability, implying at least some small sense of satisfaction, to the extent that it enables life and health. But the fact that it can only ever be provisional is not a bug in our brain's software, it is a feature. Now, the author does touch upon this, the problem is that it doesn't seem like they actually understand the implications nor what it ultimately means.
The distinction between "external" and "intrinsic" motivation in this context is the same kind of schizophrenic split that is found in the division some draw between "soul" or "mind" and "body". They're part of the same thing, not distinct entities, and it doesn't make sense to "favor one over the other". If you don't know both you know neither.
Now let's take a look at the articles concluding remarks:
Each of us can ride the waves of attachments and urges, hoping futilely that someday, somehow, we will get and keep that satisfaction we crave. Or we can take a shot at free will and self-mastery. It’s a lifelong battle against our inner caveman. Often, he wins. But with determination and practice, we can find respite from that chronic dissatisfaction and experience the joy that is true human freedom.
And there it is. The article is far from enlightening and is rather a regurgitation of the same crap a lot of people uncritically repeat. The christian/buddhist/stoic lie of absolute freedom/peace/self-mastery. We can't let Dionsysus in, in doing so we might just become what we really are. How scary!
P.S. Do note my use of the word "absolute". I do think there are virtues to be found in these perspectives, my point is that by imposing themselves as absolutes they become self-defeating.
-
Comment on How to want less in ~life
modern_prometheus LinkYou would think that a Harvard hotshot would be able to understand that a desire for a lack of desire is just a form of nihilism. Whether you take the naive approach and try to satiate it by...You would think that a Harvard hotshot would be able to understand that a desire for a lack of desire is just a form of nihilism. Whether you take the naive approach and try to satiate it by adding or take the converse approach and try to directly reduce it by assaulting it, if your goal is to erradicate it and be "free" then you've simply got a death wish, as you no longer affirm life. So, hey, I'm not judging as long as you don't lie about it and have the decency to do/say as you mean without dragging us healthy spirits into it. With that being said, I wish you all well and that you may have the strength to survive your own death(s), since ultimately we all have to die from time to time.
-
Comment on Is there a way to globally switch out a word in ~comp
modern_prometheus Link ParentlmaoAre you interested in building hyper-scale database services in my butt? Do you want to revolutionize the way people manage vast volumes of data in my butt? Do you want to have direct and immediate impact on hundreds of thousands of users who use AWS database services?
These are core systems development positions where you will own the design and development of significant system software components critical to our industry leading storage services architected for my butt. This is a hands on position where you will be asked to do everything [...]
lmao
-
Comment on Foreboding discovery of a main character’s past - in-depth book discussion and recommendations request in ~books
modern_prometheus LinkConsidering all of these: Oedipus Rex, Frankenstein and The Stranger. I know most people probably read these in high school or something, but if you've never gone past a surface reading I highly...Considering all of these:
- foreboding discovery of a main character’s past
- undercurrent of a great unused power or magic that has been long lost
Tone preference (lighthearted, grimdark, etc):
No strong preference, but mystical, ancient, and dark comes to mind.Complexity/depth level:
Preferably on the more intricate side.Oedipus Rex, Frankenstein and The Stranger.
I know most people probably read these in high school or something, but if you've never gone past a surface reading I highly recommend going through them. Engaging deeply with these texts to understand what they depict and how they relate to each other is very rewarding.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~humanities
modern_prometheus Link ParentAs you may be able to tell by now he was a guy who (like myself, if I may humbly remark) liked to torpedo things to the ground and build them back up better. So, in a reformed and more authentic...I don't think he was entirely atheist though was he? Not sure, he seemed a complex and contrary man from what I know.
As you may be able to tell by now he was a guy who (like myself, if I may humbly remark) liked to torpedo things to the ground and build them back up better. So, in a reformed and more authentic conception of "spirituality", he was very much spiritual.
nihilism
That's one I had in mind and one I'm weak against. I don't think I was being fair though and I do think it has some sort of benefit to its host. With nihilism comes a certain freedom and as Kurt Cobain once mentioned the 'comfort of being sad', there's a certain comfort that comes with it. Ideological nihilism seems fairly benign, one has less ideological motive, not necessarily less emotional motive. Not that motive is always a good thing. With bad ideologies come bad motives.
I mean, sure, nihilism can be comforting and freeing in the same way that death is, for it is death. And sometimes we have to capitulate to death to have any chace to fight against it. Sometimes we have to die to earn the right to live.
I guess I am that. I'm blue collar and at this level, the vulgarness of that kind of life, the cold morning weather, working out in the heat and the sun, banging boards and boards banging us, that vulgarity starts to inhabit the hosts. I hate it and hate being this way and being around vulgar people but I was too ADD for college, no other options. But it brings to mind environmental determinism in archeology, the notion that environment affects the culture and evolution of humanity as much as we affect it.
I understand the self-doubt and the difficulty in approaching these things. However, I think the fact that you're even here talking with me about this has to count for something. Don't you? You may have done more in the course of this conversation than most people, even "philosophers", do in their entire lifetime (grandiose as that may sound, hehe). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you feel truth brings reward? In that regard I feel science brings both more truth and reward in survival of humanity.
I wouldn't say it brings more truth but it can definitely bring more clarity, which is useful in guiding ourselves in the world and finding our own (perspectival) truth.
I'd rather retire into nihilism for the night and let my mind waste away listening to music. I tend to ruminate way too much and philosophy doesn't help. As Nietzsche apparently said, 'without music, life would be a mistake'.
I understand. The only advice I can give you is to try and fight for a fate that you can love, that's really all it takes. All in all, I wish you well my friend.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~humanities
modern_prometheus Link ParentYou're right, we can never say "yes" or "no" in an absolute sense... and that's the whole point! There is no absolute sense to be talked about, you'll never "validate" anything in this traditional...My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?
No.
W(sh)ouldn't you say 'probably not'? Because even though objectivism is debunked to a degree, it seems to me that you're still reliant upon it before you can entirely confirm anything, ala, Incompleteness Theorem. If knowledge is built from a foundation of axioms and those axioms are incomplete, you can't 100% confirm anything, a problem Godel worked on which coincided with his mental illness or some say drove him to it. So in a way, logic (built on some amount of objectivity) has to be used to validate subjectivity, paradoxically.
You're right, we can never say "yes" or "no" in an absolute sense... and that's the whole point! There is no absolute sense to be talked about, you'll never "validate" anything in this traditional sense with pretensions of epistemological certainty. Never.
That "no" is a perspectival truth, and the only mature thing to say on the matter in the end (if we're earnest, which most people don't ever find strenght to be).
Don't you think though that philosophy, another reason I usually don't bother with it yet here I am, is tarnished by the subjectivity of the mind and individual experience so it's biased towards subjectivity?
You say "biased" as though it were a bad or incorrect thing, but it's just what it is and precisely what we're accounting for in perspectivism.
I'm not sure what you'd call my interpretation, a physicalist maybe? But I do admit that philosophy is biased by subjectivity in that if the subject doesn't survive or those which host it, its philosophy won't either. So it has to have either some evolutionary benefit to gain ground or at least none in that it doesn't detriment its survival. I mean some ideas or philosophies that are evolutionarily degenerate to the host seem to survive but to a far lesser degree than those which help or at least don't hinder survival of the host.
You're touching upon something important here. Philosophy is inherently pragmatic: "properly" objective, and therefore indifferent, beings would have no need for such a thing. Westerners in general may like to believe that philosophy is all about being objective, but that's just because they see objectivity as their savior. Now, objectivity is useful and indeed valuable in its own right, but it doesn't account for the entirety of what we are, its merely a tool to advance ourselves in the world and assert our will. Moreover, the result of a stubborn, all-consuming desire for objectivity is nihilism... which is not exactly conducive to health and survival; it seems kind of out there but an unhealthy, unauthentic philosophy will kill you.
In the words of Mike Tyson 'everybody got a plan til they get punched in da face', add the lisp for comical effect if you like. You could make an entire philosophical essay about just that elegant line. You can host a very refined plan but it means nothing if the host doesn't survive. That I feel is philosophy's pitfall.
Of the vulgar, traditional conception(s) of it, yes!
Unless you could call my approach a philosophical one which, you got me then
Yes. ;)
but I feel 'formal' philosophy would laugh off the physicalist approach, whatever you'd call mine, because it partly de-legitimizes philosophy
Who cares what dogmatics think! They don't even like themselves.
And I'm sure what I've said is or has been taken into account in philosophy and argued against.
May I interest you in some Nietzsche?
But my perspective isn't uncommon among blue collar types, even if they don't argue it to such degree, but many will call philosophers 'bullshit artists'
Most "philosophers" are just such sophists, nothing interesting about them.
which I think is kind of harsh but I see it also a valid perspective even if unrefined.
Let us not be afraid of being harsh with ourselves.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~humanities
modern_prometheus (edited )Link ParentI suppose most western philosophers like to believe that. Plato's "form of the good", the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and other such ideas are manifestations of this disposition. But to stubbornly...Do most philosophers consider the universe logical? If so, I'm assuming all within it is logical since all within and of are derived from that logical foundation, right? That means everything we do and say has a logical basis. So....
I suppose most western philosophers like to believe that. Plato's "form of the good", the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and other such ideas are manifestations of this disposition. But to stubbornly insist on there being a "'logical' universe's intent" is to cling on to the notion of "absolute truth" that I've just shown to be absurd.
To put it simply:
My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?
No.
Now, judging by your other responses it seems that, once more, your intuition is still trying to point you in the right direction.
Something being logical simply means that it's coherent and cohesive; a logical conclusion is one which follows from an initial premise in this manner. Logical doesn't mean "in accordance to some universal truth", it's merely a tool to organize thought and of our own invention. There are no "universal premises" that constitute some sort of metaphysical equipment with which you enter the world, only those which you yourself impose.
Well that's pretty long-winded but when arguing with people I can't help but feel that they're right in their own way even if I disagree or can prove them wrong in some way.
It's perfectly possible for various perspectives to be simultaneously valid. What's worth asking is how authentic they are as that's the only measure of (perspectival) truth we have ultimately.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~humanities
modern_prometheus Link ParentYour intuition is astute and there is indeed something to what you wrote. I'd recommend reading up on the Apollonian and Dionysian, it's a good introduction as it provides a nice way of...Your intuition is astute and there is indeed something to what you wrote. I'd recommend reading up on the Apollonian and Dionysian, it's a good introduction as it provides a nice way of conceptualizing this "symbiotic relationship" between "objectivity and subjectivity", "rationality and emotion", "order and chaos", "individuality and unity", etc.
Now, I'll try to demistify perspectivism for you.
To put it simply, the most objective, to the extent that the word can mean anything, thing you can do is to acknowledge that you can't ever be "absolutely" or "properly" so. To be objective in its traditional conception would mean being able to "see from everywhere", which would be equivalent with "seeing from nowhere", with "not seeing" at all!
There is no such thing as "non-perspectival objectivity", "external facts", "absolute truth" or "thing-in-itself": these all constitute a contradiction in terms.
When you say "thing" you implicitly say "thing as I perceive it", because that's all it is to you! Therefore, to say "thing as I perceive it" is redundant but still correct; to say "thing-in-itself" is to say "thing as I perceive it but not as I perceive it", a most absurd contradiction!
Even if it might seem reasonable to assert the existence of the "thing-in-itself", if you excercise reason you come to find that you can't talk about "things-in-themselves" in any determinate way, which includes asserting their existence in the first place.
All you can ever hope to do is to asymptotically approximate this superstitious ever-elusive notion of the "thing-in-itself" by comparing and contrasting perspectives (science is the name we give to this process): the more "eyes" there are to corroborate a "fact" the greater the degree of objectivity (remember, it can't be absolute) associated with it.
If you have further questions or may be interested in further reading recommendations I'll be glad to help out.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~humanities
modern_prometheus LinkEven though it shouldn't surprise me anymore the fact that this was seemingly written by someone allowed to "teach" others is incredibly sad to me. Puerile dumpster fire aside, I think it is...Even though it shouldn't surprise me anymore the fact that this was seemingly written by someone allowed to "teach" others is incredibly sad to me.
Puerile dumpster fire aside, I think it is readily apparent to any earnest, sound mind who's spent due time thinking on this subject that the only sensible epistemological position to hold is perspectivism.
-
Comment on Cryptographic Digital Art Tokens, a concept in ~creative
modern_prometheus LinkI think ideas like this, including NFTs, have great value in so that they can make us reconsider what "ownership" of art, and perhaps even "ownership" as a general concept, mean in the first place...I think ideas like this, including NFTs, have great value in so that they can make us reconsider what "ownership" of art, and perhaps even "ownership" as a general concept, mean in the first place —if anything. When an artwork can potentially have infinite indistinguishable copies of itself, rendering the vulgar notion of authenticity/originality dubious, does it still make sense to see its value as predicated on its scarcity? While NFTs seem to double down on valuation based on scarcity this idea of CDATs seems to get closer to a healthier, more true-to-ourselves transvaluation; could it be that when we wish to "own" an artwork we really seek to establish a validated feeling of kinship to the artist, to prove such a connection or likeness? If this is so, is a signed "copy" significantly less valuable than an "original"? I contend that if we stick to conventional absolutist notions surrounding "ownership" of art we'll eventually find that in order to own the art we'd have to own the artist, which seems implausible and rather absurd.
Anyways, sorry if the above makes little sense or sounds half-baked, it can be hard to elucidate such musings. Whatever the case, I think there's something interesting to be explored here.
On a practical note, someone else commented that proving the identity of the artist could become an issue since anyone could pose as them to sign CDATs, I think something like Keyoxide could prove useful in that front.
Good work!
-
Comment on Taming the Beast: The Inner Battle for Control in ~humanities
modern_prometheus LinkNice. In case someone finds this text interesting I'd like to recommend some further reading material: Master-slave dialectic The Self as multiplicity and pluralism as virtue Thus Spake...Nice.
In case someone finds this text interesting I'd like to recommend some further reading material:
Nietzsche insists that we should “give the finishing stroke” to what he calls “the soul atomism”, which he goes on to explain as
the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon:… Between ourselves, it is not at all necessary to get rid of “the soul” at the same time, and thus to renounce one of the most ancient and venerable hypotheses—as happens frequently to clumsy naturalists who can hardly touch on “the soul” without immediately losing it. But the way is now open for new versions and refinements of the soul hypothesis, [including] “mortal soul”, “soul as subjective multiplicity”, and “soul as social structure of the drives and affects”… (BGE 12)
Hell, I'll even throw in some McLuhan for you —if you tie it all together it's easy to see why the Internet so greatly excites the "badself":
-
Comment on Pixels are not little squares in ~comp
modern_prometheus LinkSo, basically, the pixel is not a square but rather a "thing-in-itself". sighSo, basically, the pixel is not a square but rather a "thing-in-itself".
sigh -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~tech
modern_prometheus LinkYouTube Vanced -
Comment on Good, fun, easy and cheap co-op games for a gamecircle in ~games
modern_prometheus LinkI have fond memories of playing Speedrunners with my friends. It's perfect for a couch setting.I have fond memories of playing Speedrunners with my friends. It's perfect for a couch setting.
The loneliness has gotten unbearable.
Over the years I've moved quite a few times, first within my home country, then Stateside, then back. While seeing the world is nice, this exacerbated problems already in my life and brought many new ones. The most injurious right now is the opressing loneliness and alienation that I'm feeling. I carry much of the blame too, I've gone to great lenghts to make myself unknowable to others. I've kicked myself in the teeth quite hard. There's a lot of other stuff interspersed across those moves of course: a difficult childhood which led to a severe identity crisis in my early teens and subsequently to years of severe depression, substance abuse and other compounding health issues eventually requiring intervention, navigating US immigration law for years to no avail, seeing my, now evidently quite disfunctional, family disintegrate while succumbing to these and more of life's pressures, and ultimately having to abandon my studies and strike it out on my own to escape the shitshow. Experiencing all these things while having the rug pulled from underneath me constantly has left me confused and exhausted beyond words.
With that being said, I know I can't sit and stare at my wounds forever. I've managed to find a decent job doing something I enjoy (IT) and gain some stability in my life, even making progress towards some worthwhile goals. But I look back at past years and I'm invaded by an insurmountable sense of shame, regret and ire. I'm drowning in the bitter taste of wasted effort and potential, of everything that could and should have been. And to top it all of, I've now found that in the process I pushed everything and everyone that could have or had enriched my life in some way. I'm barren and loveless and in many ways worse off than I started. What I see is unreal.
I don't know that I'll ever learn how to live a day at a time, or truly accept that I can't be anything other than myself. I'm trying, I really am. But I fear.