That was enlightening.
However, I detect some limiting value judgements.
I’m not sure if your attitude is based on a need to harm other people, or if you really don’t understand. In both cases, what brought you to it was not totally your own. You were exposed to chauvinism in a way that led you to adopt a crappy attitude, or you were taught things a certain way (which is tbf how we are all taught to some degree, though it is wrong). You internalized this, thought about it, said something gross, and people reacted negatively. This is all objective, but only some of it is verifiable.
This is a limiting perspective.
Attitudes toward nudity are culturally specific.
It’s likely not as taboo or shameful in cultures where nudity is mundane.
The taboos & rules we follow in our culture don’t need to be that way, and we know that.
We know we don’t need to see things the way we do: our arbitrary value judgements are a matter of perspective.
Hopefully you’ll reconsider and be able to do better. Human development is objective, but it is not inevitable. This is the difference between your deterministic and vulgar attitude and reality.
It’s not necessarily vulgar.
We can take their materialism to an extreme and map all that mental, subjective experience to physical neural states beyond our precise comprehension & merely acknowledge that correspondence exists.
That neurochemistry includes some degree of randomness, as do some physical phenomena, so this physical-only view of reality isn’t completely deterministic.
It resolves to the same effect as your model of understanding reality, which abstracts away that physical detail into practical concepts more conducive to the way we think.
Anyhow, I think it was a good point that society doesn’t need this backward shame & judgement around nudity or whatever activity goes on in people’s heads.
However, society does, and it’s not about to evolve without serious effort.
Taking someone’s picture and turning it into a deepfake nude and then sharing those picturea, such as the OP, is bad because it violates their consent. Social attitudes toward nakedness aren’t material in this instance. I personally don’t care about public nakedness, except where hygiene is involved. Of all the social norms I’d overthrow, that one is pretty low on the list, its impractical.
Concerning determinism, I was mostly responding to this
the things of interest in the world are those that are “conserved quantities”, like if a hypothetical variable jumps around randomly, it’s not a good data source because it’s volatile and random
To me the phrase “not a good data source” indicates a preconception of rationalism, the assumption that the world is essentially logical, therefore we can intuit anything about the world with pure thought. Because events proceed logically, then events can be understood by evaluating their place as link in a logical “chain.” I don’t dispute this outright, but personally I can’t stand prefiguration. I think it is alienating from actual reality because instead of engaging with reality, and the people in it, we engage with reality through this logical chain. Everything has to fit, else it is illogical.
This is one of the most insidious logical errors that people make. The way to account for contradictions in logic is to apply the logic of contradiction, change and relation: dialectics. But most of the time even this is unnecessary and can also be used to alienate the subject. In either case its impractical to interact with a logical method, the method is only there to help us determine material reality so we can interact with material reality directly.
I think it’s okay to be like a soft determinist, someone who understands that what happened before effects what happens next. But its easier to do historical materialism by just centering the perspectives and reactions of people, than it is to try and conceive as historical events like links in a logical chain, which often happens with history as history usually ends up justifying the will of whoever is in charge. The best historians, even when they have ideological biases, are able to disseminate messy facts independent of anyone’s narrative
We can take their materialism to an extreme and map all that mental, subjective experience to physical neural states beyond our precise comprehension & merely acknowledge that correspondence exists. That neurochemistry includes some degree of randomness, as do some physical phenomena, so this physical-only view of reality isn’t completely deterministic.
Can you elaborate on this? I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.
I was being a little rough on the poster because I didn’t realize they were being provocative, so certain terms I used, like vulgar, have a negative connotation, but what I meant was it was a kind of orthodox materialism that inhibits change, that is oppressive rather than liberating.
That was enlightening. However, I detect some limiting value judgements.
This is a limiting perspective. Attitudes toward nudity are culturally specific. It’s likely not as taboo or shameful in cultures where nudity is mundane.
The taboos & rules we follow in our culture don’t need to be that way, and we know that. We know we don’t need to see things the way we do: our arbitrary value judgements are a matter of perspective.
It’s not necessarily vulgar. We can take their materialism to an extreme and map all that mental, subjective experience to physical neural states beyond our precise comprehension & merely acknowledge that correspondence exists. That neurochemistry includes some degree of randomness, as do some physical phenomena, so this physical-only view of reality isn’t completely deterministic.
It resolves to the same effect as your model of understanding reality, which abstracts away that physical detail into practical concepts more conducive to the way we think.
Anyhow, I think it was a good point that society doesn’t need this backward shame & judgement around nudity or whatever activity goes on in people’s heads. However, society does, and it’s not about to evolve without serious effort.
Taking someone’s picture and turning it into a deepfake nude and then sharing those picturea, such as the OP, is bad because it violates their consent. Social attitudes toward nakedness aren’t material in this instance. I personally don’t care about public nakedness, except where hygiene is involved. Of all the social norms I’d overthrow, that one is pretty low on the list, its impractical.
Concerning determinism, I was mostly responding to this
To me the phrase “not a good data source” indicates a preconception of rationalism, the assumption that the world is essentially logical, therefore we can intuit anything about the world with pure thought. Because events proceed logically, then events can be understood by evaluating their place as link in a logical “chain.” I don’t dispute this outright, but personally I can’t stand prefiguration. I think it is alienating from actual reality because instead of engaging with reality, and the people in it, we engage with reality through this logical chain. Everything has to fit, else it is illogical.
This is one of the most insidious logical errors that people make. The way to account for contradictions in logic is to apply the logic of contradiction, change and relation: dialectics. But most of the time even this is unnecessary and can also be used to alienate the subject. In either case its impractical to interact with a logical method, the method is only there to help us determine material reality so we can interact with material reality directly.
I think it’s okay to be like a soft determinist, someone who understands that what happened before effects what happens next. But its easier to do historical materialism by just centering the perspectives and reactions of people, than it is to try and conceive as historical events like links in a logical chain, which often happens with history as history usually ends up justifying the will of whoever is in charge. The best historians, even when they have ideological biases, are able to disseminate messy facts independent of anyone’s narrative
Can you elaborate on this? I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.
I was being a little rough on the poster because I didn’t realize they were being provocative, so certain terms I used, like vulgar, have a negative connotation, but what I meant was it was a kind of orthodox materialism that inhibits change, that is oppressive rather than liberating.