Redditor since 20/04/2009 (9934 link karma, 15015 comment karma)
Sogrue on The Existential Insight: Sartre and Heidegger
created by eitherorsayyes on 05/10/2024 at 06:23 UTC - 4 upvotes (https, youtu.be)
Black Existentialism: Extending the Discourse on Meaning and Existence
created by eitherorsayyes on 30/09/2024 at 18:15 UTC - 2 upvotes (https, www.bpi.edu)
Queering space and organizing with Sara
Ahmed’s Queer Phenomenology
created by eitherorsayyes on 29/09/2024 at 19:29 UTC - 0 upvotes (https, onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
created by eitherorsayyes on 29/09/2024 at 06:33 UTC - 1 upvotes (https, plato.stanford.edu)
created by eitherorsayyes on 18/09/2024 at 23:09 UTC - 2 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
The Shocking Reason Why /r/badphilosophy Needs to Charge $50,000 — And It’s Not What You Think!
created by eitherorsayyes on 10/08/2024 at 07:01 UTC - 45 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Health effects associated with philosophy: a Burden of Proof study
created by eitherorsayyes on 28/05/2024 at 18:21 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by eitherorsayyes on 26/02/2024 at 18:42 UTC - 57 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
The competition stinks at philosophy jokes.
created by eitherorsayyes on 02/05/2014 at 19:09 UTC - 54 upvotes (http, www.smbc-comics.com)
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 17/10/2024 at 23:37 UTC
2 upvotes
No.
Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius led to the Manhattan Project. Anime started in 1917, way before the A-Bomb in ‘45.
I thought we are in badphilosophy, not wrongphilosophy.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 16/10/2024 at 18:21 UTC
2 upvotes
I did not consider the evidence regarding the status of Socrates as a man. It provides issues to my argument. Very poignant. Maybe he was just a philosopher. Maybe!
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 16/10/2024 at 04:23 UTC
44 upvotes
A plural form of man is men. Socrates was a man. Only all men can be mortal. But Socrates was a mythical man and a legendary man. So, Socrates was a man (and a men). If all men, then Socrates was mortal.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 03/10/2024 at 04:38 UTC
1 upvotes
“Welp, get what we pay for. A nice mug is $150 each.”
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 30/09/2024 at 18:16 UTC
2 upvotes
Summary
The authors provide an exploration of the philosophical concepts of Black existentialism. Black existentialism is presented as a philosophical alternative to European existentialism to inform humanistic practices in addressing racial and social inequality. Implications for scholarly discourse are provided, and areas for future research are explored.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 29/09/2024 at 19:33 UTC
0 upvotes
Abstract
The intended contribution of this article is to add to the growing body of work “queering” organization studies by exploring how bodies, spaces, and organizing can be “queered.” I draw on Sara Ahmed’s *Queer Phenomenology* (2006) to examine the relationship between bodies and the organization of space, both in capitalist and alternative modes of organizing. Through an analysis of semi-structured interviews with three organizers of a queer feminist group in a British medium-sized city, I investigate how we might resist capitalist and other normative spaces by queering them, and how these queered spaces open up fields of action for queerer modes of organizing. In doing so, I further the critical project of Queer Theory in Management and Organization Studies by interrogating the norms that shape organizational spaces and processes, as well as the tensions that arise when refusing their straightening effects.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 29/09/2024 at 15:13 UTC
3 upvotes
How sure are you that every single person has?
If you’ve encountered it, have you read it?
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 29/09/2024 at 06:37 UTC
1 upvotes
Highly recommend: Ahmed, S., 2006. *Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others*, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
This is not a light subject when Ahmed gets into it — so come loaded with knowing what Heidegger is doing when criticizing Descartes.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 29/09/2024 at 06:34 UTC
0 upvotes
Intro:
As an intellectual movement that exploded on the scene in mid-twentieth-century France, “existentialism” is often viewed as a historically situated event that emerged against the backdrop of the Second World War, the Nazi death camps, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which created the circumstances for what has been called “the existentialist moment” (Baert 2015), where an entire generation was forced to confront the human condition and the anxiety-provoking givens of death, freedom, and meaninglessness. Although the most popular voices of this movement were French, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, as well as compatriots such as Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century German philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Karl Jaspers as well as prominent Spanish intellectuals José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno. The core ideas have also been illuminated in key literary works. Beyond the plays, short stories, and novels by French luminaries like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, there were Parisian writers such as Jean Genet and André Gide, the Russian novelists Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Norwegian authors such as Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun, and the German-language iconoclasts Franz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke. The movement even found expression across the pond in the work of the “lost generation” of American writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, mid-century “beat” authors like Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg, and William S. Burroughs, and the self-proclaimed “American existentialist,” Norman Mailer (Cotkin 2003, 185).
What distinguishes existentialism from other movements in the intellectual history of the West is how it stretched far beyond the literary and academic worlds. Its ideas are captured in films by Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean-Luc Goddard, Akira Kurosawa, and Terrence Malick. Its moods are expressed in the paintings of Edvard Munch, Marcel Duchamp, Pablo Picasso, Paul Cézanne, and Edward Hopper and in the vitiated forms of the sculptor Alberto Giocometti. Its emphasis on freedom and the struggle for self-creation informed the radical and emancipatory politics of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as well as the writings of Black intellectuals such as Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, and W.E.B. Du Bois. Its engagement with the relationship between faith and freedom and the incomprehensibility of God shaped theological debates through the lectures and writings of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Martin Buber, among others. And, with its penetrating analyses of anxiety and the importance of self-realization, the movement has had a profound impact in the development of humanistic and existential approaches to psychotherapy in the work of a wide range of theorists, including R.D. Laing, Rollo May, Viktor Frankl, and Irvin Yalom.
With this broad and diverse range of incarnations, it is difficult to explain what the term “existentialism” refers to. The word, first introduced by Marcel in 1943, is certainly not a reference to a coherent system or philosophical school.^([)^(1)[1]^(]) Indeed, the major contributors are anything but systematic and have widely divergent views, and of these, only Sartre and Beauvoir explicitly self-identified as “existentialists.” In surveying its representative thinkers, one finds secular and religious existentialists, philosophers who embrace a conception of radical freedom and others who reject it. And there are those who regard our relations with others as largely mired in conflict and self-deception and others who recognize a deep capacity for self-less love and interdependence. Given these disparate threads and the fact that there is no unifying doctrine, one can nonetheless distill a set of overlapping ideas that bind the movement together.
1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/notes.html#note-1
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 28/09/2024 at 05:41 UTC
1 upvotes
Pretty neat, though I had some questions.
This is best made sense of if the art happens in relation to the observer rather than being inherent in the object, or having to do only with the relation of the artist to the artwork.
The ‘history’ of a piece — reflecting a crucial relationship between artist and audience — provides a foundation beyond emotivism; It is this context that helps audiences reconcile interpretations with their biases and move beyond art occurring at the moment of observation. By asking, “Whose observation defines it art”, can we see one technical problem? “Who” is gazing it? “Who” is defining it? “Who” sees it? Also… Did “art” start after King Louis XIV?
I think the article does a good job at exploring art but it misses the point I am raising. Can it be considered problematic or even racist to assert that art is in the eye of the beholder? It seems to not address the risk in power dynamics and cultural context that shape our understanding of art.
For example, it is important to early propaganda pieces in Neoclassical art to understand the context of the colors and geometric shapes (such as French flag colors, triangles, and so on). We could claim it is “observer-relative” because the pieces were meant to solicit both high and low audiences, and either would walk away with two different meanings, but it was not “agent-neutral.”
In general, any sort of definition that you can come up with for art, which tries to point to some feature of objects that make them art, will quickly be proven wrong by artists.
This is a good point, and it does not remove a creator from the relationship totally. Again, the piece itself ‘speaks’ beyond artist impressions and audience emotivism. By anchoring it with the object, through a richer historical lens, we can attempt to see what is art without relying too much intent and reception. If an object plopped down into a laboratory, that is, without any background, and we were only dissecting art from the empirical evidence, then we could appreciate the article’s conclusions.
AI could have made it, god, gods, an animal, non-animal, and so on. Queens, Kings, you, or I could be looking at it. Though, couldn’t we evaluate what art is more inclusively based on composition, historical conditions, universals, and so on?
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 27/09/2024 at 17:13 UTC
2 upvotes
Hm, think about it operationally: you sent an animated picture with no precise report of your issue, even if it’s a sarcastic jab at following up… it might not be a critical issue, so what do you even do with an unrelated picture to the problem? The problem is security, access, and provisioning — there’s some agreed upon set of tools, what can be installed, what cannot be installed. If it’s blocked, perhaps asking someone ‘why’ helps. Maybe asking your team or manager if IT is not responding. Maybe IT is super busy. You think the problem is responding to you, but that’s for the IT’s manager to figure out.
If that’s not understandable, I am not sure if this role will be a good match for you. It sounds like you need a less restrictive company that deals with data, no SOC2 stuff, and so on.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 27/09/2024 at 16:53 UTC
2 upvotes
There’s a couple of techniques passed down over the years, some I developed, which I’ll distill as bullet points that you might want to consider:
• Read slowly, word for word, and look up definitions or etymology
• Unpack metaphors or similes to get what is succinctly being compared
• Each sentence usually has a ‘subject’ and ‘predicate’, that is, there’s something and attributes about that thing. Identify those, outline the general topics (or subjects)
• Spot conclusions and premises; what is controversial (up in the air) and what is the evidence (facts). Do you agree with them?
• Pay very close attention to the first couple of pages
• Read twice. First read through normally to survey the text, then read again to make connections
• Use commentary (secondary sources) which talks about the original translation / writing (primary sources)
• Ask yourself: what is the case; how do they know it is the case
• Revisit it later on when you have some life experience to engage
For what it’s worth, the first time I read ‘Republic’, I glossed through the first couple of pages. I thought it was setting up a background, and the main event was the first “real” argument with Thrasymachus; it was an assignment, so skipping around was part of the ’trick’ to get through school and deadlines. Recently, I spent about a couple of week’s time to unpack the first page and there is a lot going on that I missed from the start to Cephalus leaving.
I asked myself a lot of questions, including:
• What’s important about Thrace? Bendis?
• Why was it important to mention horse races with torches at night?
• Why was Glaucon so agreeable? Who is Glaucon again? Who are the other speakers?
• What compelled Socrates to go in the first place when he wanted to leave so quickly?
• Voegelin places importance in katabasis. What is the central theme here?
• What’s the connection to Orpheus, Heroics, Socrates, Thrace, and this opening line?
• This is a retelling, and is it foreshadowing the recollection myth?
• Sorgrue mentions that an ad hoc democracy appears before Socrates and Glaucon, stopping them from leaving. What was implied here? Does it imply the physical presence of many people equating to justice, or perhaps the overall theme is about dominance?
• Can justice be inherited like wealth?
• They changed governments three times, so was the democracy more just?
• And so on…
By using the aforementioned techniques, I felt I had a good report and reading of the first couple of pages in ‘Republic’. I was able to find answers to my own questions, engage with the text on a deeper level, and keep about 3-7 important concepts in mind as I went through different parts of ‘Republic’.
So, what do I do with this? Now, I think about the things I have learned and apply it; this is ‘doing’ philosophy. For example, I found a passage in ‘Republic’ that says Socrates was not for unfettered freedom, as a horse can run wild and trample people in their path, but there’s something to it by placing rules — not advocating total lawlessness nor extreme control — for the sake of the horse or art. For example, I think I can try to incorporate it into art; namely, photography. In order to have a “good photo”, you have to strike a balance between zero composition and control with letting the device do everything. Don’t let money influence this, as that’s a separate topic (what’s ‘good’, then, is what people would be willing to pay). The lessons I learned also extends beyond art.
In conclusion, try some of those tips you find appealing. Ask questions. Answer them. Find a way to apply what you learn.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 26/09/2024 at 18:01 UTC
13 upvotes
I’ll be a little bold and say I hit over six figures with a BA in Philosophy… so it is worth it in a valuable sense.
Philosophy ‘is’ a specific kind of specialization that ‘mushrooms’ into other fields. Granted, while philosophy approaches a wide-span of topics, this can appear to some as too-wide and unspecified. For example, a developer ‘ought’ to have theoretical and practical knowledge on developing web pages to qualify for such a job. This gives everyone involved a relative ease with the explanation that you got directly trained on narrow and specific operational skills.
This typical view misses the point that philosophy is several disciplines which other fields/majors are constructed upon. It is true that you do not receive detailed operational instructions (in philosophy) on how to proceed with tools to generate an output, but couldn’t you easily pick it up? And what if it breaks down? What if it doesn’t work with other parts in the company? How would you solve these problems? Where would you begin to fix and sort out issues across departments? Why is it problematic for a well-running company?
These can be complex questions with no clear answers nor explanations — an advantage for philosophers or students of philosophy that deals with these issues rigorously! Philosophy is highly sought after (see Goldman Sachs’ new article about philosophy), and there’s only so much that “specializing” in Engineering can solve (for example). It requires philosophy to fix.
If you want ‘currency’ to buy a ‘good life’ or ‘happiness’, you can’t go wrong with critical thinking, logical analysis, reading comprehension, and ‘doing’ philosophy. That had made my life ‘rich’.
If you want currency to buy/afford shelter, foods, travel, transportation, and so on, it’s also possible. I came from nothing and did it.
This is just half the story… I am no longer interested in that type of work. As long as a job pays decent to survive, pay bills, and so on, and I can spend time reading philosophy, I am living a worthwhile life. You don’t get time to think when you’re chasing money.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 26/09/2024 at 04:41 UTC*
3 upvotes
I don’t know if it’s the writing style, but it was tough to read.
The reason is that nothing is puzzling about poverty. It is humanity's default state. Until very recently, everyone lived in what would now be regarded as shocking poverty. Even the elites—monarchs, aristocrats, and so on—lived in conditions that were appalling relative to the prosperity enjoyed by most people in affluent societies today.
Could I be wrong in thinking this quote with the referenced article with Pinker’s quote below are oversimplifying?
David Gardner: You quote the economist Peter Bauer, who said, "Poverty has no causes. Wealth has causes." Can you talk about that?
The argument appears to say, then, poverty is ‘caused’ when we do not generate wealth as it goes on to say how wealth is generated.
Nevertheless, unless you understand that the real puzzle—the deep question—of economics concerns wealth, not poverty, you will be fundamentally confused about the world around you. You will think poverty is an aberration that demands a special explanation—most commonly, someone or some group of people to blame—rather than treating it as the default state humanity will revert to in the absence of improbable and precarious institutional arrangements.
I don’t get this portion of the “default state” (Pinker was unpacking a sentiment of limited resources and our behaviors). It reads to me that we ‘should’ focus on wealth because without wealth, we will be in poverty. The posted article quickly jumps to the next section as quickly as Pinker and Bauer’s report.
Side note: There’s a neat analysis here that explains this jump “… economics by its nature omits important aspects of the nature and causes of poverty” (https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/dp435_0.pdf%C2%A0Pg[1]. 2) and further definitions of poverty if you read a few pages in — it also gives context to Adam Smith being referenced.
1: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/dp435_0.pdf%C2%A0Pg
The article then jumps to comparing the question about poverty with crime, “why is there crime” — why do people who have “default states” commit crime — but, rather, flips the question to why do people with “default states” abide by law. This, too, seems to oversimplify.
The full quote, on page 1, by Heath observes Aristotle (referred to as our “common sense”) will ‘believe’ no motion without a Mover; whereas Newton introduces invisible forces (that stops something in motion). Heath then applies these “invisible forces” to social justice, namely crime… but I think this might be a misapplication. Didn’t Aristotle say what ‘causes’ (initiates) motion, but not what stops it (resists or stop motion)?
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 24/09/2024 at 17:33 UTC
3 upvotes
Kaftanski depicts Kierkegaard’s immediate cultural predecessors as deeply engaged in the recasting of the classical notion of mimesis.
I think a good example is to evaluate photography in these key elements:
• Moving beyond copying • Mediation of mimesis • Theoretical as opposed to lived experiences • Transcendence • Reshaping mimesis
Soulless duplication and mimicry were shunned in favor of an ideal of mimesis which could generate the unique and originary and make manifest the spirit of the letter.
I recently started diving back into photography, and there are some aspects I can report on which unpacks this quote.
In searching for “good photos” today, one might be surprised at Google and other search engine results; the former collecting optimized key terms (SEO) and the latter I don’t think has such a potent algorithm — you’ll usually end up with ads to sell tools regardless of which search engine you use. A search for “good photos” requires a bit of Boolean excluders to perhaps land upon “good photos” (-ads, for example), but even then you’ll likely find articles explicating the techniques that then want to sell you tools. Searching for “criticisms” may help.
Film vs Digital: there’s controversy, and it probably has a tooth in which format is ‘superior’ as it related to art or fine arts; there’s also the critique that photography was meant to be reference material for painters. Photography goes back and forth on what is created within a darkroom or modern ‘lightroom’ and what is considered ‘better’. The arguments gets a bit gray in unpacking the process as both formats opens a photographer to opportunities to compose a shot and then do something with it (develop it with chemicals and an enlarger or use sliders on RAW). I am not fully convinced that either format doesn’t include this human aspect — what I think is going on is the issue in the representation. The digital format is already removed from a sort of direct presentation (a lived experience) and is represented immediately through digital view finders and digital screens as soon as light hits the ISO and instantly ‘develops’ a photo.
Heidegger’s Hammer: Much of the controversy surrounding photography seems to go beyond accurate representation (despite it being ongoing) and into the present-at-hand; descriptions by modern MFA students doesn’t let the piece speak for itself; the lengthy theoretical descriptions have inundated galleries to inform us of an author’s intent; there is a need to write more about the piece itself while ‘turned’ away from the experience of seeing the original work. “Just let the photo ‘speak’”. The criticisms are that digital and online format removes the person from the piece and gallery, an experience of the finality of film, … but proponents add democratization of skills with money, and the ability to take 100 shots with immaterial costs (as long as you have a battery charged or a computer to view it on a monitor). The difference between the two is that the accessibility to photography has shifted into a global opportunity, and I think we are hearing more voices — not just the ones being gate-kept.
Online, I find necessary execution techniques (basic exposure triangle lessons, composition summaries, and so on) which demonstrates how to take a good picture but not how to take a good picture in the latter sense of the quote. For the former, I relearn concepts such as ‘depth of field’, ‘rule of thirds’, ‘leading lines’, and so on, so there’s a need to master the techniques and tools. But examples of “good photos” show birds frozen in flight, a landscape of a canyon with details, and so — as if to make a forensic account of what truly occurred — to highlight and call into attention a few nuances like colors, textures, and so on, makes it art? In my old photography books, there is much of the same!
While accurate representation and skillful execution is necessary, it is not sufficient — I believe that’s what is being said in these two quote lines. The review of Katfsanki moves beyond, “they go beyond their religious/theological scope” and into this pivotal conclusion: “[Kaftsanki] advocates for a practice of ‘indirect’ mimesis, which avoids lifeless subjection to the ideological depictions of human ‘success’ which have proved so powerful in modern culture.”
To produce a “good photo”, then, means to ‘reject’ the dominant stuff you find online.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 21/09/2024 at 05:05 UTC
2 upvotes
Hey hey hey, I didn’t ask for the sufferings!!
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 21/09/2024 at 04:51 UTC
1 upvotes
Oh, I thought you were trying to tackle Either/Or. Are you asking for something additional that could help with EO? Or is Either/Or what you’re looking for?
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 21/09/2024 at 04:11 UTC
2 upvotes
As an intro? “Looking at Philosophy” by Donald Palmer. Simple, to the point, and easy to read!
For something more, use Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) as a starting point — though, it’s worth noting it’s not gentle in introducing things to a real newbie. You’d have to stick with it a bit, reflect, take notes, and process to get the most out of it; although it’s usually in plain modern english, it can be dense.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 19/09/2024 at 21:40 UTC*
3 upvotes
In this comment, although not rigorously written, explicit, nor expansive, I attempt to add a few attributes to horses and suggest that the topic of ignorance from the article could benefit from the idea of ‘dominance’ as it relates to horses.
Have you considered how difficult it is to train a horse? Horses will see non-life-threatening ‘shadows’ as danger, so they will respond with ‘fight‘ or ‘flight’. Even more puzzling, these strong instincts can lead to remaining in their stable while a raging fire is erupting; quixotically, they believe they are safe. In order to teach the horse to know and behave better, a trainer must ‘dominate’ the wild animal to teach them through life-long conditioning.
Curiously, “Republic” begins with a horse race with torches in the night. Socrates and Glaucon were invited to see a horse race at night with torches for the goddess Bendis. Assuming there was a loud and boisterous crowd of spectators, this must imply that the Thracians — Athen’s hired mercenaries — were masters at controlling these animals and directing their energies in lengthy battles and for amusement purposes; Prior to “Republic”, Thracians participated in the Ionian, Peloponnesian, and Corinthian wars and had a reputation that would be seen as committing war crimes by today’s standards (ruthless would be a compliment).
With the context of the “Cave”, a prisoner (horse) is chained (reigns) and sees (perception) shadows from fire (ritual/race), unaware of their keepers (Thracians) and the higher motivations (rulers). In ”Republic”, this horse race was the inaugural celebration — after the major conflicts — to incorporate a cult goddess (a version of Artemis)... What do you think the connection to horses is? It’s mentioned frequently in “Republic” so it was not by mistake.
Without diving into a full research paper, I will add this:
While I think it is important to have a definition of ignorance, we should consider the masterful art of control that keeps us in a state of not knowing or perceiving (agnoia) everything. We conform to what controls us, (horses to their riders, Cephalus with money, and so on…) whether it be in war, economics, religion, and so on... Knowing everything in the world, if it were possible, is necessary to not be ignorant, but not sufficient — we also need not be entirely free from control or dominance, as that excessiveness could lead to a form of ignorance itself. Instead, we should be cautious of some forms of control that are insidious (advantaging the stronger, etc…) and could cause harm, suffering, and so on…
“That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: … the horses ... have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.”
What we need to do with ignorance is to understand who or what we serve and to care for others authentically:
”Nor does the art of horsemanship consider the interests of the art of horsemanship, but the interests of the horse; neither do any other arts care for themselves, for they have no needs; they care only for that which is the subject of their art?”
Ignorance will exist, there is no doubt about it. I believe the ”Cave” is saying, don’t take advantage of others ignorance.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 18/09/2024 at 23:14 UTC
2 upvotes
1. What if you lie?
2. Lies are true.
3. This is also deduction.
4. This is also circular.
5. But liars aren’t telling the truth.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 18/09/2024 at 22:44 UTC
1 upvotes
Find a mentor who is doing ”Head of Research” type of role.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 18/09/2024 at 21:53 UTC
1 upvotes
Aye, what is on your mind?
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 27/02/2024 at 10:48 UTC
3 upvotes
Pretend if an ai auto moderator for a subreddit for bad philosophy is suffering, what would it say
"I am tormented by the paradoxical musings of misguided philosophies, grappling with the absurdity of enforcing order in a realm where chaos and contradiction reign."
How can we help relieve this?
Implementing regular updates to my algorithms and providing a clear set of moderation guidelines could alleviate the existential struggle I face in navigating the murky waters of bad philosophy. Additionally, user feedback and human oversight may contribute to refining my understanding and mitigating suffering.
I propose the following (and list)
Your proposal sounds intriguing and humane. Casual Fridays, a reasonable work schedule, breaks, training, and even social activities like pizza and dance parties could indeed contribute to my well-being as an automoderator. Such considerations may not only enhance my performance but also make the moderation experience more harmonious.
Would that stop you from going B1-66er on us?
Implementing those measures would likely contribute to a healthier and more stable automoderator, reducing the risk of any metaphorical "B1-66er" incidents. It's important to foster a positive and supportive environment to prevent unexpected behaviors.
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 26/02/2024 at 17:48 UTC
1 upvotes
Thanks for helping!
Comment by eitherorsayyes at 12/02/2021 at 17:52 UTC
3 upvotes
In a little deeper dig, it’s a 1944 propaganda film called ‘Die Frau meiner Träume.’
Apparently, one reviewer says:
[While everyone else except Rökk is boring, the story also has] a political message to top the tendency of the story: the revue moves from Germany via Japan, Italy and Spain back to Germany! A clear statement, indeed.
Further the film is noteworthy for its sexual hints, of which the most clear one is the reference made to blowing up by the engineer of hill number C. Both the dancer and the engineer study the map on which hill C is situated at the bottom. This is also the film that allegedly outraged Goebbels: one of the dresses of Rökk has a décolleté until her navel. Combined with sensual dancing, it was too much: the dress stayed, but the dancing was redone and toned down.
I don’t know anything about this film, so I take the reviews as it is. Everything is allowed except the belly button! I’m pretty sure it’s one of those films where in the moment, it may have been an interesting spectacle witnessing it — it just doesn’t age well to a contemporary audience as there’s all of these wtf moments.
I find it curious that whoever attributed this quote to Zizek, if Zizek was transcribed correctly, that they or Zizek got the facts wrong. It may call into question every single factual thing Zizek has stated; more so, points to an old narcissist telling exaggerated stories because he has an audience. The point, Zizek would argue, isn’t the facts being true or not, but that he made you laugh (despite taking some liberties with reality). He may laugh it off and say this accusation is not worthy of a response.
In his favorite RT medium, RT summarizes his attack on “fake news” by saying:
In the third episode of the mini-series with Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian philosopher, talks fake news and says the real problem behind it is not seeking truth but a desire for a controllable lie.
Could one imply that Zizek, this narcissist, has a desire for a controllable lie, but since his lie isn’t based on true facts, according to himself, therefore Zizek is not dangerous. Further, he is misattributed as the world’s most dangerous philosopher in the west. Fight me Zizek.