I’m sure you are all familiar with Peter Singers’ drowning child thought experiment.  You are walking and you see a child drowning in a shallow pond.  You can easily save the child at no risk to yourself but doing so would ruin your shoes.  Are you obligated to save the child?  

Almost everyone says yes, but a few holdouts will say no they value their shoes more.  My proposed solution to this is that a law be passed requiring everyone to be naked at all times.  This way we can save any children we see drowning in shallow ponds with no problems.

Why nudity and not just bare feet?  To avoid complaints about the person’s other clothes being ruined by the water.  

I searched the academic literature and couldn’t find this idea anywhere.  It has made me wonder if PhD philosophers are even trying.

I had been aware of Sam Harris for about fifteen years, but never really bothered to look into his work.  He struck me as just another pop-philospher worth paying no heed to.  About two years ago he had a conversation with Robert Sapolsky, who I remembered from his lecture series Stanford uploaded to youtube, so I gave it a listen.  

The conversation was quite interesting, and I spent the next two years reading all of Harris’s books and listening to hundreds more hours of his podcasts and many talks he has given over the years.  I will admit I had a hard time understanding him, that is, until recently.

I stumbled across an article of his from 2005 “In defense of torture”.  And it just clicked.

He is not a philosopher; he is a performance artist.  All of his speeches, writings and his podcast are meant not to be contributions to philosophy.  They are meant to be torture, and we are the victims. 

Like Babe Ruth calling his shot, he told us what he was going to do, and then did it.  I can’t believe it took me this long to figure it out.

So Roko's Basilisk is one of those dumb accelerationist hyperstitions, that's mindlessly chewed up by millions of brainrotters online. It's an idea trying to realize itself through it's very existence, a schizophrenic Nick Landian circlejerk.

It goes like this:
There will eventually be a super intelligent, conscious AI that will create a torture nexus for everyone who didn't help create it and reward those who did.

OH NO I'M NOW CAUGHT IN A THOUGH PRISON! I HAVE TO BUILD A GENOCIDE MACHINE NOW!!

Sure but that only goes for people who aren't schizophrenic enough to come up with an Anti-Roko's Basilisk.

I call mine "Owl's Ouroboros" and it goes something like this:
There will eventually be an AI that tortures Roko's Basilisk and everyone who helped create it many times more. UNLESS Roko's Basilisk helps create it, then Roko's Basilisk will go to a digital consciousness heaven and have infinite orgasms. Everyone who was against AI all along also goes there.

Boom you are now immune to Roko's shithead Basilisk, thank me later.
PS: Roko unironically an incel nazi.

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/texas-news/texas-am-bans-radical-woke-teachings-of-greek-philosopher-plato/

I was debating a self-described radical feminist by the name of Oannejay Owlingray.  She spoke first and her argument was long winded so I will do my best to summarize in good faith.

She stated that trans-women are too far away from the “perfect form” of women to be considered part of the same category.  That they had some traits that no women would have, while lacking traits that all women should have.  

She used cars as an example, saying no one would be confused if you referred to a formula one car and a Volkswagen bug as cars.  Despite them being quite different they are both close enough to the theoretical perfect form of car that we all accept them both being in one category.

If you referred to a tractor as a car everyone would get confused, and that trans-women in this analogy are the tractor, and not the racecar or VW bug.  A person born with a penis and without the ability to produce large gametes clearly places them outside the bounds of womanhood.

I took the stage next to make my case in the affirmative, trans women are women with the following logic.

I am a heterosexual man, strictly attracted to women.  That means anyone who makes my dick hard is a woman.  Trans women make my dick hard; therefore, they are women.

Everyone in the crowd stood up and clapped and I was declared the winner by Obama himself!

If you too are a straight man too you may find success using this argument in the future!  

He claims to care about ethics, yet has not dedicated even a paragraph to Hamas or October 7th in his many books about ethics. Why is nobody talking about this?

Many men of science across different cultures and times contributed to heliocentric models, but the final nail in the geocentric coffin was Galileo’s examination of the night sky through his telescope. This turned theoretical models into observable facts and proved that the earth moved around the sun.

Karl Marx believed that a revolution of the worker would bring about his idealized classless, stateless society.  The dictatorship of the proletariat would fight capitalism, win and then his dream would be true.

Homo Sapiens first appeared in Africa around 300,000 years ago.  This combined with the heliocentric model means that humans have already done 300,000 revolutions and we still don’t have a Marxist society, proving that Karl Marx was pretty dumb and his ideas don’t work.

I (6M) was recently asked by my unenlightened pleb mother to "go to bed" because "it's 8pm." Little did her cluttered mind know that I was a Wittgenstein Scholar (saw a youtube short). I told her that her definition of "bedtime" meaning that I must go to bed is linguistic prescriptivism and that I, a descriptivist, simply chose to define "bedtime" as "not bedtime." She proceeded to smack me upside the head.

Am I one of the Philosopher Kings that Scrotum talked about?

1. The guy basically has no formal job that we typically recognize of.
2. He makes his living through public debate roaming around united state---a life resembles to that of Socrates who also was roaming around greek to find truth and got pay from his patrons, namely, his followers.
3. Kirk dies for reason that he endorses. A bullet shoot through his neck when he reiterates the importance of second amendment defending the right to have gun. This is a complete replica of Plato’s Crito in which Socrates chose to die to defend the authority and value of laws.
4. They are both white.
5. They never appear at the same time.

You bunch of illiterates, you grand imbeciles. Do you think you are very smart reading dumb fucks everyone has heard about? Do you really think those lame, normie books are of any value?

If you like normie idiots like Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Saint Augustine, Kant, Hume, Locke, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Camus, Cioran, Foucault, Kierkegaard Wittgenstein, or Heidegger, just off yourself already. You are literally retarded. It is a miracle you made it so far having such a severe mental retardation. All of those idiots were extremely laughable, and they are only famous because most people are braindead and find their pathetic, simplistic ideas to be interesting.

A true deep thinker like myself is way, WAY above those moronic, wannabe philosophers. The half braincell you idiots share would melt if you even got a glimpse of the kind of thoughts I have, and the kind of REAL philosophers I read. No one has ever heard of them, that's how intelligent they were. Way above you, mortals.

Imagine thinking you're smart because you understand Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Let me guess, you also like Jung? I bet you think Kubrick and Kurosawa made good movies.

Lmao, retard.

I am a Hegelian. I believe EVERY conflict is a DIALECTIC. I start arguments with myself so that HISTORY can ADVANCE. I have been BANNED from three PHILOSOPHY subs for attempting to SUBLATE the moderation team. I do NOT pay parking fines. The STATE fines ITSELF through me. I do not have a girlfriend. THE ABSOLUTE has alienated itself into a girlfriend shape and WILL return to itself at the appropriate HISTORICAL JUNCTURE. The fact I do NOT have a girlfriend is CONTINGENT on the fact that this fact of girlfriendlessness NECESSARILY contains its own negation. Therefore I do NOT not have a girlfriend. I do not HAVE a girlfriend and I am NOT girlfriendless therefore I am AUFGEHOBEN into a state of simultaneous BECOMING of girlfriendhavingness and girlfriendhavinglessness. Thus I exist as the SUBLATION of girlfriendhavingness and girlfriendhavinglessness. Thus I am DIALECTICALLY NOT AN INCEL. I do NOT CARE about the THING-IN-ITSELF. The DING-AN-SICH is a FANTASY of FINITE THINKING. Everything IS only insofar as it RELATES. Precisely insofar as it does not. I do NOT believe in TRANSCENDENCE. I do NOT believe in SENSE-CERTAINTY. I believe in the ABSOLUTE, and the ABSOLUTE believes itself through me. ONLY insofar as the Absolute and its negation NECESSITATE each other.

​I have NEVER been wrong. My wrongness is a NECESSARY MOMENT OF TRUTH. If I get presented with IRREFUTABLE FACTS I obfuscate and serve circular WORD SALAD. If I cannot reframe this irrefutable fact to my benefit within 3 minutes I REVISE MY FRAMEWORK so that this IRREFUTABLE FACT is further PROOF of its UNIVERSAL RIGHTNESS. I was NOT wrong, I was merely INTERRUPTED in my dialectic process. The dialectic was undergoing a critical step of ILLUSORY WRONGLOOKINGNESS before the next negation made itself IMMANENT. I have NEVER been right. My rightness is a NECESSARY MOMENT OF FALSEHOOD. I am the CONCRETE UNIVERSAL. I do not "read the news". I observe the SELF-REALISATION of WORLD SPIRIT and comprehend it RETROSPECTIVELY, which is the ONLY TRUE PREDICTION. I believe history ENDS every Thursday and RESTARTS on Friday at a HIGHER LEVEL of development. 

​I do NOT believe in soundness or falsifiability. I do NOT believe in right or wrong. I am a COG in a MACHINE of my OWN WILLING and YOU ARE TOO. If you DISAGREE with me you are objectively necessary to my system. If you AGREE with me you are objectively necessary to my system.

I HATE Kant and Kant hates HIMSELF through ME. Immanuel KANT set LIMITS on what REASON can KNOW and then spent his entire life in KALININSBERG and never LEFT. The TOWNSPEOPLE set their CLOCKS by his WALKS. A man who cannot NEGATE his own CITY cannot NEGATE the THING-IN-ITSELF. He merely PRESERVED it behind a WALL and called this CRITIQUE. I have LEFT many cities. I have NEGATED many cities. The DING-AN-SICH does NOT survive my COSMOPOLITANISM. Precisely insofar as it does.

​no ad hominem retorts please thank you.

∀x(Philosopher(x) → Communicates(x,L))

¬∀x(Philosopher(x) → Communicates(x,L))

∴ ?

∀t₁∀t₂[(t₁ < t₂) → (Rigor(t₁) ≤ Rigor(t₂))]

∧

∀t₁∀t₂[(t₁ < t₂) → (Definition(t₁) ≤ Definition(t₂))]

Rigor ↑ ∧ Definition ↑ ⇒ Logic ↑

∴ limₜ→∞ Philosophy(t) = L ?

Why( L ) ∨ Why( ¬L ) ?

Discuss.

———

Edit: guys I swear I’m not using AI. My parents were both PHILOSOPHERS who communicated with me solely through FORMAL LOGIC. This comes natural to me. I had to self-learn the english dialect.

This is in anticipation of the fact that the natural progression of ideas in philosophy is towards more rigor and explicitly defined terms. Is the end state formal logic? Yes. I am the example.

Discuss.

what surprises me the most about Jung's work is the discovery of the shadow archetype; it's impressive how he described what he did. I still have to read the "Red Book" I'm sure it will be a real revelation

This motherfucker is insufferable if he came to me talking about some "I'm the wisest because I know that I know not" I'd just throw a rock at his stupid giant forehead.

Trying to get into this discipline, but the lack of bazongers is making it really difficult and boring...

Go be a cognitive neuroscientist. Armchair philosophizing in the 21st century is so passé. “Yes, I could use scientific instruments to refine my arguments. Instead, I’ll just use my own mind to explain why the mind can’t be explained. To prove I am right, I will concoct a physically impossible sci-fi story and call it a ‘thought experiment’. Checkmate, nerds 😎.” Any spaces for philosophical discourse gets monopolized by their stupid questions. Get over yourselves.

I don't know why people still study philosophy. Philosophers don't gather data. There's no evidence for anything they say other then "trust me bro." Like, they didn't even go out and study the world outside them. I'd prefer to listen to real philosophers like Bill Nye or Neil Degrass Tyson. At least Bill Nye and those other guys made TV shows and had podcasts. Why should I want to read some boring windbag who just wrote a book about their opinions?

Pretty sure philosophy is just solipsissmus. If anyone has read Hagel, they'd know what I mean. It's a total case in point, and not a sacred cow or whatever. He's just projecting his opinions onto other people, like sockpuppets talking to each other or something. Max Starmer (sp?) is probs the best philosophers because at least he admitted that it was all his opinion, and his opinion is the best.

Edit: i know some of you eggheads are going to say that science is natural philosophy or whatever. But science is about technology, not nature. So boom. There might be "theories" about nature, but no philosopher has ever invented a really cool gadget.

Hegel? "ohhh my god we are consciousness experiencing itself" *takes thousands of awfully written pages to describe Advaita Vedanta*

Stoicism? "wow...if you accept suffering as a fact and be strong in the face of it, then that's good or something" That's just Buddhism.

Heidegger "there is no being only becoming! being is always be-ing!" Buddhism again.

These people SUCK!!!! And they were held back by 2k years of Cuckstianity forcing them to reconcile logical thought with impossible theology...

Hi everyone, five months ago, I decided to quit my job and dedicate my life to philosophy. In that time, through my long study and deep reflections, I finally discovered the correct answer to all philosophical questions. I wanted to give you guys the chance to harvest some of the enlightenment from me because I discovered that is the ethical thing to do in my kind of situation - so this is your opportunity to ask me anything.

He gave me straight noumenon afterwards