3 ms·
At first I suspected peoples world view was build on compound falsehoods. I couldn't help but pay attention to this concept. I had to rub my eyes a few times wo
by 6510 6y ago
At first I suspected peoples world view was build on compound falsehoods. I couldn't help but pay attention to this concept. I had to rub my eyes a few times wondering if I was not simply seeing what I was hoping to find. At later age I was seeing the unquestioned bullshit all around me. Then came a stage where I repeatedly noticed my own subscriptions to nonsense and the erroneous mindset that one would logically build on top - repeatedly, again and again! I had to learn to carefully avoid telling people how things really work which worked wonderfully with repeatedly discovering that my revised world view was almost as wrong as the previous iteration. That said, I learn a lot from people still naive enough to speak their unconventional mind. Their topics of interest are not half as interesting as the route to their world view.
I don't want to give an example since those usually get confused for the subject but I'll share 2 things that made me laugh at the time: 1) I use to think people are logical beings. I believed the first half of my life that we act based on logic and reason. Then one day I noticed this is simply something I like to believe to be true. That I can think this without a shred of evidence is evidence in it self of the opposite. 2) We build, create and design to make things as easy and convenient as possible for ourselves and for other people. Comfort is taken on faith as a valid goal so obvious that it needs not be questioned. In the process we distance ourselves from the core mechanics of our existence and we fail to challenge our mind as well as our body. If we can build the apparatus we are happy to forget how to tie our shoes. We no longer need to know what we can eat in the forest, when to plant crops, how to make all of those nice wooden things, how to forge metals, how to have a productive conversation (which requires disagreement) we think we benefit from calling that taxi but what we really needed was the 3 km walk in the sun or snow, fresh air and to see those birds fly over that old tree. Even the shoes are a solution to their own problem.
:-)
- Retric 6y agoLogic unfortunately tends to fail in the real world. Even seemingly concrete ideas like life and death get tricky when dealing with frozen sperm and viruses. Edge cases abound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) People really want stuff like Bayesian statistics to work. But it’s also fails for similar reasons as it depends on accurately updating a model. The world is filled with models that are simple enough to use and accurate enough to be useful, sadly that doesn’t make them correct. Censorship seems so simple on the surface, but like everything else the implementation rarely matches the theory. I would argue for disclaimers as a much better option, even if they also fail.
- 6510 6y agoI suppose the question is who should get to engineer the population? Traditionally governments did this job. This gets pretty draconian in some cases but until it does I don't need any committee of unelected faceless corporate directors dictating how I should think? Or do I? Perhaps it isn't the right question. Say you have a bunch of people as raw resources. What should you make from those? I kinda like my people as-is but this seems a moving target.