5 ms·
It's absolutely tangible. It's an app. It's servers. It's a company. I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that a company isn't tangible.
by bioemerl 4y ago
It's absolutely tangible. It's an app. It's servers. It's a company.
I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that a company isn't tangible.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoCompanies are social relations with legal protection. Apps are intangible and servers are merely substrate. Hypothetically I could even steal all of TikTok's servers and I still wouldn't be TikTok. TikTok simply isn't the sum of its physical parts. To put it in Saussureian terms, the signifier TikTok doesn't completely signify tangible objects. Therefore part of the signified must necessarily be intangible.
- alexvoda 4y agoThis is off-topic sophistry. Your argument that "TikTok is an idea" does not syllogistically connect with "TikTok should not be banned" because the connector "Ideas should not be banned" is invalid. Intangible things have been banned and will continue to be banned especially if you extend that notion to include companies.
- EchoReflection 4y agonailed it. sophistry indeed.
- bioemerl 4y ago> Companies are social relations with legal protection In other words, they are real things, you can go speak to people who work for apple. You can visit its buildings. Your can install their apps. > Hypothetically I could even steal all of TikTok's servers and I still wouldn't be TikTok. TikTok simply isn't the sum of its physical parts. You're getting into the weeds here. To bring things into focus, how does any of this qualify the TikTok company/platform as an idea that would be "censored" if you shut them down?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoI don't think you're going to convince me to re-reifiy the concepts of Apple and TikTok. Once a concept is de-reified the magic gets sucked out of it. If anything understanding enough about the process of reification to de-reify the concept has a much greater chance of de-reifying the concept in your own mind than it does re-reifying it in mine. Saying repeatedly that something is real to someone for which the concept is de-reified is only further evidence that they are attempting to reify the concept. That's the weird part of the reified mind - it's a self-alienating process - a mental blindspot and once you see your own blindspot, you can't unsee it.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoThat reads like a freshman’s essay on Baudrillard. It’s really hard to make sense of it.
- alexvoda 4y agoI don't think it is impressive in any way. It's pompous bullshit that is really hard to believe they really believe it themselves and can now be generated by AI. It's, like, saying that instead of seeing a chair, they now gained understanding and only see a collection of molecules forming some wooden fibers arranged in a peculiar shape and there is no chair because no physical object can be a true materialization of the platonic idea of a chair. Like, the chair was de-reified. In fact, if no one is sitting on it does it even have any chairness? You gotta, like, go deeper bro. Like, because of natures water and CO2 cycle, the chair is not a chair and you are not you, you are in fact one with the chair. It's all atoms and quarks and strings and stuff. Same with any brain-in-a-vat solipsist concepts. Cute and logically rigorous but completely unworkable and useless. A philosophical dead end, a cognitive tar-pit and
- kelseyfrog 4y agoIf you think I'm saying that TikTok is not real in the same way chairs aren't real, then you haven't been keeping up. There are ways to argue against reification, but mocking ain't one bud.