According to legend, his only possession was a clay drinking cup, which he threw away after seeing a child drink from cupped fingers.
According to the same legends, he would carry a lamp around the streets of Athens in broad daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
So who owned the lamp?
According to legend, his only possession was a clay drinking cup, which he threw away after seeing a child drink from cupped fingers.
According to the same legends, he would carry a lamp around the streets of Athens in broad daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
So who owned the lamp?
How do I get a reblog map of my own post? Aside from reblogging it and clicking the icon in the dash.
According to legend, his only possession was a clay drinking cup, which he threw away after seeing a child drink from cupped fingers.
According to the same legends, he would carry a lamp around the streets of Athens in broad daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
So who owned the lamp?
Is this a call out post of Diogenes?
Let it go man, let it go.
According to legend, his only possession was a clay drinking cup, which he threw away after seeing a child drink from cupped fingers.
According to the same legends, he would carry a lamp around the streets of Athens in broad daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
So who owned the lamp?
How do I get a reblog map of my own post? Aside from reblogging it and clicking the icon in the dash.
According to legend, his only possession was a clay drinking cup, which he threw away after seeing a child drink from cupped fingers.
According to the same legends, he would carry a lamp around the streets of Athens in broad daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
So who owned the lamp?
Feminism: the simple belief that women are people.
Tautology: the simple belief that people are people.
Twitter contrarianism: the simple belief that #NotAllPeople.
Hallucinations: the simple belief that desk lamps are people.
Otaku: the simple belief that women painted on body pillows are people.
Solipsism: the simple belief that women are figments of your imagination.
Modus tollens: the simple belief that people are not women.
Platonism: the simple belief that women are featherless bipeds.
Cartesianism: the simple belief that women exist, I think.
Darwinism: the simple belief that women were not always people.
Freudianism: the simple belief that women are penis.
Expressionism: the simple belief that women are purple.
Optimism: the people belief that women are simple.
Tee hee.
I’m expressionism!
my boyfriend said he was gonna email me this ~fantasy~ about us, so i’m expecting a dirty email and he just sent it and it starts off with five paragraphs of worldbuilding
i swear to fucking god.
But was it good worldbuilding?
I want to take some time to think about Soulmate AUs in broader social and historical context. (I’m sticking to the ‘first words written on your body’ version of those aus)
Thoughts on Society:
Pop Culture
Interpersonal:
It fascinates me because the idea is so much bigger than just meet-cute scenarios and fluff fics. It would change society from the ground up.
I want to write the one in bold a little bit.
I would love to read in-depth discussion about each of these ideas. Sadly, there’s not much available. What does exist, though, is discussion about fannish tattoos, which are voluntary physical marks of things we value. Transformative Works and Cultures has a couple of interesting articles on this topic by Bethan Jones, which you can read here and here.
How does this system work without literacy?
(What is a soulmate au, anyway?)
so it’s pretty well-understood that the belief that IQ differences are objective, significant, highly gene-dependent etc is associated moreso with the political right than left
and this recognition seems to usually either taken for granted (if endorsed) or rejected (if consciously considered,) after all people are not responsible for their innate intelligence if things exist, &c &c. (often this seems to partake of a kind of rhetoric that comes close to denying contingent circumstances should affect our politics at all, which is absurd, though of course not all species of the claim go that far.) but I think the basic association is rational, beyond even the associations with the politics of race and so on, regardless of what one’s estimate of how important iq etc *actually* is, and of what other considerations might override this
like, suppose for a moment that there are very very large differences in people’s ability to reason. some people are just way way smarter than you and some people are just way way dumber
for beings way way smarter than you, at the limit you basically either need to blindly obey them or not trust a goddamn thing they say, based on your priors of how friendly they are
for beings way way dumber than you, at the limit you can either benevolently administer to their needs, or blithely ignore their interests entirely
in either case there are options, but the options aren’t rational negotiation, debate, and deliberation among equals, but an instinctive Schmittian discrimination between friend and foe, in which friends are teams of peons obeying their natural better, whom they love and ought to love
now you of course might think that iq is real (for whatever relevant value of real) and even highly innate or whatever, or even believe some hbd whatever about how it corresponds to different demographics innately etc, but still think that the difference between an iq 70 person and an iq 130 person or whatever isn’t actually all that great in the grand scheme of things, that they’re both rational animals and can assert their own interests and so on, and that the former isn’t in a position of total epistemic learned helplessness and the latter often has reason to listen to the former, in which case I suspect “profound” political consequences don’t follow. but to the extent that the limit case becomes plausible, we exit the world of social contracts and general wills and marketplaces of ideas and enter into the endless night of blind reptilian Schmittian struggle
(yes, there’s a leftist version of cheering on blind reptilian struggle against all that social contract mystification, and I’m normally All About That, but it addresses orthogonal questions and for the moment we can ignore it)
for beings way way smarter than you, at the limit you basically either need to blindly obey them or not trust a goddamn thing they say, based on your priors of how friendly they are
In theory this seems like it should be correct, but it’s surprisingly difficult for me to come up with a concrete example of a situation where one would need to do that. Do you have any in mind?
The people I believe to be much smarter than me are not necessarily (in fact, generally not) the people who can actually exercise power over me in some way. So what I would give them is not actually obedience but deference, and if there are conflicting opinions (as is usually the case outside math and the physical sciences) I’ll defer to whoever I believe shares my values, and who has the least apparent reason to present their values falsely. And if that still leaves me with conflicting opinions, I can’t blindly defer to anyone whether I want to or not.
This is maybe not that different from the scenario you’re describing, but it involves enough decisionmaking on my part that at least in an emotional sense it forestalls the endless night of blind reptilian Schmittian struggle
well, the extent to which there are concrete (rather than hypothetical) situations that correspond to this is precisely the thing that’s relevant, and since I’ve haven’t converted to anarcho-monarchism or whatever the latest neoreactionary thing is, presumably I don’t think they’re very widespread. but the situation of children vis-a-vis their parents is pretty close, I think, and probably why it acts as the model for every other case of soi-disant benevolent authority.
1. Is the ability to reason the same as the ability to persuade other people your conclusions are accurate?
2. Is it impossible to check the reasoning of people smarter than you?
3. Is everyone with comparable reasoning abilities on the same side? That is, are all smart people allied with other smart people, and so forth?
How long before the expression “old school” becomes old school?
I hated being here, but almost certainly like you. My email is three squares down, no spaces, at the usual place. I’d love to hear from you.
I FORGOT I WROTE THESE TAGS AND NOW I’M SO DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THIS ISN’T A SHOW
“Cannot be painted”
I don’t know why but I just giggle at the thought of Dracula getting madder and madder about how bad all the fanart of him is
“They just can’t get my nose right!”
“It’s not a portrait of ME
It’s a portrait…
Of Tony Hancock”