This is like complaining that any critique of Lenninism’s false party democracy is an ad hom, it can seem like that, but on the other hand it is part of Lenninism philosophically
-
The idea that someone might not have a political opinion is unthinkable by many.
-
-
I agree, political philosophy is eclipsed by PR strategists. Philosophy's power to shape politics is limited. Philosophers should (lol) stay on the IS side of the IS/OUGHT divide. Plenty of room for imagining or predicting the future, but building it? doubtful.
-
No philosopher of even minimal capability should be lending credence to the illusion of an "is/ought divide".
-
... "We can think without having to build brains." -- Modernity says 'no'.
-
I'm not following the brain-building thing. It feels like so many of the left and right (and surely other more bizarre moral systems) waste their breath theorizing how the world ought to be and while greatly overestimating their ability to determine the future.
-
When -- as in any accelerationism -- a practically self-affirming positive cybernetic construct is the sole presupposition, how can anything like an is/ought distinction still be rigorously made?
-
Yeah, you're theories of cybernetic feedback (and similarly Marx/Dialectical Materialism) have an automatic mechanism that makes the 'ought' useless. My comments are more aimed at political partisans who are nothing but 'the world ought to be this way (but it isn't)'.
-
it doesn't make it useless, it just makes it indistinguishable from what is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.