Kolumnistička i ostala lupetanja

glavicom

Creepy Uncle wrote:dobar deo svog opusa na internet forumima Kišjuhas je potrošio na isticanje kako je jebo, kako zna dosta o jebanju i kako je, ako već niste shvatili, jebo.

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:Why the Left is so afraid of Jordan Peterson

šta sam ovo pročitao jbt...

The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?

mislim, jeste ovde "left" nešto što referira i na Klintone, ali opet, kakav tekst...

In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”

Liberalism is founded on the belief in human liberty. Unlike rats and monkeys, human beings are supposed to have “free will”. This is what makes human feelings and human choices the ultimate moral and political authority in the world. Liberalism tells us that the voter knows best, that the customer is always right, and that we should think for ourselves and follow our hearts.

Unfortunately, “free will” isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology. Theologians developed the idea of “free will” to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices. If our choices aren’t made freely, why should God punish or reward us for them?

This myth has little to do with what science now teaches us about Homo sapiens and other animals. Humans certainly have a will – but it isn’t free. You cannot decide what desires you have. You don’t decide to be introvert or extrovert, easy-going or anxious, gay or straight. Humans make choices – but they are never independent choices. Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc – and I didn’t choose which genes or family to have.

This is not abstract theory. You can witness this easily. Just observe the next thought that pops up in your mind. Where did it come from? Did you freely choose to think it? Obviously not. If you carefully observe your own mind, you come to realise that you have little control of what’s going on there, and you are not choosing freely what to think, what to feel, and what to want.

Though “free will” was always a myth, in previous centuries it was a helpful one. It emboldened people who had to fight against the Inquisition, the divine right of kings, the KGB and the KKK. The myth also carried few costs. In 1776 or 1945 there was relatively little harm in believing that your feelings and choices were the product of some “free will” rather than the result of biochemistry and neurology.

But now the belief in “free will” suddenly becomes dangerous. If governments and corporations succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will.

If you believe in the traditional liberal story, you will be tempted simply to dismiss this challenge. “No, it will never happen. Nobody will ever manage to hack the human spirit, because there is something there that goes far beyond genes, neurons and algorithms. Nobody could successfully predict and manipulate my choices, because my choices reflect my free will.” Unfortunately, dismissing the challenge won’t make it go away. It will just make you more vulnerable to it.

For starters, realising that our thoughts and desires don’t reflect our free will can help us become less obsessive about them. If I see myself as an entirely free agent, choosing my desires in complete independence from the world, it creates a barrier between me and all other entities. I don’t really need any of those other entities – I am independent. It simultaneously bestows enormous importance on my every whim – after all, I chose this particular desire out of all possible desires in the universe. Once we give so much importance to our desires, we naturally try to control and shape the whole world according to them. We wage wars, cut down forests and unbalance the entire ecosystem in pursuit of our whims. But if we understood that our desires are not the outcome of free choice, we would hopefully be less preoccupied with them, and would also feel more connected to the rest of the world.

renouncing the myth of free will can kindle a profound curiosity. If you strongly identify with the thoughts and desires that emerge in your mind, you don’t need to make much effort to get to know yourself. You think you already know exactly who you are. But once you realise “Hi, this isn’t me. This is just some changing biochemical phenomenon!” then you also realise you have no idea who – or what – you actually are. This can be the beginning of the most exciting journey of discovery any human can undertake.

This myth has little to do with what science now teaches us about Homo sapiens and other animals. Humans certainly have a will – but it isn’t free. You cannot decide what desires you have. You don’t decide to be introvert or extrovert, easy-going or anxious, gay or straight. 

the. fuck. ovo nije strawman, ovde je i slama od koje je napravljen izmišljena.

If you believe in the traditional liberal story, you will be tempted simply to dismiss this challenge. “No, it will never happen. Nobody will ever manage to hack the human spirit, because there is something there that goes far beyond genes, neurons and algorithms. Nobody could successfully predict and manipulate my choices, because my choices reflect my free will.” Unfortunately, dismissing the challenge won’t make it go away. It will just make you more vulnerable to it.

Creepy Uncle wrote:Neću se baviti meritumom teksta jer su pitanja volje, ega, svesti daleko složenija od ma čega u ovom izlaganju, a oznaka je duboke patologije kada čovek sve svoje impulse uspeva da "objasni" racionalno i baš nikada ne kaže "ne znam zbog čega sam ovo uradio". Hakovanje ljudi...radije ću da budem jastog nego Windows.

Drugo me nešto zanima. Zašto ovi intelektualni superstarovi tako loše pišu? Stilski loše. Sitničavo i naporno, ružnih rečenica

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:

]For starters, realising that our thoughts and desires don’t reflect our free will can help us become less obsessive about them. If I see myself as an entirely free agent, choosing my desires in complete independence from the world, it creates a barrier between me and all other entities. I don’t really need any of those other entities – I am independent. It simultaneously bestows enormous importance on my every whim – after all, I chose this particular desire out of all possible desires in the universe. Once we give so much importance to our desires, we naturally try to control and shape the whole world according to them. We wage wars, cut down forests and unbalance the entire ecosystem in pursuit of our whims. But if we understood that our desires are not the outcome of free choice, we would hopefully be less preoccupied with them, and would also feel more connected to the rest of the world.

evo još malo:

renouncing the myth of free will can kindle a profound curiosity. If you strongly identify with the thoughts and desires that emerge in your mind, you don’t need to make much effort to get to know yourself. You think you already know exactly who you are. But once you realise “Hi, this isn’t me. This is just some changing biochemical phenomenon!” then you also realise you have no idea who – or what – you actually are. This can be the beginning of the most exciting journey of discovery any human can undertake.

da, poznato je da verovanje u slobodu volje znači kraj svake introspekcije i zapitanosti o sebi samoj. ne mogu da verujem šta sam pročitao 

Ointagru Unartan wrote:

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:



evo još malo:


da, poznato je da verovanje u slobodu volje znači kraj svake introspekcije i zapitanosti o sebi samoj. ne mogu da verujem šta sam pročitao 

Ovo gore je samo uprostena budisticka doktrina o nepostojanju sopstva. Izgleda bizarno kada se, bez previse truda, izrazi u pojmovima zapadne filozofije i nauke.

William Murderface wrote:Charitable reading: zaboravi free will. Ocigledno ne zna dovoljno o tom pojmu niti o aktuelnoj (ili istorijskoj) debati o njemu.

Umesto free will stavi (zavisno od konteksta) - ghost
In the machine theory of mind ili naivni emotivizam i subjektivizam. Ni ove teorije u akademskom pogledu ne stoje nista bolje, ali mozda moze da se kaze da hvataju nekakvo popularno shvatanje, ili spirit of the age. 

U tom slucaju dobijes razblazenog i banalizovanog Mekintajera s pocetka After Virtue. Nije toliko netacno koliko je prezvakano i banalno.

Sto se tice coveka koji veruje da je ekskluzivni autor svih svojih misli, ima takav cak i na ovom forumu. Pocinje na u, a zavrsava se na skok i hajduk.