Riel didn't do that. That was Wandering Spirit.

but alas the bodies would not have desire

omg the philosoraptor what a throwback

But solipsism is not 'everything outside of your mind is a simulation.' It doesn't question the nature of reality the way simulation does, but rather points to the limits of our ability to understand and thus know the world around us.

According to solipsism, I am not 'real' to you not because I might be a bot. It is because you'll never be able to know who I really am as a person -- how I think, what I desire, what drives me, etc. (But then, nobody really fully understands that even about themselves, so checkmate, solipsism).

The matrix is just a culturally relevant example of a simulation. Can’t think of any better way to convey this.

Well, if your idea of 'simulation' is from Matrix, then no. The Matrix 'simulation' was not a construction of the mind but a computer program. This was an ontological issue, not epistemic.

If you can’t prove the external world exists, it must be a construction of the mind, right?

And how does that relate to the idea that we (?) live in a simulation?

The belief that nothing external to the mind is verifiable is the literal definition of solipsism

What's solipsism got to do with the simulacra?

Solilipsism jokes

You just described it...

That form of existentialism is specifically Kierkegaardian both in origin and nature. Very much a "the kingdom of god is inside you" sort of thing, though more personal in terms of relationship towards god.

Very interesting imo

Yeah, obviously this is a mathematics article which scares some people. But honestly there aren't any super complicated things in the article at all. And if you read it with the idea that anarchy, too, is a procept...it should be an interesting read.

Looks a bit heavy for post-midnight reading, but I'll check it out, thanks :)

I agree with your last sentiment so much that I linked this article a long time ago: http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1994a-gray-jrme.pdf

It's about the concept of a "procept" which is to me what anarchy is. It's an object, a process, and a symbol.

That sounds very familiar. It bothered me to no end that there are things I cannot say, that language creates a problem (a philosophical twist, a confusion, a misunderstanding) that we cannot solve using it. That "insight" comes with all sorts of twists and turns, it forced to get comfortable with a very general uncertainty. (Which I sometimes like to stress as necessary for anarchy.)

During my 1st psychedelic experience, I had a very clear presentation of "the order of things".

It went something like this:

1. The Universe
2. Objects in it
3. The language objects use to describe the Universe

As #3 is twice removed from #1, it could never be a tool used to fully encapsulate it. Queue months, maybe years, of not bothering to talk to people because anything I say would not possibly convey what I really meant nor could it do anything but create further derivatives from the Universe that were themselves less qualitatively related to the source. I might still be there.

Haha sure they would look like that because of their believes and not because they don't have an Idea what assemblage de/re-territorialization and other stuff means without giving them multiple lectures explaining it to them. ^^

It's an odd meme.

I think it's trying to say the writers are there to pat "me's" back and provide comfort to the danger of staring into the void, and getting past it.

But the picture is of unwitting torturers.

Maybe that is just an additional element for thought.

Note: at the time of comment this post was voted negatively.

I'm actually in the middle of reading The Ego and Its Own, I kinda get where he's coming from but also not. Lets just say I'm confused.

Maybe I should read Hegel first..

I hate that I kinda get what this means.

They are worse than this in my experience.

The main one I know of is David Benatar, who wrote the book on antinatalism, and sexism against men, from an analytic philosophy negative utilitarianism point of view. While making some strong points (I'd consider him the best analytic philosopher) his perspective is so strangled it ruins the whole thing. At the same time, people who aren't familiar with any kinds of radical argumentation fall for it quite easily.

He just came out with a book about how recent protests against the colonial university of cape town ruined the whole institution because identity politics etc. I'm actually very much looking forward to reading it because unless he's gone totally off the rails he will have (in a sense) tightly constructed but bullshit arguments which will be fun to dismantle.

I'm disappointed that I know at least a little bit about all 3 of those philosophers.

Possum gang propaganda

Be a radlib and vote