the origin of social narcissism: conflicting signals that endorse certain behaviors while making you hate yourself forever for the very same behavior
freud
13 Matching Annotations
- Nov 2022
-
samzdat.com samzdat.com
-
-
we’re going to freak the fuck out eventually
i guess?
-
we are very bad at consciously recognizing valuations underlying our arguments, we’ve lost the knack for it, and this shines through in argumentation
so he is fundamentally optimistic about our ability to get some kind of intellectual access to whatever's going on here
-
why
so do a phd in causal inference lol
-
- Mar 2021
-
www.gutenberg.org www.gutenberg.org
-
To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty.
no, there could be a cost benefit analysis here
-
- Jun 2020
-
place.asburyseminary.edu place.asburyseminary.edu
-
Any action that involves knowingly inflicting suffering, subordination, and a loss of freedom on another without producing any outweighing benefits is morally wrong.
In order to prove that people have duties, I will first assume that they have rights. wtf? how does that make sense to you?
-
With respect to justice, my view is that there are various obtaining states of affairs concerning justice, and that when individual people have the property of being just, it is (in part) in virtue of the obtaining of some of these states of affairs.
So justice isn't some thing that exists somewhere. It's a well-defined attribute that some people and actions have. This shows that Craig's argument was sloppy.
I don't know though, if I'm the Christian here, then I'm just like, "Why this specific attribute? What gives it meaning?" and I feel like I've rephrased the substantive part of Craig's argument in a way that still holds.
-
the principle that all values are properties of persons. Adams's view violates this principle in identifying the Good with God; the Good, a value, is declared to be not a property of a person but rather an actual person.
Important fork in theism
-
To ask of such facts, "where do they come from?" or "on what foundation do they rest?" is misguided in much the way that, according to many theists, it is misguided to ask of God, "where does He come from?" or "on what foundation does He rest"? The answer is the same in both cases: They come from nowhere, and nothing external to themselves grounds their existence; rather, they are fundamental features of the universe that ground other truths.1
Thesis
-
I am committed to the obtaining of substantive, metaphysically necessary, brute facts.
Formal statement of what he's trying to explain
-
non-natural in that it implies that ethical facts and properties are not reducible to natural facts and properties.
Interesting property
-
- Apr 2020
-
plato.stanford.edu plato.stanford.edu
-
this is not historically quite accurate
nobody gaf this seems like a good idea
-
There is an obvious tension between (2′) and this conventional view of science
Kind of makes you think that any definition of pseudoscience will only make sense in the context of a given theory of science. Like, 1 + 2 totally makes sense in the context of science as a method.
-