Blackpill Are all philosophers basically people who were just pre-internet incel blackpillers.
I
Not really.
The philosophers we know about are the famous ones. Becoming famous pre-internet was not easy, those were men with high status and real talent.
Blackpill isn't true philosophy, it's more like sociology. Explains how people behave. Old-school philosophers were not focused on pussy. They might have a few quotes about women here and there but they were focused on bigger things. They lived for something more important than their own sex drive and it made them immortal.
The philosophers we know about are the famous ones. Becoming famous pre-internet was not easy, those were men with high status and real talent.
Blackpill isn't true philosophy, it's more like sociology. Explains how people behave. Old-school philosophers were not focused on pussy. They might have a few quotes about women here and there but they were focused on bigger things. They lived for something more important than their own sex drive and it made them immortal.
so what do you think of all of us today?
angry crybabies?
do you think an incel revolution could be possible. maybe the bankruptcy today is because someone incel is in charge via inflation
Most philosophers are a net negative on humanity once you consider the opportunity cost of them not going into a field that actually produces results.
Free will is a good example: You can read long arguments on morals and responsibility and freedom written by 160 IQ verbal tilt "serious thinkers" - or you can open an 8th grade physics book, notice that all the formulas are deterministic, realise you have never heared anyone propose a concrete mechanism for free will and come to the conclusion that free will probably doesn't exist.
Some philosophers have had some pretty good insight into female nature, but you are selecting from a group with exceptionally high IQ. That might be more likely as the cause than anything to do with philosophy itself.
Free will is a good example: You can read long arguments on morals and responsibility and freedom written by 160 IQ verbal tilt "serious thinkers" - or you can open an 8th grade physics book, notice that all the formulas are deterministic, realise you have never heared anyone propose a concrete mechanism for free will and come to the conclusion that free will probably doesn't exist.
Some philosophers have had some pretty good insight into female nature, but you are selecting from a group with exceptionally high IQ. That might be more likely as the cause than anything to do with philosophy itself.
True randomness doesn't change anything, free will isn't about random chance either. I have seen some of the attempts of trying to find some way to allow for free will through quantum mechanics and they are not convincing in the slightest.
No matter if your decisions are predetermined or truly random in nature or a bit of both, they aren't causally disconnected from the physical world, which is basically what the popular notion of free will / choice is about.
If you want to believe in things because they are technically not 100% disprovable, you can spend the rest of your life making up fairy tales. This is not the standart of proof we apply for anything. You have a higher standart of proof for the Amazon reviews you read before ordering a new pair of Sneakers. Given all the available information, what seems to be the most likely possibility? "Free will" is not the answer.
Not having free will is not as big a deal as some might think. You are still making decisions, it's just that someone with perfect knowledge about everything in the world could predict what you will do before you do it. It changes some moral dynamics a touch, but ultimately it's suprisingly unimporant in a practical sense.
In a sense, you already knew that your decisions were influenced by your past and your present state of being. All that has changed is that the degree to which this is true has intensified maximally.
Last edited:
I
We are regular people, though in a shitty society.
Everything is bastardized today. Poetry and song lyrics used to have a lot of hidden meanings. Now females on social media put together a bunch of therapy-speak about their personal lives, read it out on camera, and call it a poem/song.
Plus I was implying in my comment that many of these philosophers were sexhavers, or at least volcels. This is partially what let them transcend to higher things.
Oversimplification.
The free will vs determinism argument is much older than Newtonian mechanics. And even after Newton, people still had no idea what the brain was made of or what mechanisms drove it. Jumping to conclusions about the brain based on F=ma is potentially naive, there is a lot in physics that Newtonian mechanics fails to explain, let alone biology.
Only when Hodgkin and Huxley formulated the equations for neural firing in 1952 did we have solid scientific evidence for determinism (you could argue slightly before but you get my point).
What is ingenious about the free will debate is that people were able to overcome one of their strongest intuitions through logic alone, before they had modern scientific knowledge. Most of philosophy does not work like this. In other branches of philosophy, you often reach dead ends, where you cannot come to any firm conclusions.
D
Not all philosophers are incel, but all incels are philosophers.
Philosophy is overrated.
High IQ people playing wordcel games that in the vast majority of cases result in ~ no tangible value being created for humanity at all, except for the philosophers themselfs, who fight over who stands atop the intellectual monkey hierachy, is an absurd waste of potential and high IQ gene material. That shit is a limited recource.
You make my point for me, the deciding evidence didn't come from philosophy but from physiology. Weigh the value created by all thinking around free will that was devoid of meassuring concrete evidence. What were the concrete benefits? Try to quantify them!
Now, imagine we put the same people, often some of the smartest humans of their time, to work on some more mundane but also more goal oriented intellectual task. Can they even find any other field in which they would create less value than in philosophy?
It's not about being impressive or not, that's kinda the exact point. It's about the opportunity cost. About all the waste of mental processing used on debating questions for which there was not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions. Or questions for which it was unimportant to find the answer for.
Also, when I talk about "opening your 8th grade physics book", I'm obvioulsy talking from the perspective of a person in the moder day. What does it tell you that to find the answer to one of the formerly hottest questions in philosophy you don't need to open a single work written by a philosopher?
There is also another problem. At which point in time was "free will" the more likely answer given all the evidence available. If instead of asking "is it 100% certain that free will isn't real?" we asked "what should our working hypothesis be?", how early would we have been on the right track?
A lot of philosophers were ancient, so there weren't as many incels in the modern sense. But people like Diogenes, etc., were probably incel/volcel, and so were many religious figures. Philosophy was a space where people could contemplate and introspect, things which in the modern day are often frowned upon and treated as introverted inkwell pursuits
Sounds based tbh
I
You can't force people into jobs they don't want to work in. Recently I saw a post about a child prodigy who was studying university physics at 12 years of age. His stated goal in life was to use science to achieve immortality.
All the libtards in the comments section were screaming "muh waste of IQ" and "he should be working on solving climate change". What if he's not interested in climate change and doesn't think it's important? You can't force him to serve your ideology.
There is no point in being obsessed with productivity. A shit ton of people do work that is only marginally productive, or unproductive and only serves an ideology. We have people who get gender studies degrees, and end up working as diversity officers in industry. On the lower end, there are jobs in my country whose only purpose is to take goods manufactured in China and make a minor modification to them so that they can be re-labelled as made in the EU.
That's the kind of bullshit that should be cracked down on. As for philosophy, I see it as a form of entertainment. If a fiction author is able to sell a lot of books because people like his work, we see that as value and then we don't begrudge him for "wasting" his IQ. If a philosopher is able to publish and sell books then he should also be seen as giving value. The works of ancient and medieval philosophers are still being read today so they clearly produced something useful.
As far as I know, philosophers came to the conclusion that free will is bullshit reasonably fast. The reason it kept being debated was due to religion. Free will is the bedrock of Christianity. Evil is said to exist because "God gave us free will so its our fault". Catholicism just tried to sweep all arguments against free will under the rug. During the Reformation, people tried to make versions of Christianity compatible with determinism. Luther and Calvin were both determinists. Which led to discussions on how to reconcile morality, heaven and hell with no free will.
You don't need to force them. Just make "using" your IQ on philosophy low status. Shame them. Make them into pariahs. The top 0.1% smartest people have an absurdly disproportionate influence on humanities future. Society should not encourage people like that to go into a field that is amongst the least impactful amongst its peers. Nor should society take a neutral stance. It's because these people are so important that their discomfort resulting from having to work in a field not perfectly aligned with their tastes or interests is so obviously worth it.
Some will still do philosophy anyways. And we probably want >0 of them to do that. But a large portion are status seekers deep down and will comply with societal demands.
There is tons of waste and inefficientcy on the lower levels, but, in some sense, these people were hard-capped in how useful they could be to humanity from the start. As you see from signature, I believe that a single domain of research will be the deciding our future. The difference between us colonizing the stars and dying on this dirt ball. Assuming I'm right on how important alignment theory is, from a utilitarian perspective it's obvious that there can really be no excuse for someone who has a real shot at advancing the field to spend his efforts on anything else.
Most people's live aren't optimized like that but most people don't matter. Not really. The small fraction of the population that rolled an 18 for INT during character creation does.
Deep thinking comes from not getting laid.
I
The capitalist system already encourages people to go where they will be most productive. Modern philosophers are not particularly high status (outside of cases where their work pushes a political agenda). Industry jobs pay significantly more than academia.
Going to the extent of making smart people into social pariahs is a laughable China-style totalitarian approach.
Chess players are clearly high IQ. Are you going force them out of the game and into working on AI as well?
I
By the way your choice of AI as the most important area to advance humanity, shows the flaw of this approach.
Who gets to decide which areas of research are important? 10 years ago no one was talking about AI except for computer science specialists. Only the successful marketing of Chat-GPT got normal people like you insterested in it, JFL.
Who gets to decide which areas of research are important? 10 years ago no one was talking about AI except for computer science specialists. Only the successful marketing of Chat-GPT got normal people like you insterested in it, JFL.
Most productive is not what I'm after, maximizing long term utility is. Capitalist incentives help push us towards an AI arms race, which is the opposite of what I'm advocating for. So yeah, this is not an acceptable state of affairs and because we let it get this far our chances of survival are far lower than they could have been. That is not something to celebrate...
As far as I know, philosophers are still high status inside the academic world, as in, respected amongst their peers, which is what matters.
Applying a bit of social pressure is exactly not "totalitarian"
. Putting a gun to their head or arresting their families would be. All I ask for it to make people in general aware of the facts:1) These people are really smart
2) Which allows them to influence the future of humanity in a meaningful way
3) But they are doing XYZ instead
4) Which might make the difference between us reaching a glorious happy ending or not
Once that is accepted, many of them would just switch fields by their own volition. Some because they are convinced by the logic and want to do what's best for everyone, some because they don't want to look bad.
And of course I would apply the same logic to all fields. You can't believe at the same time that
-AGI will soon-ish be capable of bringing us heaven on earth or killing us all or creating some neverending torture scenario
and also
-we shouldn't actually try all that hard to get AGI right, certainly no big bad meany stuff like putting more than zero pressure on people to use their gifts for the good of humanity as a whole
This discussion itself reminds me why I hate philosophy so much. No goal oriented thinking, no interest in quantifying things, more concerned with not getting things wrong than getting them right, no interest in shouldering responsibility for our future ...
The people working in AI alignment and capability research will decide what this future looks like. The way you see things combines a lack of vision for how good things can get, which leads to an unwillingness to take risks and accept short term costs, with an unconcerned complacency about how horribly wrong everything can turn out. We might create a half-aligned AI and end up in some never ending torture scenario. Do you think the people living through that will be grateful that you let them play chess or philosophise about w/e if that comes to pass? Do you think they would agree with your take that applying a bit of social pressure would have been a
?
jesus fucking christ you have no idea how wrong you are. I'm out
I
No, I have no interest in shouldering responsibility for a society I have no stake in.
If I had a wife and children I might reconsider, but even then I wouldn't think AI research is the only thing to worry about.
What about developing nuclear fusion energy? What about cancer research?
You seem to be using apocalyptic scare tactics. AI is not sentient. It recreates patterns but it does not understand what it's doing. There was an AI that beat the world champion in the Go board game, however researchers found a simply strategy to fool it. Showing that it did not actually understand the game:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tWoPk25yU
And more importantly AI has no control over the physical world unless we give it that control. AI will not torture us by printing words on a screen...
I don't give a fuck if you personally happened to know about it. I remember what society was like 10 years ago, the average person knew nothing about AI.
Reading your post has made me realize you are probably a Confucian-raised ricecel. I don't mind you implementing whatever system you want in your Asian country. But don't try pushing Confucianism on the west. We don't want it...
All philosophers were incels. They were ugly. Don't tell me that Nietzsche or Schopenhauer would have break hurts. They're ugly. Bro when you get pussy you cannot and I repeat you cannot think "why the sky is blue" bro the modern world was builded by virgins period. All the misoginistic philosophy about women are written by ugly rejected men.
Do you think Chris Hemsworth would speak bad about women? HELL NO.
Do you think Chris Hemsworth would speak bad about women? HELL NO.
idk
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
