beginningless

being worried about the uses of chatgpt and the money and resources spent on it: completely reasonable

pretending it doesn't even do anything at all, and has no possible use cases: total waste of time

technological developments have the potential to reduce human toil, but as long as their production and implementation are determined by capital they will largely (or, at the very least, in addition) be used to coerce labor.

it's unfortunate that the boring marxist argument about new technology in the sphere of production works like 99% of the time, including wrt chatgpt.

this is my favorite part of paterson

it was a useful method for sublimating my strong competitive urge in a way that mostly didn't interfere with my work or "real" social life. i also dont endorse this competitiveness but i do need somewhere to put it or i'll be one of those girls who gets heart disease to write more philosophy papers.

realizing that my vague disinterest in bluesky really is that twitter was a better platform to use as a bloodsport and that's also, it turns out, what i liked about it. i don't really endorse this bloodsport desire im merely commenting on it lol.

at this stage in my life those feelings are (thankfully) rare and fleeting. but awful bureaucracy just puts me right in the thick of it instantaneously for all and only the time im dealing with it. the arbitrariness and pettiness of this trait of mine would be funny if it weren't so annoying

university travel/event funding bureaucracy makes me want to **** ******

guy who writes "The Imperial Presidency: Consolidations in Executive Power From 1932 Until Today" because he hopes the executive will become as powerful as possible

im not sure.

in my family the reason was always to have the women in the family fret over them because they wont go to the doctor. same with sunscreen, allergies, etc.

i also regard as mildly suspicious any ethicist who never once spent any time as a utilitarian. the "prima facie duties" crowd is frequently interested in merely naturalizing our — often garbage — moral intuitions. at least utilitarians have to take on insane empirical premises to make that happen.

im not a utilitarian but i do you think you should regard as very suspicious any first-order claims about the rightness/wrongness of a particular course of action which completely fail to pass a "can this view be substantiated on utilitarian grounds" test.

give yourself a treat afterwards! make sure it's something you really want. if your motivational structure is like mine, where the mental block on getting it done might literally delay receiving food stamps by multiple months, even an otherwise irresponsibly expensive treat will be money-saving.

convince the misogynistic men amongst the public or we'll never achieve our political ends. it's just a total misunderstanding of politics on many levels, but it also requires disinterest in honesty and a belief that people are too stupid to be reasoned with and convinced of good ideas.

in the times where it isn't just a man trying to assert that he has an entitlement to sex (tho it often is this) I think it often comes from an intensely misanthropic and cynical line of reasoning where in a sense they can agree w/ the feminist position "ideally", but "practically" think we have to

feminist politics denies that sacrificing women to be the unwilling sex objects of men is an acceptable basis for political coalition, even for putatively "left-wing" goals. no one is ever entitled to sex, even if these guys make ~epic left-wing substack posts~ or whatever the fuck these idiots do.

the point of feminist politics is to have, for perhaps the first time in human history, a political movement (and subsequent mode of social organization) *not* entirely structured around getting men laid. it's a stupid thing to make your politics about. you have a hand. it's not my fucking problem.

because im a spinozist i (probably) figured out who the culprit was in episode 2 (~25hrs in) when the game expects you to learn it in episode 6 or 7 (~100hrs in). it's a murder mystery you can only solve if you have enough love in your heart

in order to solve a murder you have to be a good social worker. in order to approach an understanding of any other person you have to be a good social worker. in order to be a good social worker you have to be a spinozist. in order to be a spinozist you need [that one element]

(pos affect)

when umineko starts you think it's a murder mystery but by episode 4 you know umineko is about how to be a good social worker

we need to open the schools

found a loose progesterone between the pages of my copy of the metamorphoses. a little too on the nose

yeah i cruise at philosophy conferences.... across The Sea Of Ideas

it's a fantastic paper imo!

Laura Ruetsche, The miracles argument meets quantum mechanics: Toward a locavore philosophy of physics - PhilPapers It's a mistake to afflict upon on our best theories a single, uniform interpretation meant to apply in all circumstance. It's a mistake because it impedes the capacity of those theories ...

philpapers.org/rec/RUETMA

having a range of permissible interpretations to swap between upon a given explanatory opportunity is actually a virtue of quantum mechanics, and, were i a betting woman, i'd bet this feature will emerge in whatever physical theories come to supplant quantum mechanics. reutsche is right about this!

*umineko chapter 3 spoilers*

okay umineko is great. favorite character enters like 40 hours into the game by breaking through the gates of heaven and — through the power of empiricism — drags everyone back into oblivion.

one of my nemeses from the twitter days runs a weird cult now. im taking this as a victory.