I love so much of this. I have issues with some of it—as would be expected for such an exhaustive list. I spot a few contradictions that I suspect only exist due to what I have observed as your admirable propensity for succinctness.
In exploring human innovation and progress, two distinct philosophical categories emerge: Symbiotic Synapse and Strife Paradigm, as I call them.
Symbiotic Synapse represents the idea of collective intelligence and cooperation, akin to a bee swarm or ant farm, where individuals work together towards a common goal. Examples of this include:
- Emergentism: Complex systems and patterns arise from simple interactions.
- Social Contract Theory: Individuals form societies with common goals for mutual benefit.
- Utilitarianism: The best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness.
Strife Paradigm embodies the concept of survival of the fittest, where competition and opposing forces drive progress, similar to the dynamics observed in the animal kingdom. Examples of this include:
- Social Darwinism: Competition and struggle for existence drive societal progress.
- Nietzschean Philosophy: Individuals rise above others through strength, creativity, and will to power.
- Dialectical Materialism: Societal progress results from the conflict between opposing forces, leading to new forms.
Given these definitions and examples, do you find yourself aligning more with the Symbiotic Synapse, the Strife Paradigm, or do you believe that both elements are necessary and not mutually exclusive? Why?
I appreciate your critique, however, the question aimed to understand your alignment with the broader concepts of Symbiotic Synapse and Strife Paradigm.
Symbiotic Synapse highlights collective intelligence and cooperation as key drivers of progress, seen in emergentism and social contract theory. Strife Paradigm emphasizes competition and conflict, as illustrated by Nietzschean philosophy and dialectical materialism.
These concepts describe how societies function rather than prescribing ethics. Constant adaptation between different ethical guidelines without authoritative leadership or foresight is unrealistic. Societies can't continually shift ethical frameworks without risking instability.
Yup. There's no excuse for a law that ordinary people are supposed to understand, which is a prerequisite for following them, much less respecting them, to be more complex than what an ordinary person can meaningfully navigate.
Thanks. I’ll improve the wording over time but i think they'll do for now.
I love so much of this. I have issues with some of it—as would be expected for such an exhaustive list. I spot a few contradictions that I suspect only exist due to what I have observed as your admirable propensity for succinctness.
The stuff where we (potentially) disagree is the best stuff. Let's have some specifics!
Also, reload. I bolded the names.
I agree! But, first, I want to ask:
In exploring human innovation and progress, two distinct philosophical categories emerge: Symbiotic Synapse and Strife Paradigm, as I call them.
Symbiotic Synapse represents the idea of collective intelligence and cooperation, akin to a bee swarm or ant farm, where individuals work together towards a common goal. Examples of this include:
- Emergentism: Complex systems and patterns arise from simple interactions.
- Social Contract Theory: Individuals form societies with common goals for mutual benefit.
- Utilitarianism: The best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness.
Strife Paradigm embodies the concept of survival of the fittest, where competition and opposing forces drive progress, similar to the dynamics observed in the animal kingdom. Examples of this include:
- Social Darwinism: Competition and struggle for existence drive societal progress.
- Nietzschean Philosophy: Individuals rise above others through strength, creativity, and will to power.
- Dialectical Materialism: Societal progress results from the conflict between opposing forces, leading to new forms.
Given these definitions and examples, do you find yourself aligning more with the Symbiotic Synapse, the Strife Paradigm, or do you believe that both elements are necessary and not mutually exclusive? Why?
Utilitarianism/consequentialism fails as an ethical theory because it's an impossible calculus that doesn't account for intent.
Social Darwinism venerates amoral animalism - might makes right.
Both can be discarded.
The two positions encapsulated in the other ideas are descriptive rather than normative and are all true in various ways and places and times.
I appreciate your critique, however, the question aimed to understand your alignment with the broader concepts of Symbiotic Synapse and Strife Paradigm.
Symbiotic Synapse highlights collective intelligence and cooperation as key drivers of progress, seen in emergentism and social contract theory. Strife Paradigm emphasizes competition and conflict, as illustrated by Nietzschean philosophy and dialectical materialism.
These concepts describe how societies function rather than prescribing ethics. Constant adaptation between different ethical guidelines without authoritative leadership or foresight is unrealistic. Societies can't continually shift ethical frameworks without risking instability.
Wow dude. Bar exam.
Yup. There's no excuse for a law that ordinary people are supposed to understand, which is a prerequisite for following them, much less respecting them, to be more complex than what an ordinary person can meaningfully navigate.
This is a fucking mind blowing perspective. Mostly because it’s so fundamentally sound and simple.
Wisdom clarifies, it does not obfuscate. The deepest wisdom seems obvious when it's elucited properly.
Absolutely. Well said.
You're not even going to push back against my use of unnecessarily complex words?
No sir. Not even aware there was a hill I need to die on. I know those words. One fancy word per sentence, does not a complication make.
I could say, “Tell me as if I was a five year old” or “Draw in 2 crayon colors”.
*Insert [It’s a trap] Star Wars meme here