# 人工智能正在推动一场学术革命
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [September 21, 2026, 12:43am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263 "2026-09-21T00:43:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2026, 8:43am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/41 "2026-09-29T08:43:25Z")
> [@3PEudiamonia](#):
>
> But the doctrine of force also has a fatal flaw: it mistakes fact for justification. Force can explain how rights are established, but not why they ought to be recognized. If rights derive solely from power, then the oppression of the weak by the strong is always justified; the rights you secure today through force can be taken away tomorrow by someone stronger, using the very same logic. Such a world has no rules, only fear; no justice, only victory and defeat. It cannot even explain why the oppressed, when they resist, are striving for rights rather than merely perpetrating violence.
Oh i am completely aware of that.
As the saying goes, “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical”
The problem is that there is a false sense of equivalence here which implies that somewhere, somehow intent, good will, idealism, justice are somehow needed and are on par with power.
That is simply not the case.
Force is the manifestation of everything in this reality.
You have only as much in this existence which you can protect with your own force.
You can have the entire world to yourself if you have the power to keep it under your heel, and simultaneously you wont even get to keep your own life if you are powerless to defend it.
I will absolutely grant you that force can be motivated by any and every kind of motivation from the highest of ideals and holy to the most depraved and demonic.
That is obviously true.
But this changes nothing about the fact that the right to existence is preserved and exercised through force.
> [@3PEudiamonia](#):
>
> Thus, rights do not descend from nowhere, nor are they determined purely by violence. They originate in the human need to pursue happiness (P1), take shape through mutual recognition among persons (P2), and are ultimately secured by institutionalized force (P3). Force ought to be the guardian of rights, not their master. The Three Principles of Happiness do not deny the existence of power; rather, they demand that power answer a question: whose survival, freedom, and long-term happiness is it protecting? In doing so, they provide a moral foundation for preventing the privatization of force.
Correct.
Wielding power responsibly ensures better outcomes for everyone. I do not question this fact.
As i said, i simply state that this changes nothing about the nature of being on this plane of existence.
You can have the best of intention or the worst, be purely defensive or offensive, just or unjust… Any and all motivations depend on power and force to manifest, thus force will always stand above idealism.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2026, 8:52am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/42 "2026-09-29T08:52:43Z")
Force in the right proportion. Defending the defenseless is good. Tyranny is bad. _Ignorant_ tyranny is one thing… patient force checking _knowing_ tyranny another. Comes straight outta seeming nowhere even though its warnings were slapping you straight in the face for millennia.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2026, 9:25am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/43 "2026-09-29T09:25:22Z")
What if i told you that all forms of power are tyrannical?
Power is always about exercising authority over others, stripping them of their own wants and wishes and also potentially punishing them for it.
You prevent a thief from taking a wallet. Grabbing him by the wrist, holding him down till the police arrives.
You call this good. You call this fair. You call this… something.
But at it’s core and most basic, all you have done is forcing your will onto another person against their own will, to strip them of their agency, to punish them in a harsh and cruel manner for not behaving in a way YOU approve of.
As i told you: This reality is reigned by duality, and evil lives with you and alongside you with each breath you take, everyday. Its in every action you take and every decision you make.
Its not the spoon that bends Neo.
Its just your perception of it, when you think that one force is good force and the other is not.
At their core, all force is just force. And all of it plays a very cruel game of natural selection.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2026, 9:27am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/44 "2026-09-29T09:27:23Z")
Force/power/want are all same…. neutral.
Consent structures that allow us to either violate or respect/recognize.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2026, 9:35am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/45 "2026-09-29T09:35:40Z")
Mmm. Yes. This is a lot more accurate.
Bringing respect and recognition into the equation shifts a lot about the overall picture.
---
### Author:  [@3PEudiamonia](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/3PEudiamonia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2026, 3:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/46 "2026-10-01T15:10:31Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> You prevent a thief from taking a wallet. Grabbing him by the wrist, holding him down till the police arrives.
> You call this good. You call this fair. You call this… something.
> But at it’s core and most basic, all you have done is forcing your will onto another person against their own will, to strip them of their agency, to punish them in a harsh and cruel manner for not behaving in a way YOU approve of.
If a thief steals your wife’s wallet, would you just ignore it?
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2026, 3:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/47 "2026-10-01T15:15:41Z")
> [@3PEudiamonia](#):
>
> If a thief steals your wife’s wallet, would you just ignore it?
No, but what does that have to do with what i just described?
If i try to prevent the thief from taking the wallet it will come down to force vs force yet again.
One will meets another. The outcome is a winner and a loser.
Nothing says that i will win just because i’d do anything in my power to protect my wife, or because “its the right thing to do”.
If my power is not enough, then doing anything in my power will fall short of accomplishing anything.
The intent, the justice, the ideals do not matter from a practical standpoint. That is simply reality.
The hard floor of reality.
---
### Author:  [@3PEudiamonia](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/3PEudiamonia)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2026, 10:38am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263/48 "2026-10-14T10:38:23Z")
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> **It leans on the same self-citation problem as the other paper** — the “Three Principles of Eudaimonia” foundation is, again, cited back to the author’s own unpublished/independent works, so the theoretical bedrock of a 125-page paper on war isn’t peer-reviewed anywhere.
This topic hasn’t been discussed for a long time and is about to sink into oblivion.
I need a foundation to build a theoretical edifice, and the three principles of happiness are the foundation, while the theory of pride as an alienation is the edifice. Just like the three laws of motion are the foundation and the law of universal gravitation is the edifice. I used my foundation (the three principles of happiness) to build my theoretical edifice (the theory of pride as an alienation), but was criticized for “self-referencing”.
This is the current publishing environment, which is already very bad. Bad enough that Newton’s theory of universal gravitation was rejected for citing his own three laws of motion. It’s time to reform.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/topic/86263.md?page=2)