Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:22 pm

This post of my will be used as an OP for this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=190115#p2597415

2 people are driving through the jungle in a car. They stop to rest and enjoy the view, when they notice this animal in the vicinity:

Image

Person A says it's a tiger, it's a carnivore, dangerous to humans, and that it's best to get back in the car.
Person B says it's a cute, harmless, kitten, that it's a vegetarian and that it likes to cuddle.

Person A proclaims person B hopelessly brain-dead and gets in the car.
Person B waits for the tiger to approach him with open hands, ready for hugging and cuddling.

Person B continues: See, it's just a cute, harmless, vege... *FUUUUUUUUCCCKKKK* person B exclaims! The tiger tore his arm off. *AAARRGGHHH MOTHERFUCKER*, he continues in pain. As the tiger is feasting on his arm, person A says: You just got proven wrong, buddy. Person B: NO I DID NOT, SEE HOW IT IS NICE AND TAME AND *OH GOD NO*, he screams again, as the tiger breaks his spine and tears his head off, then proceeds to eat it.

Does person A need to claim to be brilliant in order to recognize that B is a hopeless, brain-dead moron? Does person A claim to be right just because he is right, or does he claim to be right because that's how reality is, despite of B's incredible ability to lie about and deny reality, even when it's hitting him in the face? Does person B's words alter reality? Do they have a magical power, or not? What does person A need to do, precisely, in order to prove to B that a tiger is a dangerous carnivore, if B is so fucking stupid and delusional and insincere that he claims it's not as it is eating him.

When it comes to reality-denial, there is really not much one can do to rationally convince the other, because by denying reality the other has already renounced rationality. The only way it may be possible to convince such a person of reality again, is by understanding what is the primary cause of their reality denial in the first place. If it's a case of fear of suffering, then it needs to be made apparent to them that they will suffer more if they choose to deny reality than if they choose to be delusional. If it's a case of insistence on denying reality for the sake of being consistent with one's previously indoctrinated beliefs, then they may, like person B, insist that reality is un-real and that what is un-real is real despite being proven wrong by the very reality they reject.

So if me and somebody else are sitting in the open and it begins raining, and it makes us both wet, and that other person denies that there is rain despite being drenched in it and having no apparent medical condition that would cause him not to be able to sense this... I honestly don't know how to rationally engage that person, in such a situation, and as I previously noted, I don't think it is possible at all.

In nature, stupidity is usually swiftly punished, so a retard cutting off his legs (just search on youtube "retard cut off his legs") enjoys the consequences of his actions as he is unable to survive. In human created environments, the retard will become almost like a star, and in some societies he will even get handouts.

And people like UPF just LOOOOVE this. They love how retards like them can now escape the natural consequences of their retardation. Now they can claim that strength is weakness, weakness is strength, independence is dependence, dependence is independence, stupid is smart, smart is stupid. They can invert reality as much as they want, they can lie without consequence, yay for them.

And then those of us who call them out, are claimed by other reality-deniers to be the true reality deniers. What a perverted game. And that passes for philosophy in modernity, folks.
I guess my main complaint can be summed up as such: It is way too easy to lie, especially in modern societies. It is also too easy to accuse others of lying, and it is too easy to ignore reality because we are to a large extent protected from it, making unnecessary a honest and direct relationship with it. So people can hide behind whatever lies and delusion they want... either their own, or the state-invented, or religious ones... anything goes. And then folks like statiktech can say "well, person A says this, B says that, but where's the proof" even as B is getting torn apart and killed.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no way to rationally engage such people, like in a philosophical discussion, but because their delusional beliefs will often result in undesirable consequences for non reality-deniers, ways of dealing with reality-deniers must be found. This thread shall thus primarily serve that purpose: it is to contain discussions and ideas on how to deal with reality-deniers in various situations.

The secondary purpose of the thread is to highlight and explain the particular methods reality-deniers use in an attempt to portray their reality-denying as reality.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Dan~ » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:26 pm

Sorry but natural selection doesn't work that way.
Power-tards can defeat weak smart nice people.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Image
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10447
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:00 pm

Dan~ wrote:Sorry but natural selection doesn't work that way.
Power-tards can defeat weak smart nice people.


First I was confused by this but with these translations it made sense -

Power-tard = powerful individual
smart = knows what other weaklings like to hear which makes him a welcome companion of other weaklings
nice = appeasing

So powerful individual can defeat weak, smooth-talking, appeasing individual in an one on one engagement.
Well, yeah...
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby James S Saint » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:56 pm

AutSider wrote:So if me and somebody else [someone else and I] are sitting in the open and it begins raining, and it makes us both wet, and that other person denies that there is rain despite being drenched in it and having no apparent medical condition that would cause him not to be able to sense this... I honestly don't know how to rationally engage that person, in such a situation, and as I previously noted, I don't think it is possible at all.

You are certainly not alone in that concern.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:28 am

When I am faced with an approaching tiger, I kneel down, anus pronounced upward, and pray, repeating the WORDS...
"It is pussy-cat...it is friendly....it wants to play.....over and over....All is subjective, therefore, if I believe strong enough, and have pure faith, I am saved."

I never test my hypothesis, because I fear my faith will fail me....but I repeat it from the safety of my subjective sheltering, protecting me from my stupidity....and if I wake in the morrow I feel validated...I made it through the darkness.
My prayers are magically powered by words and symbols....and fantasies.
I am happy.

What more would a "philosopher" like me, need?
Ah...yes...friends to support my insanity.
So, here I am.
Love me.
Last edited by peitho on Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:04 am

:handgestures-thumbdown:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7789
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:44 pm

Dan~ wrote:Sorry but natural selection doesn't work that way.
Power-tards can defeat weak smart nice people.


True. If intelligence doesn't provide any benefit, or doesn't provide a sufficient benefit, it will be defeated by sheer strength.

But how is that related to this topic?
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:18 pm

Imagine this situation: You and X decide to have an argument on whether there is an elephant in the room, and X decides to argue that there is, and you are arguing that there isn't. Let's say we're talking about an adult elephant and the room is 5 cubic meters.

You think to yourself that this is going to be easy, as there clearly isn't an elephant in the room. Nevertheless, you decide to come up with plenty of arguments why there isn't an elephant in the room. First you point out the obvious - that if there were an elephant, at least one of our senses would perceive it because it occupies plenty of physical space (touch), is quite big (sight) and probably doesn't have a very neutral smell either. Next you point out that, even under the absurd assumption that all senses are completely failing us at the moment (as opposed to for example optical illusions, where only sight would fail us), it would be next to impossible to get an elephant to come here as it is very expensive, it definitely couldn't have passed through the door, so unless the room was built around the elephant (which you know it wasn't), there is just no way for it to be in the room. You continue on and on giving reasons.

Then X's turn comes. X says: "The elephant is in the room."

See how easy it is to tell a lie?

What can philosophy possibly do about it? How do you convince X, if every single possible standard you conceive is rejected?

If it is so easy to lie and lying undermines the possibility of having a rational philosophical argument, then philosophical argumentation is way too easily undermined and thus ineffective. This calls for some alternative, less desirable and less... civilized methods of dealing with reality-deniers. But given that their reality-denying is often threatening to the maintenance of civilization itself, that is fully deserved.

First option is to use a form of deceit, which would be reactionary deceit in this case as it would be retaliating against the true deceiver, the one who initiated deception.
The second option is, as my OP suggested, violence.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:34 am

AutSider wrote:
Dan~ wrote:Sorry but natural selection doesn't work that way.
Power-tards can defeat weak smart nice people.


True. If intelligence doesn't provide any benefit, or doesn't provide a sufficient benefit, it will be defeated by sheer strength.

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:36 am

AutSider wrote:Imagine this situation: You and X decide to have an argument on whether there is an elephant in the room, and X decides to argue that there is, and you are arguing that there isn't. Let's say we're talking about an adult elephant and the room is 5 cubic meters.

You think to yourself that this is going to be easy, as there clearly isn't an elephant in the room. Nevertheless, you decide to come up with plenty of arguments why there isn't an elephant in the room. First you point out the obvious - that if there were an elephant, at least one of our senses would perceive it because it occupies plenty of physical space (touch), is quite big (sight) and probably doesn't have a very neutral smell either. Next you point out that, even under the absurd assumption that all senses are completely failing us at the moment (as opposed to for example optical illusions, where only sight would fail us), it would be next to impossible to get an elephant to come here as it is very expensive, it definitely couldn't have passed through the door, so unless the room was built around the elephant (which you know it wasn't), there is just no way for it to be in the room. You continue on and on giving reasons.

Then X's turn comes. X says: "The elephant is in the room."

See how easy it is to tell a lie?

What can philosophy possibly do about it? How do you convince X, if every single possible standard you conceive is rejected?

If it is so easy to lie and lying undermines the possibility of having a rational philosophical argument, then philosophical argumentation is way too easily undermined and thus ineffective. This calls for some alternative, less desirable and less... civilized methods of dealing with reality-deniers. But given that their reality-denying is often threatening to the maintenance of civilization itself, that is fully deserved.

First option is to use a form of deceit, which would be reactionary deceit in this case as it would be retaliating against the true deceiver, the one who initiated deception.
The second option is, as my OP suggested, violence.

Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:39 pm

Arminius wrote:
AutSider wrote:
Dan~ wrote:Sorry but natural selection doesn't work that way.
Power-tards can defeat weak smart nice people.


True. If intelligence doesn't provide any benefit, or doesn't provide a sufficient benefit, it will be defeated by sheer strength.

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.


You're not thinking long-term. Political/Social selection ultimately works within the boundaries of natural selection, it cannot transcend it. The reason unintelligent humans can have as many children as they do in the first place is BECAUSE of the social constructs created by intelligent humans. If intelligent humans die out there will be nobody to maintain the social constructs necessary for sheltering the unintelligent humans, and they will be faced with the harshness of nature and get culled. Eventually, only the least stupid of the stupid will survive, so intelligence will be selected for again, then these intelligent (least stupid) humans will construct societies and invent technology, essentially re-creating the previous environment of social constructs and allowing stupidity to flourish again. . .

As you can notice, it goes in cycles.

It may be possible to break the cycle, but I don't want to further go off-topic in this thread.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Arminius » Wed May 04, 2016 2:09 am

AutSider wrote:You're not thinking long-term. Political/Social selection ultimately works within the boundaries of natural selection, it cannot transcend it.

I am thinking long-term. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

N_S_K_P.gif
N_S_K_P.gif (11.08 KiB) Viewed 3692 times

N_S_K_P.jpg
N_S_K_P.jpg (46.66 KiB) Viewed 3692 times
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these "islands" (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their "ocean" (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun "goes down" and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding "position" -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.

AutSider wrote:The reason unintelligent humans can have as many children as they do in the first place is BECAUSE of the social constructs created by intelligent humans.

That is what I have been saying for many years.

AutSider wrote:If intelligent humans die out there will be nobody to maintain the social constructs necessary for sheltering the unintelligent humans, and they will be faced with the harshness of nature and get culled. Eventually, only the least stupid of the stupid will survive, so intelligence will be selected for again, then these intelligent (least stupid) humans will construct societies and invent technology, essentially re-creating the previous environment of social constructs and allowing stupidity to flourish again. . .

As you can notice, it goes in cycles.

My philosophy is mainly based on a cyclicality. So we are in agreement here again. According to my philosophy there are cycles from very short-dated to very long-dated. Precisely said this cycles are spiral cycles because of the physical time.

To go into detail would derail this thread.

AutSider wrote:It may be possible to break the cycle

Yes, it may be possible, especially by catastrophes. Otherwise, if cycles become very old (and many of them do), they flatten, thus their amplitude becomes shorter and shorter.

AutSider wrote:II don't want to further go off-topic in this thread.

Okay. But I think our short detour is not off-topic in this thread, because the "tiger/pussycat"-example shows not only that there are strength and weakness, people of strength and weakness, rhetorical misuse of the words "strength" and "weakness", ... and so on and so forth, it also can show the fact that the "higher" (thus: more decadent, more nihilistic, closer to anarchy/chaos) so-called "civilizations" are the more their people have to be weak, have to be cynical, have to lie, and consequently have to invert values. So "suddenly" - for example - "strength" seems to be "weakness", "weakness" seems to be "strength", "war" seems to be "peace", "peace" seems to be "war", a "tiger" seems to be a "pussycat", a "pussycat" seems to be a "tiger", ... and so on and so forth. This is an answer to the question why the person B confuses the tiger with a pussycat: B is "high civilized".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Along The Way » Thu May 05, 2016 2:30 am

AutSider wrote:Imagine this situation: You and X decide to have an argument on whether there is an elephant in the room, and X decides to argue that there is, and you are arguing that there isn't. Let's say we're talking about an adult elephant and the room is 5 cubic meters.

You think to yourself that this is going to be easy, as there clearly isn't an elephant in the room. Nevertheless, you decide to come up with plenty of arguments why there isn't an elephant in the room. First you point out the obvious - that if there were an elephant, at least one of our senses would perceive it because it occupies plenty of physical space (touch), is quite big (sight) and probably doesn't have a very neutral smell either. Next you point out that, even under the absurd assumption that all senses are completely failing us at the moment (as opposed to for example optical illusions, where only sight would fail us), it would be next to impossible to get an elephant to come here as it is very expensive, it definitely couldn't have passed through the door, so unless the room was built around the elephant (which you know it wasn't), there is just no way for it to be in the room. You continue on and on giving reasons.

Then X's turn comes. X says: "The elephant is in the room."

See how easy it is to tell a lie?

What can philosophy possibly do about it? How do you convince X, if every single possible standard you conceive is rejected?

If it is so easy to lie and lying undermines the possibility of having a rational philosophical argument, then philosophical argumentation is way too easily undermined and thus ineffective. This calls for some alternative, less desirable and less... civilized methods of dealing with reality-deniers. But given that their reality-denying is often threatening to the maintenance of civilization itself, that is fully deserved.

First option is to use a form of deceit, which would be reactionary deceit in this case as it would be retaliating against the true deceiver, the one who initiated deception.
The second option is, as my OP suggested, violence.


What I would do is not pretend like I'm going to save civilization form the idiots, and simply try and continue to live life the best I can, learning as much about myself and the world around me as possible, and when I die I die. I wouldn't resort to violence unless I or my family/tribe was being threatened with violence.

If humanity becomes so stupid that it goes extinct, then so be it. It's not like it will be the end of the world, but merely the end of humanity. I am not going to cause great suffering (such as violence and murder) to a fellow human being simply because they suffer from being immensely stupid. But that' just me.
Along The Way
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:46 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby WendyDarling » Thu May 05, 2016 3:37 am

Can't anybody spell in this place? I call that reality-denial-->misspelling. All misspellers should drink vast amt. of toxic ink while receiving auto-checks tattooed across their heads in the form of every imaginable word in existence now and forever more!
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7789
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Sat May 07, 2016 12:46 am

Before speaking about how to deal with reality-denial, let us first take a step back and explore further the mechanics behind reality-denial, which could possibly answer why it is so detrimental to things which we, or at least some of us, hold dear:

1)Memetic survival (intellectual/mental conflict, philosophical argumentation)
2)Genetic survival (physical conflict, fighting/war)



The consequences of reality-denial for Physical/Genetic conflict and survival


It is obvious how reality-denial is detrimental to surviving physical conflict– if one is faced with a real threat whose existence he denies, or if he has poor judgment and thinks that what is a threat is not a threat, one puts their own life in peril. The consequences of being a reality-denying imbecile usually swiftly follow with regards to physical conflict and survival, as my tiger-example in the OP shows.
The consequences may be postponed if society intervenes, so a stupid person who thinks tigers are cute kittens to be cuddled with may be prevented by the society from going in the vicinity of a tiger, or may be saved and the tiger may be shot by guards if he does manage to get into its vicinity. He may even live his whole life and die a clueless retard, believing tigers are cute cuddly kittens, if he was consistently protected by society from putting that belief to the test.
The consequences can never disappear though – society has to put resources and effort into saving retards from their own retardation, so in place of a single retard suffering, the entire society suffers.


Memetic conflict
is a bit more trickier.

The equivalent of war/fighting for physical conflict would be philosophical, rational argumentation with connection to reality for memetic conflict. Philosophical, rational argumentation demands communication.

Words sharing the referent is necessary for any kind of communication to occur in the first place – if I say „tree“ and somebody thinks of a small furry animal that meows, communication has failed because for them that word has a different referent than for me . Reality is the common referent accessible to all (or, at least, those of us with healthy senses) that allows for communication in the first place. A child learns what the word "apple" denotes by their mother pointing to an object in reality that is perceptible to both. The fact that the word "apple" even though used in different contexts by different people at different times stands for the same thing is what makes it possible for us to say "apple" and the other person to understand what we mean. Yes, relative to the context of a particular speech, "apple" can also denote a category of things, that is to say many things sharing a similar set of properties (the type of things that is categorized as an apple), instead of a single concrete apple, which children also learn in later stages of cognitive development.

Even for abstract terms like "the" we agree that they perform a particular function in a language, and although the referent is in language, language still exists within reality so the referent to reality is vaguely present even in this very abstract sense.

People who deny reality thus deny the common referent which is necessary for communication to occur at all, and they continue communicating usually by inventing a more pleasurable and feel-good common referent, and although the constituents of this common referent are based on reality, their sum is not. A frequently used example to explain this is that of a Unicorn (horse+horn) or Pegasus (horse+bird wings). Although horses, horns, and wings, exist individually, their combinations do not. Every fantasy is, to an extent, based on what was previously perceived, aka, it is based on reality (but again, to an extent/degree).

Therefore, language is no longer used as a tool for communication about reality, but as a toy for communication about whatever feels good, or it denies communication altogether and indulges in self-flattering hedonistic proclamations: „I am beautiful“, „I have value“, „I am the first to deserve sex“ etc. etc.

Given that it is so easy to undermine philosophical, rational argumentation with a simple lie, memetic conflict usually isn't resolved by rational means.
Instead, memetic conflict is mostly settled by more deceitful methods - trickery, seducing the emotions of the masses, flattery, etc. Consider religions – 90% and more of the world are religious despite religions selling obvious horseshit. How so? Simply, religions play to people's weaknesses, telling the masses that they have worth, that they are loved by God, promising afterlife and justice, providing a sense of belonging, etc.

Despite being untrue, religions dominate.

More about that in the next post.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Sat May 07, 2016 12:47 am

Reality-denial and masculinity, femininity, environments.


Yes, that's right. Go fuck yourself, Kriswest.

First I will just note that when I am speaking about masculinity and femininity, I am talking from an evolutionary point of view. Men and women evolved to fulfill different sexual reproductive roles. Because of this, they evolved differently and have different traits and abilities. The abstract qualities and functions based on these traits/abilities are masculinity for those connected with the male sexual role and femininity for the female.

Men evolved to deal with the natural environment, the reality, directly, by either providing (extracting resources from nature) or protecting from it (sheltering). Both necessitate an honest relationship with reality because reality is objective, aka, outside of the human subject (brain) and thus doesn't possess any potential needs or wants one could exploit to get what one wants. If you're starving in the middle of the woods, reality doesn't give a shit if you call it immoral that it doesn't magically conjure food for you, or if you cry, or if you lie and say: „Food will appear in front of me!“ or „If food doesn't appear in front of me, I will do X to harm reality“. None of that works. Either you learn how to acquire food, or you die. This was the male task.

Femininity is about seeking the best genes to replicate, the most alpha male, the one who can deal with reality most efficiently so that she is protected from it and provided for. Females are not on average as strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, etc. as males (although it is worth pointing out that the gap in intelligence is significantly smaller than other gaps), they are not capable of dealing with reality on their own, so they submit to the strongest masculine entity they find, which is either an individual alpha male (traditionalistic, obsolete in modernity), or the abstraction of the alpha male - the state. This protection and provision allows females to freely act on their nature and fulfill their reproductive role, within the safe confines of the alpha male's physical and memetic domain. This means that not only did females evolve to be less capable of dealing with nature and thus less capable of an honest relationship with reality, but that in a typical environment in which humans live there is no incentive for them to have an honest relationship with nature because others deal with nature/reality for them.

This is the core reason for the detachment, in short – sheltering. And that is why it is so prevalent in feminine minds.

And while the feminine approach (reality-denial) may function, it is very situational – it only works while the said feminine entities are protected by a masculine entity from reality.

Just like a child can only play around and think that a tiger is a pussycat while its parents protect it.

Since the social environment created and maintained by the masculine entity of the state consists of mutually dependent subjective agents with their own needs and wants, feminine entities can manipulate those needs and wants to get away with their reality-denial and even force others to deny reality for the sake of their feelings. For example, a female may say that unless she is treated as equal to men (unless a man is willing to deny reality, suspend reason and evidence, and treat her as equal when she is not so), she will withhold sex and attempt to socially ostracize that male by speaking negatively about him to other females.

The problems occur when a feminine approach is taken to deal with reality. The perfect example of this is how feminists want to deal with Muslims… you can only blackmail and emotionally manipulate entities which are either feminine or forced to be feminine, an average female cannot control and manipulate an average male without the daddy state standing behind her and holding a gun/sword to that man's throat. If the daddy state does nothing, females get groped, raped, beaten, etc. because masculinity dominates femininity unless prevented to do so by another masculine entity.

On the other hand, it can be more beneficial to take a feminine approach when dealing with society/social reality, because there masculine traits – openly saying what one thinks, honesty, etc. can be considered hurtful and aggressive., so perhaps also a masculine approach to dealing with the social environment is also a problem?

It is because the social environment necessitates pandering to people's feelings that politicians are so feminine and have to constantly keep what they say under check. An exception to this are politicians who are/want to be the embodiment of masculinity themselves, instead of serving an abstraction – tyrants, dictators, monarchs, et cetera. Trump comes to mind – instead of playing the feminine game of pandering to feelings and not hurting anybody, he takes the more masculine approach of directly pointing out real problems and suggesting solutions. This is why many people have taken to him – he represents the masculinity that is lacking in modern times.






Memetic conflict cont. and more on environments

Memetic conflict works within the parameters of natural selection, and natural selection doesn't give a shit about truth, it is about fitness and adaptation to environment, which may also include dishonesty in any of its forms.
Dishonesty/reality-denial is quintessentially feminine as it is a consequence of weakness and not being able to deal with reality, a response to this inability. Take for example some animals which puff themselves up to appear bigger and more menacing, which is a physical type of dishonesty, trying to present oneself as more than what one is because one cannot deal with the other as what one truly is because of weakness.

A human social environment prefers disconnection from reality because the harshness of reality upsets the dull masses.
However, disconnection from reality is only fit if the person is either 1) disconnected about something irrelevant/harmless, 2) if the person's disconnection about a particular part of reality is compensated for by another person who is disconnected about it.
And it is not fit in the long-term as I will show below.

Natural environment necessitates an honest relationship with it, because otherwise one dies (as previously stated).

The human social environment exists within the natural environment, which exists within the larger environment of the cosmos. Most of the known cosmos is a very austere environment antagonistic to human needs. The comfortable, safe, sheltering environments are constructed by living organisms, the most comfortable/safest for humans being human constructed environments, particularly in the West. However, that is not how most of the universe is, that is not its default state.

What makes constructing such safe/comfortable environments possible in the first place is need which arises due to the lack of such an environment. Need is the mother of all invention, or something like that. Once human needs are placated in a sheltering environment, we can see the rise of stupidity, degeneracy, hedonism, and other kinds of behavior which lead to the downfall of a sheltering environment that made those behaviors possible in the first place, as it is impossible to be a hedonist in a natural environment of scarcity and impossible to be a degenerate without the system protecting you from the natural consequences of degeneracy.

The troubling contradiction is this – humans make it so that something which is unfit and swiftly punished in nature is acceptable and fit for human environments. Because the human environment exists within the natural one, it is still judged by natural standards, and so it will, eventually, collapse or get conquered because it contradicts the natural environment.
In a natural environment, because there is a scarcity of food, people will tend to eat as much as they can. This is evolutionarily fit behavior for this environment. However, to retain the same mindset in an environment of abundance leads to poor health and fatness. Yet, most people still do it – they respond very predictably and instinctively to their environment without giving much thought to long-term consequences of their actions.

This means that, in order to maintain civilization and resist succumbing to natural cycles of rise/fall of civilizations, it would be mandatory to think beyond the immediate environment and strive to be fit and remain strong in relation to nature/cosmos, not the human made environment, EVEN IF the human made environment currently allows for weakness. If one becomes weak, then one drains resources from the very environment that allows his weakness to persist. It is a self-defeating behavior in the long-term.

In other words, a behavior that is fit in human environments may only be made so in the short-term, until the human artifices fail, which is why it is important to think beyond human environments for fitness and be fit (strong) in relation to nature and cosmos.

Has this fantasy ever happened? That people, when given the chance to fuck things up and indulge in mindless hedonism and degeneracy, don’t do that, but rise above it and seek improvement through conflict even if there is no IMMEDIATE need for it?

Aside from a few, very few, exceptions, this is impossible. The majority of people, and I mean more than 90% , will always remain nothing more but manimals. Because of this, maintaining civilization seems impossible if humans are allowed to act on their instincts and fuck things up.

Thus the only way to maintain a civilization is to have a political system that doesn’t allow humans to act on their instincts and fuck things up - fascism or national-socialism or some other highly authoritarian system that forces people to remain strong and fit regardless of whether there is an immediate need for it or not, but I suspect that even in that case, sooner or later a generation would be born that would fuck it all up with nihilism and hedonism, thinking that they are “progressive”, “hip”, “rebellious” and the usual hippie nonsense. But maybe that can be prevented by proper education. Or the system would fail because authoritarian dictatorships are prone to corruption and can too easily turn into self-interested, short-term thinking oligarchies with no regard for their people.

It can be noticed that the masculine approach (adapting to nature/cosmos) signifies ascent progress, while the feminine approach (adapting to human environments) signifies descent, regress, collapse.

Because of this I also conclude that masculinity is generally superior to femininity, as males are better at adapting to more austere and demanding environments which constitute the majority of the cosmos, while females are better at adapting to sheltering male-made environments, reducing the significance of their adaptation, since it is dependant on masculine entities, and what is dependant on something else is weak/inferior in relation to it.

Then again, men are highly dependent on women to reproduce. Females give birth to a child, but it is because of the male that the child lives on.
Perhaps this analogy can be applied to natural cycles – the destruction/collapse of what was gives birth to a new system (feminine), and males make that system survive by providing for it and protecting it until accumulated feminine energies cause its collapse again in order to give birth to a new one…

Yes, I really went on a tangent with this environment talk, but it needed to be said.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Thu May 12, 2016 11:13 pm

The societal inversion of natural/real hierarchies of probability and possibility


In a social environment populated by delusional masses, the most practical and feasible solution, meaning one with the highest probability of succeeding at producing a desired outcome, may have the least chance of actually being executed, and the course of action with the lowest actual probability of succeeding at solving the problem may have the highest chance of being picked. Especially if it is a kind of social environment where decision-making depends on democratic processes - voting and mass consensus, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator further increasing the chances the decision will be detached from reality.

This is based on a mistaken perception of reality, more precisely, the principles which govern the interactions occurring in reality, wrongly assigning to them a divine purpose and meaning which is not there, and assuming the existence of a God, which is also not there. It is thus another form of (indirect) reality-denial.

An example: The problem is crossing the river. A small group of people suggest building a bridge. Others decide that it is a waste of energy doing that, when they can just pray for God to conjure a bridge for them. Regardless of the fact that building a bridge has a higher probability of actually solving the problem, people opted for praying instead, as it is a path of least resistance and requires no thinking or working, only blind obedience to a non-existent deity that is asked to do the work and thinking on their behalf, like a parent would for a child.

Is it any wonder he is called the Heavenly father, or the sky-daddy?
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Only_Humean » Fri May 13, 2016 1:57 pm

AutSider warned for last-but-one post beind outside forum rules; fourth warning, week ban.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Wed May 18, 2016 9:40 am

Image

User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri May 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Is it possible to know, reflect upon, and interpret this true nature of reality in an objective sense or are we left with subjective interpretations?

Of course not all subjectivist interpretations of reality being equal.....
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Fri May 20, 2016 8:46 pm

HaHaHa wrote:Is it possible to know, reflect upon, and interpret this true nature of reality in an objective sense or are we left with subjective interpretations?

Of course not all subjectivist interpretations of reality being equal.....


There is always a subject which is doing the experiencing and that subject has limitations.

And quite a lot of thinking we do throughout the day has nothing to do with establishing certain facts and is more about how to apply those facts (be they accurate or even way off base) to get to what we need and want. And what those needs are is very much dependent on the person in question.

And even beyond that most thinking activity is not even about applying facts but habitual reactions and thought-patterns to certain stimulations.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri May 20, 2016 10:47 pm

Is_Yde_opN wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:Is it possible to know, reflect upon, and interpret this true nature of reality in an objective sense or are we left with subjective interpretations?

Of course not all subjectivist interpretations of reality being equal.....


There is always a subject which is doing the experiencing and that subject has limitations.

And quite a lot of thinking we do throughout the day has nothing to do with establishing certain facts and is more about how to apply those facts (be they accurate or even way off base) to get to what we need and want. And what those needs are is very much dependent on the person in question.

And even beyond that most thinking activity is not even about applying facts but habitual reactions and thought-patterns to certain stimulations.

Sounds very subjective. We then really are left to subjective interpretations built on experiences where coming to know of an all encompassing reality in the objective sense being impossible. Limitations of the human mind and consciousness.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Sat May 21, 2016 2:10 pm

Objective in the sense of Rand, no.
But the now popular Marxist subjectivism shtick they are teaching isn't good either for the development of a man's potential. Not for most anyway, I think.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sat May 21, 2016 5:46 pm

Is_Yde_opN wrote:Objective in the sense of Rand, no.
But the now popular Marxist subjectivism shtick they are teaching isn't good either for the development of a man's potential. Not for most anyway, I think.


Well, I can tolerate that. Randian objectivists are a bunch of self righteous pompous asshats.

Like I said, not all subjectivism is equal as I view subjectivism as a manifestation of competing beliefs, ideas, and perceptions all vying for supremacy. That's really what a lot of social philosophy is reduced to.

Marxists are idiots without an iota of understanding anything on human nature.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Postby AutSider » Sat May 21, 2016 9:50 pm

Great video, the reference to the tiger is really in the spirit of the thread.

I was banned on ILP until 20th for saying something along the lines of 'Fuck you, Kriswest' in one of my posts. I said that because Kriswest complained about inserting discussions about gender everywhere, and I was inserting it in this thread. Admittedly, I wrote that with an infantile, devilish smile on my face and hoped it would get taken as a light-hearted joke by anybody reading the post. Apparently, it warrants a week ban.

SJW-level moderation aside, I heard a great joke recently which immediately made me think of this thread.

The joke:

Image

More on this page:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm

The contrast between
1) rationalistic(not rational), scholastic, deductive approach of trying to infer particulars from previously established, often only presumed, general principles, or some authority, be it state or religious ancient texts
2) empiricist, scientific, inductive approach of first perceiving the particular, concrete, physically existing things, and building generalizations/abstract principles and categories based on it, where one's own mind is the final judge

You are free to do everything in modern society, of course - just don't examine reality by yourself, directly, without permission and guidance of the holy religious/state authority, that's blasphemous/non-openminded.
Where open minded means being open to having your eyes closed to reality.
Our senses are our connection to reality - is it any wonder that the first step of those who want to trick us into adopting their particular kind of reality-denial will be to attempt to destroy that connection?
Or, alternatively, they will try to insert some sort of a proxy, an authority that would decide which sensual information is accurate, and which isn't.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]