Okay, I apologize I went back and read your first post which said something like “the self doesn’t exist is a fun concept to play with” when I was pretty sure you had said just “the self doesnt exist.” I’m sitting here trying to find the thread that connects “the self doesn’t exist” with your seeming acknowledgement of every aspect of it.

I agree its useful to test “wrong conclusions” for the reasons you state. You end up constructing consistent logic justifying it, and can witness for yourself where the reasoning goes wrong, and can speculate as to why. I think it makes relating to people convinced by faulty logic and conclusions easier to relate to, as well as gives you a hint to where their reasoning is off and you cans start to argue against it

But what is experience, how can you find experience without a self doing the experiencing? I’m not trying to put it on you but it is consistent with your logic, as I understand it

Yes because never questioning has worked out great for us so far

I haven’t played them since they first came out, practically a lifetime ago. Actually now that I think about it my friend is really into halo lore I wonder if they saw the show.

It was hokey but I liked it. And yeah I thought it ended really strongly but there’s no plan for a 3rd season

I played the first two

Famously, Kant stripped away all his preconceptions and could prove only the subjective (I think therefore I am), whereas you seem to deny everyone their subjectivity, even your own. In any case since you’re interested in these questions, I assume then you’ll reach a better understanding of these questions, just keep studying and growing on your own terms (which is contradictory to your own thesis, but the whole is always defined by contradiction.)

I just watched the Halo series, thought it was corny but kinda awesome, and then discovered noone else thought it was awesome. Def had some problems, tried to shoehorn in a lot of stuff but by the finale I was super hooked

Well I disagree that “we can’t find it”. I think the inability to find the self is a result of the limitations of empiricism, whereas dialectical and materialist analysis has no problem locating the self within the changing relationships that define the individual, history and nature in context of each other.

And this is what empiricism really fails at: its great at defining an object, defining the parameters that constitute it, and isolating it as a subject of study, but absolutely falls short at being able to identify the relationships between “things” or the historic circumstances that give rise to them.

As observers, an over-reliance on one theory of knowledge, or epistemology, verges on the kind of ideological blindness usually associated with fringe fundamentalism. We wouldnt us a ratchet to hammer a nail, why would we insist that a single epistemic “tool” is the only one that is capable of determining truth?

Honestly I probably agreed with you more some years ago before reading Sam Harris’s Free Will, which was so bad it set me on a very different path of inquiry.

Crucial supporting NPCs in Monster Hunter

But the self can be shown to exist, unless you deny the existence of subjectivity. this leads to hard determinism, what you referred to as no free will.

The productive, creative process itself, the drive to learn and be curious, to investigate, all of this leads to the conclusion that 1. There is some kind of greater will guiding us or 2. Humans have the ability to make determinations based on their experiences, and choose certain actions based on those experiences.

I’ve seen the deterministic argument that free will is an illusion caused by a chain of circumstances, but I don’t buy it. I think that the view that free will is an illusion is itself a logical error: the result of a dependence of the tendency of dualism to try and turn everything into objects, rather than seeing each object within its relationships, coming together to form a totality. This tendency leads to vulgar empiricism and positivist views. These views always obscure social relationships, which are real, measurable and predictions can be made based on them.

The “I’m so deep I’m a nihilist” trope has got to go. Every TV show or movie where there is some supposedly hyper intelligent character, they always have the most vile, garbage philosophy.

The Book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnneman. Weird self help name, but its a book on biases, research which Kahnneman won the nobel prize. Once I started questioning my preconceptions it completely changed my whole perspective on the world. Its like that list of fallacies that you study in philo 101, but they’re not like dialogical fallacies they appear in our own thinking. And “experts” are more likely to get fooled in their own fields of research than laypeople when asked trick questions

Only if you look at things a certain way. There’s real danger to believing that you lack actual subjectivity, its like reverse solipsism, and is basically the worst version of doomerism.

If you look at things dialectically and Materialistically, subjectivity can’t be avoided

That would sound amazing

So What’cha Want by the Beastie Boys

*more than

Oh is this a thing that academics predicted? Welcome to the 1840s, Guardian

Also blaming the billionaires for destabilizing the economy is only partially true. The system is unstable, but billionaires profit from “instability”, so sure they cause it as much as the system causes billionaires and millionaires.

The problem isn’t who owns gigantic companies like Walmart and amazon and google and apple, the problem is that they can be privately owned. The instability isn’t a bug so much as a feature. Its not the individuals, it’s the system. Individuals can make adjustments, sometimes very critical ones but the system doesn’t pick winners based on who does the best at adhering to externalized ideals, it picks winners based on who can create the most profit for owners, profit made of the immense amount of collected time and energy siphoned off of workers.

Are you a capitalist or a communist? You’re certainly not a communist, I believe what you are hinting at is “socialized” vs “individual” labor, and it is a historically progressive development of capitalism. How a software developer fits into the means of production is they aid in the exchange of money from the sale of commodities, and make the transactions possible. But at the end of the day some product is being sold to some end user and you help to make that possible. Without the transaction there is no sale, which means no exchange of commodities for more money than they cost to produce and bring to market (profit or surplus value) which is the basis for the whole system, it is the point where the exploitation occurs.

Everyone is always “exploited” by the system, its part of what drives competition. But to be more specific, everyone is alienated from the system of production. we are all very individuated in our thinking, which bears out in our alienated experience. In more advanced or more advantaged countries, with a higher outlay of financial or investment capital, the class character of any individual is more specific and hard to suss out. In developing or economically repressed nations, where the factories of 1870s Germany still exist, alongside the factories of 1840s England, if not in capital than in conditions, the class character of any individual might be more clear and concise. Our “class character” is determined by our relationship to production, and it is not altogether straightforward. I’ve seen many fights like “are cops workers” and even “are baristas workers” that have sent me.

All that to say, capitalism promotes cooperation through competition, it socializes production, so that the product of your labor is just one part of a very complex whole. Even the painter has to pay for insurance on his van, probably has a couple loans for his business. The fact that your labor is socialized doesn’t make you a communist. Communism is the struggle for a classless, moneyless society. It too will presumably also have socialized production, but also socialized ownership of the means of production whereas under capitalism the MoP is privatized. This is the fundamental contradiction within capitalism and it is right that you found yourself wondering about it.

The “means of production” is a very abstract and fundamental concept. I think its right for you to question it, and how it relates directly to you. Its a very general concept, and everything you are asking of of applies to is very specific. The means of production has been well defined it seems elsewhere in the discussion, but its basically “everything that is used in human production” which is the driving force of history from a Marxist/sorta Hegelian perspective. So it is a big deal.

But what is also relevant, is how production is defined, and namely who owns its products. You work in IT (so do I) so in that example you own your work laptop? That laptop is MoP, same as the painter tools, and you sell your product to the company, who uses it to run how ever millions of transactions. Or making those transactions possible for that company, integrating some new feature. So more specifically, those tools are Capital, which is an essential mean of production under capitalism. But a ton of the infrastructure for those transactions was publicly funded, paid for with taxes. But now most if not all of that infrastructure is privately owned.

So in that way you are like the painter, in that you sell directly the product of your labor to the capitalist. Both you and the painter are workers in the same way, but youre an intellectual worker vs he is a physical laborer. but the paint and personal items in your personally owned house is for your personal use, whereas the software you sell to a company is for commercial use, in effect the software is capital, whereas the paint on your walls is not. But if the painter painted the walls at your company’s office, that would be capital. The painter “bought the paint with his own money”? But you are paying him, so you are buying the paint.