#philosophy of action

[sophiaphile]

"Like The New York Times, CNN and network news programs, it [PowerPoint] appears to be neutral, unbiased and free of any leanings one way or another. Just as a hammer does not tell you what kind of house to build, Microsoft would like us to think...that their product is merely a neutral tool. It is faceless, and it is what you put into it that counts.

However, every piece of software comes with its own set of biases and tendencies. The most obvious bias and the easiest to see in PowerPoint, is the Auto Content Wizard, a feature that makes outlines of presentations with bullet points for those who feel they don't know how to make a presentation themselves...

However, there are more subtle sets of biases at work. The way the PowerPoint is structured and the various options provided have not only been limited...but they have been designed assuming, a priori, a specific world view. The software, by making certain directions and actions easier and more convenient than others, tells you how to think as it helps you accomplish your task. Not in an obvious way or in an obnoxious way or even in a scheming way. The biases are almost unintentional, they are so natural and well-integrated. It is possible that the engineers and designers have no intention of guiding and straightening out your thinking; they simply feel that the assumptions upon which they base their design decisions are the most natural and practical. You are thus subtly indoctrinated into a manner of being and behaving, assuming and acting, that grows on you as you use the program."

—David Byrne, "Exegesis," Envisioning Emotional Epistemological Information

[haggishlyhagging]

Marxism, anarchism, and existentialism all are philosophies of action: They assume that human beings must act, they focus on human action rather than on simple existence (if there is such a thing as simple existence devoid of action). They assume that human beings are capable of affecting the world around them and one another, by making choices among different courses of action. Although existentialists generally emphasize the elements of individual choice involved in action, while marxists may emphasize the impact of historical situations on action, both see action as possible and necessary. Even those marxists who say that actions are governed by historical inevitability would admit that many people may betray their class or not have the proper class-consciousness, which means that they in fact can choose whether or not to act in a way that will benefit their class.

Marxism and anarchism emphasize changing "the world," while existentialism focuses on creating the self through action, which may include collective action. All of these involve action, not just thought.

Feminism also is a philosophy of action, which focuses on both collective and individual action, on changing all levels of power relationships in the world and on changing selves as well. When a feminist writer such as Mary Daly writes about "be-ing," she is not talking about "being" as opposed to "action," but about action. "Creative be-ing," she calls it, which we could call "be-ing that acts." Following Beauvoir, many feminists, including Daly and Dworkin, have used the term "becoming," again meaning a kind of action as well as thought.

As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that feminism is a philosophy of pure thought, or that one could be a feminist without taking actions that involve other women.

Like marxism and radical anarchism, feminism is a theory about and for people as social beings. Being a feminist involves developing ideas about, and actions toward women as a group. A woman is not a feminist if she does not think about women in general, if she merely says, "I am as good as a man or better, and will act in a way that shows I know it." One can be an existentialist of a sort without being necessarily linked to other existentialists: Even if one must act, one can act individualistically rather than collectively.

Existentialism emphasizes what could be called "negative" freedom, or the freedom to resist or reject. An example of the extreme to which this idea of freedom can be taken is Sartre's comment that he was never freer than when France was occupied by Germany. That is, he had more to resist. People active in the Resistance felt they had made a true choice. But an extreme lack of freedom created that situation.

A marxist notion of freedom would involve more control over a situation: ownership of the means of production, control over one's own working conditions.

As writers who have sought to fuse marxism and existentialism have suggested, the two kinds of freedom both have value.

-Carol Anne Douglas, Love and Politics: Radical Feminist and Lesbian Theories

[philosophybits]

It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

[juan-francisco-palencia]

𝙌𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙌𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙨.

❝seem at times, we have to accept that some people can only be in our hearts, not in our lives.❞

—  Juan Francisco Palencia.

[allyouneediskilly]

i massively enjoyed my time with rise/sunbreak and I’ll no doubt keep playing it, but i finally jumped into world and im not trying to be too corny but i am genuinely overwhelmed by how beautiful it all is.

[kacievvbbbb]

I need someone that believes in magic to get ahold of Batman again. He is an overly serious man that runs around in an admitted bat suit fighting a gimmick rouge gallery. And he is doing it because he sincerely believes in a better tomorrow and somewhere along the way we have lost the plot. Batman wasn’t created to punish the guilty that is actually completely antithetical to his beliefs he is not the fucking punisher.

Batman just like wonder woman and Superman primarily wants to save people! sure he doesn’t do it in a sunny way but that is still what drives him. Hell he even goes a step further and actually builds a case he’s not just waiting for criminals to commit the crime he is shutting down smuggling and trafficking rings foiling plots he is a detective! For Christs sake it’s what made him so unique and fun as a superhero.

Also His desire to save people is literally what compels him to adopt Dick, Jason, Stephanie. Cass because he wanted to give these kids a chance, to save them in ways 8year old him wasn’t. Someone who just wants to punish the guilty wouldn’t do that, And now they have turned him into a borderline physically and emotionally abusive absentee parent all in the name of making him an edge lord. Where is the heart! Where is the fucking heart in it all! Where are the kids and the bright colors and the zaniness. Let Batman and Gotham be FANTASTICAL! I’m tired of the greys and the browns.

I’m tired of “grounding a story” meaning sucking all the joy and color out if it. Also superhero stories don’t need to be grounded in your fucking abysmal reality they are literally superheroes they exist outside of reality, let them!

A story does not have to be joyless to have depth and it does not have to be nihilist to be compelling.

I am sick and I am tired of it. 😔

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

"Murder is Werewolves" - Batman

I don't got the SPOONS to do this thought train justice, I have seriously been trying to write this thing for MONTHS so just, idk, have this half baked skeletal outline of the essay I guess:

I don't believe that Batman's no-kill rule is primarily about rehabilitation or second chances.

His refusal to believe that Cassandra could have killed someone when she was eight years old because "how could a killer understand my commitment not to kill" is absolute fucking MOON LOGIC from a rehabilitationist standpoint. No jury on the planet would think for even a second that she could reasonably be held accountable for her actions in that situation! Her past cannot condemn her to being incapable of valuing human life under a rehabilitation centering framework. However, Batman's reasoning makes perfect sense if he believes that killing is a spiritually/morally corrupting act which permanently and fundamentally changes a person, and that corruption can never be fully undone.

Dick Grayson killing the Joker is treated both narratively and by Batman as an unequivocally WIN for the Joker. The Joker won by turning Nightwing into a killer. Note that this is during a comic in which the Joker transforming people was a major theme! Batman didn't revive the Joker because the Joker deserved to live; he revived the Joker to lift the burden on Dick.

His appeal to Stephanie when she tried to kill her dad is that she shouldn't ruin her own life. He gives no defense of Cluemaster's actual life. Granted this is a rhetorical strategy moment and should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but it fits in the pattern.

When Jason becomes a willful killer, he essentially disowns him, never treats him with full trust ever again, and... Well, we can stop here for Bruce's sake. Bottom line is that his actions towards Jason do not lead me to believe that he thinks Jason can become a better person without having his autonomy taken from him, either partially or fully.

The Joker is, for better or worse, the ultimate symbol and vessel of pure, irredeemable evil in DC comics now. He hasn't been just another crook in a long time. He will never get better, he will only get worse. If you take it to be true that the Joker will not or can not rehabilitate, then there's no rehabilitationist argument against killing him.

Batman does not seem to consider it a possibly that he'll rehabilitate. Batman at several points seems to think that the Joker dying in a manner no one could have prevented would be good. Yet Batman fully believes that if he killed the Joker, he himself would become irredeemable.

Batman's own form of justice (putting people into the hospital and then prison) is fucking brutal and clearly not rehabilitative. He disrespects the most basic human rights of all criminals on a regular basis. It is genuinely really, really weird from a rehabilitationist standpoint that his only uncrossable line is killing... But it makes perfect sense if he cares more about not corrupting himself with the act of killing than the actual ethical results of any individual decision to kill or not kill.

In the real world cops are all bastards because they are too violent to criminals, even when that violence doesn't lead to death. Prison is a wildly evil thing to do to another human being, and you don't use it to steal away massive portions of a person's life if your goal is to rehabilitate them. In the comic world, Batman is said to be necessary because the corrupt cops are too nice to criminals and keep letting them out of jail. I don't know how to write a connector sentence there so like I hope you can see why this bothers me so damn much! That's just not forgiveness vibes there Batman!!

I want to make special note here of the transformative aspect. You don't simply commit a single act when you kill, no, you become a killer, like you might become a werewolf.

The narrative supports this a lot!

Why did Supes go evil during Injustice? He killed the Joker. Why did Bruce become the Batman Who Laughs? Bruce killed the Joker. Why was Jason Todd close to becoming a new Joker during Three Jokers? Because he killed people, to include the Joker.

Even if these notions of redemption being impossible aren't the whole of his reasoning (people never have only one reason for doing what they do) it is a distinct through-line pattern in his actions and reasoning, and it is directly at odds with notions of rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.

So why does he give so many killers second chances?

Firstly because this doesn't apply to all versions of Batman. Some writers explicitly incorporate rehabilitation and forgiveness into his actions. You will be able to provide me with examples of this other through-line pattern if you go looking for them. The nature of comics is to be inconsistent.

Secondly the existence of that other pattern does not negate the existence of this one. People and characters are complex, and perfectly capable of holding two patterns of belief within themselves, even when they conflict to this degree. You can absolutely synthesize these two ideas into a single messy Batman philosophical vibescape.

Finally and most importantly to this essay: he has mercy on killers the same way that werewolf hunters sometimes have mercy on someone who is clearly struggling against their monsterous nature, especially if they were turned in exceptional circumstances or against their will. They understand that they are sick, damned beasts, cursed to always be fighting against themselves and the evil they harbor within. It is vitally kind to help them fight themselves by curtailing their autonomy in helpful ways and providing them with chances to do some good to make up for their eternal moral deficiency.

I think in many comics Batman views killers as lost souls. Battered and tormented monsters who must be pitied and given mercy wherever possible. (The connections to mental health, addiction, and rampant, horrifying ableism towards people struggling with both is unavoidable, but addressing it is sadly outside of the scope of this essay.)

Above all, the greatest care possible must be taken to never, ever let yourself become one of them, because once you have transformed the beast will forever be within you growing stronger.

To Batman, it is the most noble burden, the highest mercy, the most important commandment: Thou shalt suffer the monsters to live.

[srisrisriddd]

Conditioned actions and reactions

Our actions and reactions are conditioned And ultimately conditioned by ignorance

- Dr Devang H Dattani

Good Morning

Quote / Poem / Poetry / Quotes Of 

Bhagwan Sri Sri Sri

Doctor Devang H Dattani

Infinite SriSriSri DDD

Posted By TheBlissCity DDD Team

See The Media Photo Video For

Quoteoftheday

God Morning

#action , #bliss , #TheBlissCity , #philosophy , #mindfulness , #DrDevangHDattani , #nature , #awareness , #InfiniteSriSriSriDDD , #quotes , #life , #art , #zen , #awakening , #quote , #spiritual , #photography , #Video , #meditation , #psychology , #poem , #poetry , #motivation , #inspiration , #quoteoftheday , #love , #words , #thoughts , #joy , #pun , #enlightenment , #health , #mental health , #consciousness , #reaction , #god , #landscape , #life , #video , #conditioned , #ignorance , #parrot , #cat , #nirvana , #tantra , #yoga , #catblr , #peekaboo , #photooftheday

[metanoias-substack]

Two Just Stop Oil protesters were arrested after smashing the glass protecting the iconic Rokeby Venus by Diego Velázquez at the National Gallery in London.

The incident comes hot on the heels of several widely publicised attacks against artworks by climate activists.

Is art vandalism for ostensibly noble political purposes justified, or is there something more sinister — and indefensible — at play?

Read more here.

[thirdity]

This state of 'no-mind' exists, as it were, on a knife-edge between the carelessness of the average sensual man and the strained over-eagerness of the zealot for salvation. To achieve it, one must walk delicately and, to maintain it, must learn to combine the most intense alertness with a tranquil and self-denying passivity, the most indomitable determination with a perfect submission to the leadings of the spirit.

Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy

[essektheylyss]

"You're going to have to make a lot of babies..." -> "You're like his dad!"

[sophiaphile]

Figures from Peter Railton's "That Obscure Object, Desire"

[lgbtlunaverse]

Transmigating into mdzs to make Nie Mingjue read "On the permanent Impression of our Words and Actions on the Globe we inhabit" by Charles Babbage. Despite the profound impact i suspect it will have on him, this will not fix anything. As he instead becomes so annoying that Jin Guangyao kills both him and me instantly.

[philosophybits]

Man has it all in his hands, and it all slips through his fingers from sheer cowardice.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

[juan-francisco-palencia]

𝙌𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙌𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙨.

❝ Life has taught me that we  are not inseparable in anyone's life. Everything goes on its course witt or without you.❞

—  Juan Francisco Palencia.

[jetra4ivor]

During the Minecraft Live event today they talked about the design philosophy of the movie and it just confirms one of the biggest issues people have with it.

Blocks are supposed to be 3x3 feet large and… that is just “too big” for regular sized humans to walk around in. So that’s why there are various sized blocks. To make it easier for humans to walk around in. Now I disagree 3x3 is too big because you could’ve used the fact it’s harder to traverse the environment that way as a story element, but they choose instead to be lazy and just make it easier to walk around in.

BUT… that also explains why all the elements and ingots are so fucking SMALL. They need to be able to be held in your hands and placed on a crafting table grid. So you have this massive incongruity already with the environment being large blocks that shrink into extremely tiny blocks built in to the movie because you’re trying to solve a problem that ONLY arises when you turn it live action.

I’m pretty sure someone on YouTube speculated about this when they saw the trailer and were laughing at how bad that decision was, and yeah… I agree. It doesn’t look good. It introduces inconsistencies where none existed before. It’s an interesting design challenge, but it’s not fucking MINECRAFT.