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.)
For people inside NATO its surprising how much credibility they have considering how much just straight terrorism they’ve carried out over the years. Defensive alliance my arse
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.
What I wanna know is did he make the myum myum myum cookie monster voice when he did it? this could be the October surprise Republicans dream for if he didn’t say “myum myum cookies” while biting the babies
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
Well there’s some things i agree with strongly, although I believe I still disagree with your definition of the word “fascist.” But it’s not an important difference since you’ve taken it up to actually try and learn history and make sense of it all. Very “class conscious worker” of you.
Do you do any organizing outside of your studies? You seem energetic, and class conscious workers have to get together and (imo) do political organizing, like how you discussed. I agree its a lousy time for consciousness but it think its changing. Time will tell. Thanks for the history lesson, appreciate you making time
So What’cha Want by the Beastie Boys
Idk about that, but there’s def similarities. I think its dangerous to mischaracterize things that aren’t fascist as fascist, as popular movements which have done so seem to actually accelerate the spread of fascism. One a them dialectical historic contradictions.
But I don’t say this to take the wind out of anyone’s militancy against the all but unchecked rise of the anti-democratic authoritarian right. By the time something that is almost fascism becomes fully formed it is too late.
But it is worthwhile to use care when applying the term.
Kind of ironic since Hitler based Germany’s immigration laws on USA’s.
Yes because never questioning has worked out great for us so far