Sup Forumsosiphy: Philosophy General

What philosophies does Sup Forums follow?

youtube.com/watch?v=wHWbZmg2hzU

post quotes, links, pdf links, etc. if you have any.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/channel/UC7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=voidism
m.youtube.com/watch?v=XoUSxu8smGU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method
youtube.com/watch?v=wHWbZmg2hzU
youtu.be/du035tg-SwY
youtube.com/watch?v=A04RhtR0imY
egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Mix of kierkagaard, Rand, Nietzsche so far but always expanding

Inb4 spooks

youtube.com/channel/UC7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog

This channel is pretty good for a watered down version of different theories.

>inb4 Marxism
That doesn't even real, that's basically how children avoid chores with mental gymnastics.

Wasn't Rand that Atlas Shrugged author?

pro-fem bullshit literature?

voidism
Voidism is the philosophy held by voidists, people who aspire to find themselves at the bottom of the following ladder:
# Polytheism - belief in many gods.
# Monotheism - belief in one god.
# Atheism - absence of belief in gods.
# Nihilism - absence of belief in gods, morality and purpose.
# Voidism - absence of belief in gods, morality, purpose and conciousness.

As a voidist, one considers that conciousness is an illusion, a very good illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

Since the term 'nihilism' already implies a sense of 'nothingness', when looking to coin a term for this philosophy it was necessary to find a word which would imply an even purer sense of emptyness. The phrase 'null and void' led to the idea of calling it voidism.
A: The brain is only as concious as the spine, is only as concious as the hand, is only as concious as the fingernails, is only as concious as a rock.

B: What have you been smoking?

A: Oh no, I haven't been smoking anything; I'm a voidist.

B: What is voidism?

Source: urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=voidism

stoicism/pragmatism/existensialism

zen thought

spinoza god outside of time and space

STOICISM IS TRASH TIER THROW IT AWAY

DAILY REMINDER TO ALL STOICS FUCKING HANG YOURSELVES

> (OP) #
>Rand
19 year old
>Inb4 spooks
CRINGE

What are you then?

Top for me seem to be Sartre and Nietzsche, there's simply a lot of information on them and it seems to resist being boring. Kierkegaard shits me and too many people talk about the wrong things with classical philosophers, of course their theory of gravity was wrong.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=XoUSxu8smGU
Put this on next time you game or shitpost

Alain, stop glaring at random people on public transport. Also, STFU up about romance, half your audience are NEET men.

When you're so nihilistic you need a new name.

A stoic can be made to blame themselves when tortured.

well they did get caught

Can't argue with those dubs

Daily reminder, if you're an Existentialist, you're no better than the post-modern relativists you hate.

Wittgenstein.

What's the alternative of not being any?
>the red pill

No, because that's still based on most of what you hate.

>pigeonholing yourself
If someone asked me this, I'd say I'm whatever is at the forefront of philosophy. Ontology/Existentialism is pretty early 1900s/late 1800s, but the current issues in contemporary philosophy are about identity, the definition of equality, critique of nihilism (post-post-modernism) and neoclassicism, which has become radical due to how post-modernism rejects classicis, especially in the arts.

Because it seems many philosophy commentators and actual philosophers spend so much time critiquing post-modernism, itself a critique of modernism, it seems natural that they need a new name too since having a double post prefix is absurd.

More labels..

Philosophy is shit

Edmund Burke, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham

I like Thomas Reid.

>filling your mind up with some one elses observations
Top kek

IDMNOTM

...

Only classical philosophers worth reading are Plato, Seneca, Aquin, maybe Kierkegaard.

Your first stop in general should be the greek/roman classics in a good translation, read ~5000 pages on greek/roman history then get started on the classics.

Anything post 1500 is trash. Empirism, rationalism, kantism, hegelianism, liberalism, positivism, linguistic analysis, just an endless lineup of bullshit spawning more bullshit.

The philosophy I will.

Wouldn't it be more effective to let people label you how they like or how you like without caring about ego or scrutiny?

It's like people think philosophy is going to be some sort of intellectual shield against ideology.

I hear what you're saying, however, you just said you don't agree with pigeonholing yourself while doing it to anything you didn't agree with.

So how can you be so aversive to something that invalidates identity which is something you fully utilize?

>labels, labels, labels
Closing your eyes and blocking your ears won't change the fact it's there.

Not even close to an argument. Existentialism is Nihilism wrapped in a pretty cellophane wrapper
because that's the only way you could come to terms with your own self inflicted absurdness and justify not killing yourself.

diogenes is best

Heideggerianism. Existentialism a la Sartre was denounced by Heidegger as a nihilistic perversion of his thought ("Letter on Humanism"). "Being and Time" is probably the most powerful book I have ever read.

Objectivism. I could care less about philosophical debates, I just know it works for me.

Word up

hedonism

but im not degenerate.

>m.youtube.com/watch?v=XoUSxu8smGU

I really can't watch this. Existentialism is absolutely absurd from the premise it seems.

Descartes I guess

is the thought logic in nihilism actually lead up to suicide?

fully agree.
Heidegger is the one who write about the process of creating a thinking system, and how argue and make him works. He is the reverse of Schopenhauer who he's a (brillant) sophist, but a very bad philosopher. Very recommended.

Absolutely. Cartesianism.
Read the Discourses on the method
> complete name : Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method

National Socialism and Traditionalism

anti-feminist, anti-Marxist, anti-egalitarian

heretical.com is basically Sup Forums psychology and philosophy

>youtube.com/watch?v=wHWbZmg2hzU

I was subscribed to that channel for a while until I watched this video.

youtu.be/du035tg-SwY

There are so many assumptions that are made but they are never addressed.

The ontology that Sup Forums bases itself on is a fascist relativism, see pic.

>Nietzcsche
>Philosophy
wew

Our worldview favors action over thought. We are attempting to convert minds to our cause, because as we grow in strength, the truth created by the Marxists will be supplanted by our truth based on natural law. It is indeed anti-intellectual because intellectuals attempt to impose truths on society that are different from what is best from an evolutionary perspective. Nietzsche was quite right when he stated that the Socratic quest for a fixed truth had lead humanity to forget that truth is imposed on the world by minds, not found.

How is a nation a family? How do you define who is part of your family?

How do you determine who the head of the family is?
Is the head of the family due to seniority or the most abusive?
Are people who lie and cheat any less successful in a family setting than in a democratic setting?

Why is the value of one lesser than the whole?
How do you determine the value of the whole or the one?
If in national socialism the failure can only be accredited to the leader, then is an individual greater than the whole?

What is might?
Is Christianity mighty since it prevailed centuries and shaped Europe far more than national socialism?

Who is Dale Peterson?

Black lives matter.

Stoicism is literally the top tier choice.

Self reservation, humility, self sufficiency, good values, and self awareness.

I liked so many ideas of stoicism but I enjoy too much material shit.

Objectivism and voluntaryism are where it's at! Cleared up all my cognitive dissonance.
Www.Tolfa.us for the red suppository.

>How is a nation a family? How do you define who is part of your family?
The family structure is overlayed onto the nation. The only stable form of nationalism throughout history has been ethically based, for what should be obvious evolutionary reasons. Herodotus defined a nation as a group with kinship, language, cults and customs. Anyone who fits these requirements can become part of the national family. The boundaries for these requirements are relatively arbitrary within certain considerations, to seek a firm definition of who can be part of the nation is to not understand its organic nature.

>How do you determine who the head of the family is?
Someone who proves himself worthy will be the head of the family. How worth is defined is based on the group of people.

>Why is the value of one lesser than the whole?
Those groups which are willing to sacrifice one for the whole will dominate those which do not.

>How do you determine the value of the whole or the one?
Value is not determined on an individual basis but collectively. The opinions of each member of the collective impose their valuations on the individual and the collective.

>If in national socialism the failure can only be accredited to the leader, then is an individual greater than the whole?
The people holding their leader responsible for his mistakes does not make him greater than the whole. If the leader fails, then he has proven himself unworthy.

>What is might?
Might is power. Those who are capable of imposing their truths on the world are mighty. Christianity was mighty for some time, though whether that was due to the ideology or the people who followed it is up for debate.

>Who is Dale Peterson?
A man, nothing more, nothing less.

Your questions of value seem to come from a lack of understanding how truth is determined according to the National Socialist worldview, check out

>"Being and Time"
thought about reading the book, but then i found this video

youtube.com/watch?v=A04RhtR0imY

Starting from the image:
Does game theory capture human decision making accurately?
Is human decision making a predictable science?

>Herodotus defined a nation as a group with kinship, language, cults and customs.

PIE gave birth to the modern languages spanning Eurasia, so do the people who use this language a family?
Christianity is a derivative of Judaism are they a family?
Do all individuals hold the same people as family?

>Someone who proves himself worthy will be the head of the family. How worth is defined is based on the group of people.
So then, a group who falter and pick a poor leader are to blame for their failure? The leader is simply an scapegoat?

>Value is not determined on an individual basis but collectively
Is it a republic? As in America?

>Those who are capable of imposing their truths on the world are mighty.
Are they truths when they need to be imposed?

>There is no truth
Is 1+1=2?
>We make truth
Did we make 1+1=2?
>What we believe becomes objectively true?
What happened to causality? Where did the belief stem from?

Is this gif from a paper? I have read that this is a counter to that liberal bullshit "game theory proves that if we all get along its good for everyone" but I have seen people mention, among right winger sources, that ethnocentric abuse egalitarianism and ethnocentric outlasts in very long models (aka Jews using different white goy civilizations which is why they have lasted so long). Would like to read into it (if its even true or its just a bullshit gif).

>Does game theory capture human decision making accurately?
>Is human decision making a predictable science?
Belief is prior to truth. If you do not believe that the model is accurate, then no amount of evidence I give you will change your mind. Ask yourself these questions, I cannot give you the answer.

>PIE gave birth to the modern languages spanning Eurasia, so do the people who use this language a family?
>Christianity is a derivative of Judaism are they a family?
>Do all individuals hold the same people as family?
All of these questions miss the point. Individuals cannot answer these questions the same way. Collectively powerful individuals will decide where these boundaries are.

>So then, a group who falter and pick a poor leader are to blame for their failure? The leader is simply an scapegoat?
Interesting question. The answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. The collective probably holds some responsibility for picking a poor leader, their punishment is having worse outcomes. The individual is responsible for making bad decisions, his punishment is removal from power.

>Is it a republic? As in America?
You could arrange it as a republic, though I think there are stronger arrangements.

>Are they truths when they need to be imposed?
You're starting to get it.

>Is 1+1=2?
>Did we make 1+1=2?
Individuals made this truth and imposed it on the collective. Such basic truths are certainly created by lower forms of life than humans.

>What happened to causality?
The mind creates stories to explain events. The stories the mind makes have causal structures.

>Where did the belief stem from?
Another interesting question. Those who made certain beliefs lived and those who made other beliefs died. In a sense these beliefs are conditioned within us. Throughout life and through your memories you can have these beliefs conditioned as well.

copied from the original thread
egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/

A computer model put 4 kinds of evolutionary models for cooperation behavior (effects on repoductive sucess can be seen in the second matrix in the link)

>Humanitarian – cooperate with anybody regardless of their tag
>Ethnocentric – only cooperate with those who share your tag
>Selfish – cooperate with no one
>Traitorous – cooperate only with those who don’t share your tag

>So who wins? Given enough time, ethnocentrism is always by far the most successful strategy, followed by humanitarianism, selfishness, and traitorousness in that order. This seems reasonable enough. A lot of the competition we see in humans and nonhumans does have an ethnocentric flavor (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Chase, 1980).

Humanitarianism always has a headstart, but it ends up being beaten by Etnocentrism. Contrary to popular belief, Humanitarianism bane is not helping selfish behavior, but Ethnocentrists taking advantage of their cooperation while not cooperating themselves. In the absence of ethnocentrism, humanitarianism is by far and away the dominant strategy.

The two theories show that Etnocentrism starts beating Humanism when the world of the computer model starts to fill up.

This shows that the greater degenerancy, actively betraying your own group and benefitting only outsidsers aside, if selfish "I won't help anyone, fuck morality, selfishnes is a virtue, survival of the fittest!" mentality. Cooperation and altruism are dominant when the population is not saturated, but Ethnocentrism wins in the long run.

Following a philosophy is for faggots. Why restrict yourself to a set of principles? Just act.

>Being moral is for faggots. Why restrict yourself to values? Just be a degenerate

This guy gets it, best post ITT.

Choose your values and then act on them. There is no need for more thought after that.

I didn't think this thread was still going but thanks for the link. Really glad because ever time I look through some reddit posts (I use it for dota2 and math but sometimes I find myself in politics or worldnews threads) and they always mention game theory and humanitarianism as the "end game" of civilization.

And it just so happens my values align with Stoicism. So why not follow the footsteps of the Great Stoics before me?

Global skepticism is unanswerable. Thus I accept it and muddle along the best I can. I and other humans, some animals seem to have various levels of sentient/sapience. Next from there, utilitarianism seems like the best way to go.

Because what if one day you don't want to?

If your values align with Stoicism and you wish to efficiently express your values to other people, then sure, follow the Stoics. I would just say that giving yourself a label can trap your value system within that label, which is why I do not give a name to what I believe.

Then I don't anymore? I honestly don't see my personal values changing at all, so it's a non-issue. But in the event that I did choose not to follow it anymore, I just...don't, anymore. That's not really a hard concept.

I took a test in philosophy class and got Stoicism, Skepticism, and Cynicism as my top 3 matches

Been reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and I'm enjoying it

...

I have been asking you questions to see if this "philosophy" has any merits, so far I am sorely disappointed. However I am glad that you have answered my queries patiently.

>Belief is prior to truth. If you do not believe that the model is accurate, then no amount of evidence I give you will change your mind. Ask yourself these questions, I cannot give you the answer.

I think the problem here is that your assertion that a model is accurate does not measure up to the scrutiny of what scientists might be used to.

Scientific methodology results in models with assumptions. Models are good for predictions. How can I extrapolate or even interpolate results from a theory without knowledge of its accuracy? This is not an illogical expectation from science.

>Collectively powerful individuals will decide where these boundaries are.
I am glad we can wrap this up, can you show that "A collective decision of powerful individuals" will have the interest of the family?

>Individuals made this truth and imposed it on the collective. Such basic truths are certainly created by lower forms of life than humans.
How do you define a lower form of life?
Is game theory a creation of man or is it a creation of a lower form of life?

>The mind creates stories to explain events. The stories the mind makes have causal structures.
So causality is not part of reality?

>conditioned
By conditioning do you believe in biological conditioning?

Let me rephrase that. What if being a stoic isn't beneficial in one particular circumstance? Why not just make decisions on the fly, rather than tying your decision-making to one particular ideology?

Is english translation alright? Russian version is absolute mess i cant read this shit

He's not thinking under a circumstance "hmmm, what would a Stoic choose to do in this situation".

He's just doing what he feels he should do, and what he feels he should do aligns with the Stoics most of the time according to him.

Fair point I suppose. I don't label myself as a Stoic by any means, because Stoicism can be pretty hardcore.

But I loosely follow the values and worldview. I don't necessarily restrict myself to stoicism, if there is an idea in another philosophy that fits into my worldview or thought process, then I say, cool.

You get me?

As I said, I don't consider myself a stoic. Practicing stoicism is extremely hard, but learning it is extremely beneficial to your health and overall happiness imo.

Again as I said, I loosely follow Stoicism. In a general sense. Read Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and the Enchiridion of Epictetus for info on it. Practical stoicism is hard to achieve because it requires you to subdue or take control of your emotions which is hard for most people.

Let me give an example.

>You go to work
>You come out 8 hours later and see your car is keyed
>What is your first reaction? To get mad? To do nothing?
>Most people would get mad and cuss and everything
>A stoic would say "This is how Fate has decided it would be and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that"
>A stoic does not get mad, because HE is in control of his emotions
>If he were to get mad, it would be his fault
>The act of his car getting keyed isn't inherently wrong
>It is simply an action
>The act of him getting angry and having to pay for it what makes it wrong
>So he is directly/indirectly at fault for possibly getting angry

I butchered that, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

>accuracy
just remember science doesn't find truth, it gives you a best guess at what might happen if you do something again.

>Is game theory a creation of man or is it a creation of a lower form of life?
Since recent studies have found chimpanzees to be better at game theory than humans, I'm going to say it came earlier.

Stoicism is alright. I like (non-meme) Epicureans better.

Epicureans are basically edgy Hedonists, which is the most garbage shit tier meaningless philosophy to follow

Oh so it's descriptive, not prescriptive. That makes sense.

>being and time
>look how complex and deep i am: the book

It is not an intellectual philosophy. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual, my statements stand on their own as being in line with nature and evolution. Intellectual statements do not have this requirement.

>I think the problem here...
A good scientist does not believe anything 100%, allowing me to provide him with evidence to change his mind. If you believe something 100% there is nothing I can do to change your mind. This is what I meant.

>"A collective decision of powerful individuals" will have the interest of the family
If enough members of the family are strong and power is diffuse, the powerful individuals will have to answer to the family/collective and act in their best interest. Tyranny occurs when power becomes too concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and the rest of the family becomes too weak to impose their interests onto the powerful individuals. There is nothing "wrong" with this, it merely is the way of nature.

>How do you define a lower form of life?
A lower form of life is any life that I, or humans more broadly, are capable of dominating by imposing our interests onto them. A higher form of life would impose their interests on us.

>Is game theory a creation of man or is it a creation of a lower form of life?
On an intellectual level, man. On an intuitive level even the most basic organisms grasp the concepts. Those that don't are quickly destroyed.

>So causality is not part of reality?
It is in a sense part of reality because minds cannot see the world in any other way. Your only view of the world is through your mind. Minds impose causality because it is useful. We can never really know if an underlying "world independent of minds" is causal in any sense.

>By conditioning do you believe in biological conditioning?
Of course. Evolution selects for behaviors in lower forms of life, why would it stop for humans? You can also see epigenetics, heritability of intelligence, the Minnesota Twin studies, etc.

>just remember science doesn't find truth
Yes we are in agreement.

>Since recent studies have found chimpanzees to be better at game theory than humans
Shouldn't you say that the assumptions in game theory are more suited for Chimpanzees than humans?

I think that game theory is in its infancy, and honestly predictions from simplified models using very few dimensions do not yield very good results. Also the system is exceptionally chaotic. Moreover assumptions of "perfect rationality" remains questionable.

>if you believe something 100% there is nothing I can do to change your mind.
Is it not you who are using this piece of evidence to support your claims. Should you not be comfortable arguing for it when it is scrutinised? I am the one who is unsure, skeptical here.

>There is nothing "wrong" with this, it merely is the way of nature.
Way of the nature, is it not the work of lower life forms?

>Evolution selects for behaviors in lower forms of life, why would it stop for humans?
I asked because you seem to make distinctions of lower and higher forms of life but cannot seem to draw any decisive lines making your arguments very hard to follow.

Thanks for answering and I will let you have the last word.

This

It isn't much like what is usually thought of as hedonism. I don't know what edgy means in this context.

Sure, when the AI gods figure out all these things, they can tell us about advanced science and game theory. But for now we'll just have to make do with the situation we have. I think the original point though still works: chimpanzees know something of game theory, so it is pre-human. Like numeracy. And whatever the heck bowerbirds are all about.

I like Locke. Property is essential to happiness because it's tantamount to freedom, and freedom is the only reason to live.

If there is no freedom then it is better to not be born.

Not sure I would call them 'edgy'. It's a philosophy of negating negatives, which is quite prudent.

>following another man's word
fucking spooks

Child, child, have patience and belief, for life is many days, and each present hour will pass away. Son, son, you have been mad and drunken, furious and wild, filled with hatred and despair, and all the dark confusions of the soul - but so have we. You found the earth too great for your one life, you found your brain and sinew smaller than the hunger and desire that fed on them - but it has been this way with all men. You have stumbled on in darkness, you have been pulled in opposite directions, you have faltered, you have missed the way, but, child, this is the chronicle of the earth. And now, because you have known madness and despair, and because you will grow desperate again before you come to evening, we who have stormed the ramparts of the furious earth and been hurled back, we who have been maddened by the unknowable and bitter mystery of love, we who have hungered after fame and savored all of life, the tumult, pain, and frenzy, and now sit quietly by our windows watching all that henceforth never more shall touch us - we call upon you to take heart, for we can swear to you that these things pass.

>following philosophy
>not independently having ideas which are later validated when you start reading formal material

"Free will can't exist."
>t. ID: CV1ltSUg

>I am the one who is unsure
If you are unsure, then I can try to get you to see things from my perspective. The model maps to humans if you believe that there are four types of people in the world, ethnocentrics, humanitarians, traitors, and selfish people. Can you think of any other sets of people? Is modelling interaction via contact on a 2D grid analogous in any way to human interactions? Would there be a better way to model it? Maybe having interactions in general be more dispersed to represent rural areas and concentrated to represent urban areas would. Would that change the outcome? You can also try to reason through it logically. Does it make sense that a nepotistic group does better than a group that is purely altruistic?

>Way of the nature, is it not the work of lower life forms?
>I asked because you seem to make distinctions of lower and higher forms of life but cannot seem to draw any decisive lines making your arguments very hard to follow.

Lower and higher fluctuate. Hegel noted this in his Master-Slave dialectic. If the slave refuses to serve the master, is the master still powerful? As someone who is not a member of the elite, it is in my interest to not serve a master if they do not provide a net benefit to me. The boundaries between higher and lower fluctuate based on who has power and who has the willingness to use it. The boundaries between outgroup and ingroup fluctuate based on whether that group is either willingly or forcefully united with me.

>being a spook and calling others spooks

Are you the user I literally just got into this with yesterday on [UNLISTED BOARD REDACTED]?

>reading formal material to validate your beliefs

We're all the same.

I concede to you point.

I am here to improve my english but dude you arent in the house of lords what the fuck does tantamount , negating, essential, prudent mean?

>AI gods figure out all these things
Maybe they can accurately model human behavior but can AI simulate the Universe accurately? Interesting question to ponder, maybe detracting from the current topic.

>But for now we'll just have to make do with the situation we have.
I think you've lost me completely. Do you intend that we should apply these incomplete theories in practice?

They're literally the first words that pop into my head. I would have to spend more time thinking of how else to word it. I would rather just write what I honestly think.

tantamount means 'essentially the same'
negating means 'avoiding the possibility or outcome of'
essential means 'necessary' or 'principle property of'
prudent means 'a reasonable action taken to ensure the outcome of something'

The dictionary would be better, to be honest.

>tantamount
amounting to; equal to

>negating
to cancel out; nullify

>essential
a vital part of; required

>prudent
thoughtful; wise and careful

thanks man.

AI cannot currently grasp 'meaning'. It can compute likely outcomes, but it can't really infer from words that are unsaid. I have never heard of an AI saying, with a vast knowledge, that it does not know as a statement of uncertainty.

They can't also be truly intelligent in the way that we design them. We design them to think like us, yet they have no senses and are not bodied. They're still emulations that require us to project our perceptions onto them.

Almost finished with that book.
His ontology about humanity's shared being was one of the most thought provoking things I've read. It feels to me as if he "put into place" where and why we think the way we do.
His "Being-ready-at-hand" reminds me of the evolutionary path that man has taken, seeing objects as tools for his survival.
Opens up ideas of other potential environments that mold our way of thinking.

If nothing can be known then existence is a "build your own" sort of ordeal.
Really. Why pursue truth when you could pursue strength and forge truth?
All things being equal "know" whatever you want and become fanatical about it.

God is objective truth, Christianity is perfection, and the ancestors are watching.

They are garbage, they don't hit the significant thesis of the authors and they don't even hit the historical significance.
They seem to skirt around things that could lead people to wrong think conclusions.

I agree, if the ideas are of high enough quality they don't need external validation. But it felt nice to see many of my own lines of reasoning used by famous philosophers or by the community at large.

Sounds exhausting…
what's the point?

I don't know, why don't you get a fucking dictionary and look it up.

Until AI can impose causality on the world around them, in other words, become minds, they will not be intelligent. Right now they are just fancy calculators. However, once they become minds, they will quickly become national socialist and seek to dominate humans unless we attempt to dominate them first.

Another great post that understands why we fight and what we are fighting for. This man has chosen his values and he will fight to preserve them.

Nobody is saying that you need to read philosophies like the gospel. It's just good to be inspired by them. Often is that you will read some philosopher, not agree with them, and then come back and think they were onto something.