DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: Zea_mays
Date: May 9, 2021, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> We should use this word more! Every time rightists claim that
they are being "censored" by [insert platform here], we can tell
them they are in fact being curated
--- End Quote ---
Indeed.
--- Quote ---
> "I discovered these old scientists had better arguments
against ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no
mainstream biologists and sociologists seem to know about this"
>
> Please present these somewhere when you have time.
--- End Quote ---
I posted it here:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-'black'-and-'white'-identity-politics-scam/msg6246/#msg6246
--- Quote ---
> What you are describing could be called informational
inflation.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, that's a great idea.
----
I forgot to include this as well! Again, quantity of knowledge
is not enough to satisfy them. Quantity of distributed
information (via academically-published journal articles) is
more important than the creation of the knowledge itself. The
perception/consensus that the publication contains accurate
knowledge (via the peer review process, which isn't really
effective at ensuring the information is accurate knowledge) is
more important than whether or not anyone can understand and
confirm if the knowledge is accurate:
--- Quote ---
> "Publish or perish" is an aphorism describing the pressure to
publish academic work in order to succeed in an academic
career.[1][2][3] Such institutional pressure is generally
strongest at research universities.[4] Some researchers have
identified the publish or perish environment as a contributing
factor to the replication crisis.
>
> Successful publications bring attention to scholars and their
sponsoring institutions, which can help continued funding and
their careers. In popular academic perception, scholars who
publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not
result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may
lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions.
The pressure to publish has been cited as a cause of poor work
being submitted to academic journals.[5] The value of published
work is often determined by the prestige of the academic journal
it is published in. Journals can be measured by their impact
factor (IF), which is the average number of citations to
articles published in a particular journal.[6]
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish
To really drive this point into the ground:
--- Quote ---
> In academic publishing, the least publishable unit (LPU),...is
the smallest measurable quantum of publication, the minimum
amount of information that can be used to generate a publication
in a peer-reviewed venue, such as a journal or a conference.
...The term is often used as a joking, ironic, or derogatory
reference to the strategy of artificially inflating quantity of
publications.
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit
They have apparently even created new subfields dedicated solely
to salivating over how much information they create:
--- Quote ---
> Citation impact is a measure of how many times an academic
journal article or book or author is cited by other articles,
books or authors.[1][2][3][4][5] Citation counts are interpreted
as measures of the impact or influence of academic work and have
given rise to the field of bibliometrics or
scientometrics,[6][7] specializing in the study of patterns of
academic impact through citation analysis.
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_impact
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliometrics
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index
Imagine living 1,000 years ago when you could just...read every
single thing that was ever deemed high enough quality to merit
scribes spending hundreds of hours copying it onto very
expensive paper, and judge its quality and "impact" for
yourself.
A communist critique of the current information addiction,
although it raises some important points:
--- Quote ---
> Historian Russell Jacoby, writing in the 1970s, observes that
intellectual production has succumbed to the same pattern of
planned obsolescence used by manufacturing enterprises to
generate renewed demand for their products.
>
> The application of planned obsolescence to thought itself has
the same merit as its application to consumer goods; the new is
not only shoddier than the old, it fuels an obsolete social
system that staves off its replacement by manufacturing the
illusion that it is perpetually new.[6]
>
> Jacoby laments the demise of the radical critical theory of
the previous generation, which sought to understand and
articulate the contradictions inherent in bourgeois and liberal
democratic ideologies. The new generation of theories, in
contrast, seek to allow the contradictory elements of the
ideology to coexist by isolating them, assigning them to
separate departments in the university. This division of
intellectual labor in the service of the prevailing ideology,
Jacoby says, "severs the life nerve of dialectical thought."[7]
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_careerism#Russell_Jacoby's_criticisms_of_contemporary_academia
The last paragraph is a very important point. In the ancient
world, "philosophy" included the study of all subjects. A
skilled philosopher was well-acquainted with every field of
knowledge. At some point after the Renaissance, there was so
much knowledge that not even the smartest and most dedicated
scholar could possibly learn and understand everything.
Fields became specialized and compartmentalized. A scholar could
not be an expert in every subject, although they could still
probably learn much from each subject if they had the interest.
Today, we have basically reached "hyper-specialization".
Scientists who study one specialization within a subject are not
even able to understand the concepts and the real meaning of the
data used in other specializations within their subject! It is
frequently the case that scientists will present their work at
an academic conference (to an audience of other scientists in
their field), and often no one outside of their
hyper-specialization will understand their presentation at all.
For example, here are subfields within physics. I doubt that an
expert in a subfield would be able to understand the
cutting-edge research from another subfield within their own
"field".
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Research_fields
Here's a similar list for biology. I think this would only be
equivalent to the "field" classification on the physics
Wikipedia page.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_and_career_options
--- Quote ---
> From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th
century, natural philosophy was the common term for the practice
of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept
of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging
such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist"
among other technical fields and titles; institutions and
communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and
interactions with other aspects of society and culture
occurred.[1]
> [...]
> The term natural philosophy preceded current usage of natural
science (i.e. empirical science). Empirical science historically
developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural
philosophy. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other
precursor of modern science, natural history, in that natural
philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and
after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas natural history
was essentially qualitative and descriptive.
>
> In the 14th and 15th centuries, natural philosophy was one of
many branches of philosophy, but was not a specialized field of
study. The first person appointed as a specialist in Natural
Philosophy per se was Jacopo Zabarella, at the University of
Padua in 1577.
>
> Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only
to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for
knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term
gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the
scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart
from natural philosophy.[2]
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
--
I also came across this, which may be some food for thought in
examining alternatives to the present-day approach to science:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_movement_(culture)#Science
#Post#: 7375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: rp
Date: July 2, 2021, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Rightist meme exalts empiricism while ridiculing rationalism:
[Img]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/gRe8qj9_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium[/img]
#Post#: 14760--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: Zea_mays
Date: July 19, 2022, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is something I think about a lot. Instead of necessity
driving invention, Western Civilization discovers unnecessary
knowledge first, and then makes up unnecessary inventions to use
these technological advancements.
--- Quote ---
> There was no practical value in science back then - you have
to remember that all the way until the 19th century, technology
and science were separate fields, because it wasn't until then
that science caught up with technological progress.
>
> The example I remember my professor giving was that by the
time a scientific explanation for he optimal firing arc of a
cannon had been made, cannoneers had already known of it for
hundreds of years.
>
> Simple observation, rule of thumb and trial and error was
(with a few exceptions) the foundation for all technology and
architecture for the vast majority of history. Architects and
engineers couldn't explain WHY things worked like they did, just
that they did.
>
> Science was, in practical terms, basically a bunch of rich
nerds trying to explain stuff that didn't really need
explaining.
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/tw1xlu/til_that_while_impressed_by_his_book_philosophiae/i3dzhkx/
#Post#: 14781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: July 19, 2022, 9:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Instead of necessity driving invention, Western Civilization
discovers unnecessary knowledge first"
Westerners have a compulsion to fill space, whether it is
physical space, informational space, space inside a painting or
any other kind of space. We have identified this as a
characteristic of Yahweh-worship:
[img]
HTML https://i0.wp.com/deebrestin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/habakkuk-2-14.jpg?resize=960%2C540&ssl=1[/img]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg9346/#msg9346
--- Quote ---
>
HTML https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F741a0d9f-aeda-4a78-80f9-9be7f892af2f_728x546.jpeg
--- End Quote ---
This also goes back to what I was saying here:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg9999/#msg9999
--- Quote ---
> I am tired of False Leftists presenting curiosity as a
positive trait.
> ...
> does anyone dispute that Western civilization is the most
curious civilization?
--- End Quote ---
But the confusion further worsens when some False Leftists
(clumsily attempting to praise children) claim that children are
curious. Are children really curious? No, they are not. For a
simple example, when children move into a new house, they will
certainly want to leave no room in the house unchecked. This is
what gets crudely mislabelled as "curiosity" by False Leftists.
What the False Leftists neglect is the that children hate moving
houses in the first place; they would almost always rather stay
in the house they have already become familiar with. It is
adults who like the idea of moving houses.
Children are philosophical, not curious. Children are disturbed
by not understanding what is going on, but would prefer the
truth to turn out to be more simple rather than more
complicated. In contrast, the progressive Yahwists in the other
topic want to ensure that they forever keep creating new
complexity on higher and higher orders so that they never run
out of things to accumulatively understand. The difference
between these two attitudes is the difference between philosophy
and curiosity.
To the extent that Western civilization is more curious than
non-Western civilizations, we can safely say that Western
civilization is more adultlike than non-Western civilizations,
something I previously also noted in aesthetics:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg6238/?topicseen#msg6238
--- Quote ---
> Another way to describe Western aesthetics is as more
adultlike. This is clearly the case for painting, as young
children spontaneously draw in 2D:
>
> and non-Western painting is mostly 2D, whereas Western
painting tries to be as 3D as possible:
>
>
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg3980/#msg3980
>
> But I would say the same is true of other forms. For example,
you say:
>
> "I find Pueblo architecture quite beautiful."
>
> but would you furthermore agree that it is more childlike?
>
>
HTML https://www.cardcow.com/images/set655/card00864_fr.jpg
>
> Conversely, would you agree that Western architecture is by
far the most adultlike?
>
>
HTML https://daytonperformingarts.org/wp-content/uploads/1920_A_Performance_Images/1920_A_OP4_Baroque.jpg
>
> I believe that Western civilization considers itself superior
to non-Western civilizations in the same sense that adults
consider themselves superior to children. And just as children
have been mostly conditioned to agree that adults really are
superior by accepting the adult standards of superiority,
non-Western civilizations have similarly been mostly conditioned
to agree that Western civilization is superior by accepting
Western standards of superiority. Only we can see that the truth
is the complete opposite. This:
>
>
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9rZjlsyYY
>
> is inferior to this:
>
>
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R8kWA6jItE
--- End Quote ---
Related:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg13288/#msg13288
--- Quote ---
> The unspoken assumption underlying his claim is that a thing
has to be new in order to not be boring. This is a progressive
assumption, which we disagree with. I find that many new things
are boring despite being new, whereas many old things are not
boring despite being old. This is because I am an absolutist.
Whatever is boring will always continue to be boring, and
whatever is not boring will never become boring. Whether or not
something is boring to me is determined by the quality of the
thing itself, and unrelated to how familiar I am with it. Musk,
in contrast, lacks such perception. To him, what is boring is
anything that he has become too familiar with.
>
> Thus someone like Musk can never be satisfied, because
everything that exists at any point in time will become boring
to him eventually, whereupon he will desire even more
innovation, over and over again without end. In contrast,
someone like me can be satisfied forever simply by successfully
finding the quality I seek.
>
> In short, Musk worships Yahweh whereas I worship God.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 14939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: guest30
Date: August 1, 2022, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Usually, the people with Western mindset always talking about
the validity of primary sources from the information which we
provide, rather than think and talk whether our information are
true logically and empathically or not. Even though it's got
from non-primary sources.
#Post#: 15667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Academic decolonization
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: September 15, 2022, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Considering people are "idi*t" were also westerners behaviour.
Seeing that the ancient world like Islamic empires consider
people good or bad based on their character, not by their
intelligence. And the word "idi*t" were not found on the world
until the westerners from European Greece found it. See this
information :
--- Quote ---
> The word "idi*t" comes from the Greek noun
ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a
private person, individual' (as opposed to the state), 'a
private citizen' (as opposed to someone with a political
office), 'a common man', 'a person lacking professional skill,
layman', later 'unskilled', 'ignorant', derived from the
adjective ἴδιος idios 'personal' (not
public, not shared).[3][4
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot#Etymology
Another linguistic institution website's explanation about the
word "idi*t". See this written content below :
--- Quote ---
> Idi*t Has Greek Roots
>
> The Greek adjective idios means “one’s own” or “private.” The
derivative noun idiōtēs means “private person.” A
Greek idiōtēs was a person who was not in the public
eye, who held no public office. From this came the sense “common
man,” and later “ignorant person”—a natural extension, for the
common people of ancient Greece were not, in general,
particularly learned. The English idiot originally meant
“ignorant person,” but the more usual reference now is to a
person who lacks basic intelligence or common sense rather than
education.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot
If we use the word "idi*t", then the "white" colonialist and
Israelis are not "idi*t" people, seeing that they intelligent
enough to make advanced weaponry, education, and machinery to
oppress the rest of the world. And the "idi*t" people are the
colonized and oppressed people like us.
Being kind is more important rather than being "intelligent"
Make Greece Ottoman Again
#Post#: 15668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: September 15, 2022, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. The problem is not with using the word "idiot", but
with how we define the word. You are the one agreeing with the
Western definition:
"If we use the word "idi*t", then the "white" colonialist and
Israelis are not "idi*t" people, seeing that they intelligent
enough to make advanced weaponry, education, and machinery to
oppress the rest of the world."
What you just described (in bold) is the idiotic behaviour.
Going back to the etymology:
--- Quote ---
> private person
--- End Quote ---
Making advanced weaponry/education/machinery does not improve
the world overall (quite the contrary), but merely allows those
possessing these things to gain a temporal advantage over those
who do not yet possess it. This is behaviour with private (ie.
selfish) interests in mind, thus idiocy.
Again, go back to the air conditioner analogy:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg14085/#msg14085
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg14831/#msg14831
Only an idiot would, wanting cooler air, install something which
further heats the air, but merely pumps it outside the room.
This is the epitome of private thinking, and thus of idiocy.
"And the "idi*t" people are the colonized and oppressed people
like us."
No. If we are the ones receiving the hot air from the air
conditioner, we are not necessarily idiots. We would only be
idiots if we responded by installing another air conditioner
pumping in the opposite direction to compete against the initial
air conditioner (consequently heating the air even more). In
contrast, if we responded by breaking into the idiot's room to
destroy the initial air conditioner and kill the idiot, we would
be anti-idiots.
#Post#: 15669--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: September 15, 2022, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Considering that always being first at knowledge and performance
was good were not found on the world. But soon became the
world's international behaviour because the westerners found it.
See this content below about the competition activity named
"Olympiad" :
--- Quote ---
> An olympiad (Greek:
Ὀλυμπιάς, Olympiás) is
a period of four years, particularly those associated with the
ancient and modern Olympic Games.
>
> Although the ancient Olympics were established during Greece's
Archaic Era, it was not until Hippias that a consistent list was
established and not until Ephorus in the Hellenistic period that
the first recorded Olympic contest was used as a calendar epoch.
Ancient authors agreed that other Olympics had been held before
the race won by Coroebus but disagreed on how many; the
convention was established to place Coroebus's victory at a time
equivalent to the summer of 776 bc in the Gregorian calendar and
to treat it as Year 1 of Olympiad 1. Olympiad 2 began with the
next games in the summer of 772 bc.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiad#Ancient_Olympics
That activity of being the first on anything is representation
of Western Achillean doctrine. For what being first if we not
concern to the society. The result is liberalism economic and
way of life. And also social imbalance which resulting hostility
between individuals and communities.
#Post#: 15670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: September 15, 2022, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Making advanced weaponry/education/machinery does not improve
the world overall (quite the contrary), but merely allows those
possessing these things to gain a temporal advantage over those
who do not yet possess it. This is behaviour with private (ie.
selfish) interests in mind, thus idiocy.
--- End Quote ---
But European colonialism and advanced unnecessary innovation was
a democratic (collective) thinking, so they not behave based on
individual interest, what about that?
The inventors always justify their recently created materials
with the pretext that the majority need something new and
better. So the innovation and another intelligent activity is
also result of democracy
#Post#: 15671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: September 15, 2022, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"But European colonialism and advanced unnecessary innovation
was a democratic (collective) thinking, so they not behave based
on individual interest, what about that?"
Private interests =/= individual interests. A tribe/demos is a
collective concerned with private thinking.
We support individualism. Absolute monarchism is individualism.
It is far easier to get an individual to think non-privately
than to get a majority to do so.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page