Univalence wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:58 pm
What he represents is pure evil egocentric, however his genius is to be respected and commended.
People hate him because he makes everyone look stupid...and the truth is the majority of people here are.
That's one way to mis-understand my position. You draw no distinction between egocentrism and rational/moral egoism.
My goal doesn't depend on your goal.
My strategy depends on your strategy.
The opening move is yours.
If it is only by public humiliation that people choose to see their own errors - so be it.
I am happy to be the "bad guy" if it means you get smarter in the process.
The rational egoist recognizes that a world full of smart people is better.
And there are none so dumb as those who believe in, and pursue Truth for its own sake.
If I misunderstand you...it is my choice under game theory. Understanding does not have to be mutual...as a matter of fact it is strictly assumed and does not have to be anything. It can be "void" for all I care. Also game theory, when applied to language games, necessitates a form of connection between egocentrism and rational/moral egoism in such a manner where both terms (as premise axioms upon which an argument is grounded) effectively are "beneficial" to another or in simpler terms "connected".
I don't have to draw a distinction because if I do I would be repeating a process of divergence that effectively negates any choice I have in the matter. You mistake free will for strictly individualism and seperation.
Actually what determines the opening move in itself is a game considering all games are grounded in finding an advantage. Following recursion, under the context of it existing as a principle, the ultimate game is one of creating games...something computation cannot do and is subject to the role of the philosopher.
Nice assumption, but if choice is merely a theory then this theory is grounded in its acceptance by a group of individuas; hence it is a process of group agreement where certain psychological patterns are repeated in such a way that a structure is formed no different than the repeating of patterns results in natural formations such sandstone or quartz. In these respects there is no choice as this "choice" is strictly just a manifestation of patterns repeatedly. However, much like sandstone or quartz, the nature of "objectivity" as in group agreement manifests under constant variation. In simpler terms one one group agrees on (ie is "objective") another is not. Under this, what you label as "choice", is really just a repeated process of divergence which in itself is a pattern not subject to itself without contradiction.