Philosophical Arguments #
[TODO]how to construct a phil argument
Not simply accepting “Because that’s how it is” #
I’m writing this at @292.78 on Day 132 of 12,020. I’m typing on a Dvorak, split, ortholinear keyboard in a markdown document using Arch Linux instead of M$ Word on Windows. I find music off the 12 tone scale interesting, and while I know 432 vs 440hz, isn’t going to open my 3rd eye, listening to microtonal or music made with just intonation is still something interesting to me.
Alright, so maybe I was being a bit cheeky. I don’t actually use that weird time format (though I do use the year part semi-regularly). The rest though, yeah. And honestly, it’s a lot of putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak. You see, I think we live in a world that is unfortunately resistive to change. While we as a species are creating technology that allows us to exchange ideas at a rate that was unfathomable even when I was born in ‘98, we’re still resistant to actually accepting that many of the things we do are rooted in ideas that just don’t really make sense anymore. We’re artificially limiting ourselves and our culture because we’re scared. Because at the root of things our monkey brains are shouting at us, “What we’re doing works! Don’t touch it! You might break it! Then what would we do!”. Because of this, we’ve done a lot more harm than just causing more RSI from bad keyboard layouts or using crappy calendars. We reinforce values in each generation that are done because that’s how it is, from the prevalence of circumcision to the tenancy for women to get custody. I’m not even making an argument for or against either of those things (1). Rather, I’m trying to make clear that as a society we tend to have values and practices that are passed from generation to generation with no thought as to why we do things the way we do or how we may improve them.
This is probably the primary motivating factor behind many of my political beliefs. In this section of OpGuides, various philosophical frameworks will be at play, often conflicting with one another as, unfortunately, I think the world is too complicated for one core idea to govern right from wrong. These will likely include ideas that support equality, drawing upon ideas such as Rawl’s ‘Veil of Ignorance’(2). In general, I think this stance is quite literally the opposite of Conservatism in both the definitional and practical sense that we see it today. If you view yourself as a conservative I ask that you do please stay and read though. While I will likely primarily disagree with your ideas, I still think we could both stand to learn from each other and that we both stand to benefit by having our respective views challenged where we do disagree.
- Though I think you can pretty much guess that I think given the Kellogg's Fueled, anti sexual liberty history of Circumcision in the US I think it's bull shit. Further, I think prioritizing women for custody does make some sense as there is some biological context, but I've also seen, as the son of a family law attorney, how frequently this is the default even when the mother is most certainly not the most capable or loving parent.
- Rawl's idea here is sorta kinda close to The Egg , a video from Kurzgesagt.