I guess I don't understand what is entailed by being a mod. Why would you want to step down? Are you just trying to free up your time?

Irregardless, I wish you the best, fdrake. Quality philosophers are quite rare on here. I hope you choose to at least stay as a member on the forum.

And thanks for all the fish. — unenlightened

:smirk:

It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes. — Amity

Me too! :100:

Why would you want to step down? — Bob Ross

No comment, innit brev.

innit brev. — fdrake

Remanens capax mutationem — Heidegger

Or Carpe diem, whatever.

I'm so sick of Heidegger. I did it to myself though.

Heidegger < Mario Bunge.

What do you think of Badiou? You're a mathematician, he's a mathematician. Is he a sophist?

I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either.

I never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}.

The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?", and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it.

I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one.

Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it.

I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either. — fdrake

Thanks for sharing that, I feel the same way about that. It's just sophistry.

never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}. — fdrake

Because he "just likes" the number 4, as stupid as that sounds. Why does Hegel always use the number 3 as a model for basically everything in his philosophy? Because he "just likes" the number 3.

The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. — fdrake

Nothing wrong with that though, IMHO. Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist. Both of them were dialectical. Idealism is not a big deal, honestly.

I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?" — fdrake

I agree.

and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it. — fdrake

Yup, same old, same old.

I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one. — fdrake

I can't comment much about that, Laruelle sounds kinda crazy. To my ear, at least.

Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it. — fdrake

I don't know what to tell you about that, friend. I just think that Badiou is really lousy as a mathematician, so I'm obviously biased and prejudiced against him.

. I just think that Badiou is really lousy as a mathematician, — Arcane Sandwich

He doesn't do mathematics. He uses mathematics. I wouldn't want to call him a mathematician any more than I'd want to call him a novelist.

Laruelle sounds kinda crazy. — Arcane Sandwich

He is. You might enjoy Brassier's condensation of him in "Axiomatic Heresy". There's a much longer discussion of Laruelle in {slightly} plainer English in Brassier's "Alien Theory" too. I think it's worth looking into if you're very sick of playing pomo bingo in every paper you read. I just switch off when I hear things like "create and sustain", "in and through", "engender and presuppose". Laruelle has an excellent vantage point on such catcheisms of reciprocal determination.

Idealism is not a big deal, honestly. — Arcane Sandwich

It is to me. I enjoy the thoroughly inhuman. It's a shame if everything is eye shaped.

Couldn't of said any of that any better myself. :up:

If people were doing idealism from the perspective of plants and egg yolks I'd be game though.

Well, let's ask @Wayfarer what he thinks about that.

@Wayfarer knows how I feel about idealism very well. We argued about it for years!

Pardon me, Skipper, but it seems to me that Wayfarer's point hasn't been refuted, so far. Just saying.

And it shall never be.

Then it's not a big deal! : )

By a big deal I mean it's a big deal to me if I put on my philosophy hat. Though I'm under no illusions that idealism could be convincingly refuted to every interlocutor. In the grand scheme of things whether someone is an idealist is so obscure it doesn't matter at all.

In the grand scheme of things whether someone is an idealist is so obscure it doesn't matter at all. — fdrake

Suppose that such is your premise. The next part follows from it:

Then it's not a big deal! : ) — Arcane Sandwich

So, Captain Francis Drake (if I may),

What are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence?

What are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence? — Arcane Sandwich

I'll answer my own question: there is no such thing as a malevolent artificial intelligence. And, by parity of reasoning, it follows that there is no such thing as a good artificial intelligence either.

For general AI, for now it's a boring problem that a Bay Area cargo cult popularised in order to dupe donations from impressionable software nerds.

It's always the same story, isn't it? Enough with these scams already, it's all one giant Ponzi scheme, if you ask me.

What are your thoughts on Australians, Skipper? The ones that have descended from European convicts, specifically.

Wayfarer knows how I feel about idealism very well. We argued about it for years! — fdrake

Thems were the days….

@fdrake
@Wayfarer

This might cheer you folks up a bit:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15778/the-four-suits-%EF%B8%8F

- Thanks for your service, fdrake. :up:

As you might imagine, I was thinking about the problem of creating a moderation-light forum approach even before you resigned. In general I think Vanilla/Plush is too outdated, and provides the mods with too little leverage to do their job. The ban-or-nothing consequence structure naturally creates a laissez-faire environment. This is the note I jotted down when musing on the question:

It would seem that real life interactions are opt in, not opt out, and that this makes a large part of the difference on internet forums. At least, it is that part of the difference that can actually be managed. So what if on a discussion forum, the person creating the thread had the ability to allow only a specific set of people to comment within the thread. This could be combined with an invitation system in which people could ask permission to be invited into the thread. Uninvitations would not be allowed, except perhaps in rare circumstances. This would create an environment in which those who don’t play nice would not be invited to play at all, and yet which would not need to avoid the anonymous nature of the internet.

Something like this would be one attempt to create a self-managing community which better reflects the way the real world works. The troll who has too much time on their hands and goes around derailing thread after thread is simply not invited to participate in threads by those who make them. This is an example of a feature that could drastically cut down on moderation costs, and also lead to healthier communities where bad actors are naturally disincentivized. Ideally it would help combat the way in which the internet has become a natural home for the anonymous, parasitic rabble-rouser.

In real life it is not taken for granted that someone is worth talking to, or that someone possesses the social competence to be invited into a discussion. Why not extend that to internet forums? Why not create an internal incentive for users to maintain an appreciable level of post quality and social quality?

@fdrake Riding herd on this cattle drive must be one of the more thankless jobs for which one doesn't get paid. You've been on the trail for a long time, and you no doubt need an extended rest stop in one of the rooms with services at the Long Branch Saloon. They have a large selection; just ring.

So hang up your saddle, check your horse into the local livery stable, and order a nice hot bath to soak away all the sturm and drang of the site.

And should you decide to make yourself scarce, thanks for letting us know in advance. I would thank you profusely for your dedicated service, but you know, you did have a thankless job, so...

Good luck!

Haven't you ever thought of being a moderator? I think you will be a great mod as well as @fdrake was. :smile: