(Part 2) Top products from r/Destiny

Jump to the top 20

We found 23 product mentions on r/Destiny. We ranked the 168 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Destiny:

u/Lacher · 1 pointr/Destiny

I think that if the person reports it was her duty so save other soldiers, it's not really a classical case of altruism. So in that case I agree. But that's unique to the reported reason of someone handling out of "duty" rather than "empathy".

On an act being egoistic as soon as some pleasure is derived, allow me to quote these nicely written paragraphs from this book.

> The egoist might respond: if you are doing what you really want, aren’t
you thereby self-interested? It is important to see that the answer may well
be no. For all we know, some of us deeply want to help other people. When
we manage to offer such help, we are doing what we really want to do. Yet
what we really want to do is to benefit someone else, not ourselves.
Now, if people get what they really want, they may be better off as a
result. (But they might not: think of the anorexic or the drug addict. Or
think of the cases of disappointment discussed in chapter 4.) Yet the fact
that a person gains from her action does not prove that her motives were
egoistic
[1]. The person who really wants to help the homeless, and volunteers
at a soup kitchen or shelter, may certainly derive pleasure from her efforts.
But this doesn’t show that pleasure was her aim. Her aim may have been to
help those in need. And because her aim was achieved, she thereby
received pleasure.

> As a general matter, when you discover that your deepest desires have
been satisfied, you often feel quite pleased. But that does not mean that your ultimate aim is to get such pleasure. That’s what needs to be shown; we can’t just assume it in trying to figure out whether our motives are
always self-interested.

I also think describing altruistic behavior as epigenetically, deterministically or evolutionarily is as useful as describing love as an influx of dopamine and oxytocine. It's scientifically nice but also kind of restricting in understanding humans.

[1] If I reward you with a cookie for taking the shortest path to work, and you enjoy that reward, that does not prove you took the shortest path to work because of my reward--you would have taken it anyway and under what I understand to be your conception of human behavior there is no accounting for this possibility.

u/QuasiIdiot · 13 pointsr/Destiny

> Thanks for the tip, but I'm not even sure what you mean by "authoritative". A good argument is a good argument and I believe Sam makes a good one, but I will check him out.

Harris's arguments concerning free will are terrible and virtually no one reasonably educated on the issue takes them seriously. See the section "Harris Makes Bad Philosophical Arguments" here.

> But this definition if circular and vague.

It isn't circular, and it is vague only because it is meant to be theory-neutral. A vague definition is all you're going to get when you're arguing against vaguely defined group of people.

> "Responsibility" is something we get from the belief we have free will. The definition of "moral" is vague in that we do have a definitive definition of what is moral and what is not. Utilitarianism? Categoricalism? Communitarianism? Libertarianism?

You don't need any specific account of normative ethics to make the concept of "moral responsibility" intelligible. It can be "being worthy of praise or blame for doing the right or wrong thing, whatever the correct account of right and wrong turns out to be". The question doesn't depend on a specific account of 'right' and 'wrong' just like the question "does 2x^2 > 5 have any solutions in natural numbers?" doesn't depend on what the specific value of 'x' is.

> But are the person and the self separate?

What do you mean by "self"?

> And how do we know that how someone chooses to control himself is not controlled by environment?

What do you mean by "controlled"? What do you mean by "environment"? Why are you asking?

> If there is scientific data that starkly contradicts the concept of knowledge presented, I would reject that also

How can any scientific data contradict the concept of knowledge? Concepts are not physical entities that can be tested in a laboratory. Also, you haven't presented any definition, but you surely believe that there's such thing as "knowledge".

> The concept of knowledge, I'm sure, is not as contested as free will.

There's been an enormous problem with defining what "knowledge" means since Edmund Gettier's 1963 paper showed that there's a serious problem with the widely accepted definition of "knowledge". So we have no good definition of "knowledge", and yet people are not running around screaming "KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T EXIST". We still use the concept every day and the majority of philosophers would agree that "knowledge" is a thing, even if we can't precisely define it. Same goes for free will (or not, because there are several specific account of free will).

> I am not asking that we abandon free will completely. I am suggesting there is no evidence for it, therefore it must be at least be met with more skepticism than something with studies attached.

I'm pretty sure the concept of a "study" and "evidence" doesn't really apply to free will. There are arguments in favour of its existence though, and of course they are met with some skepticism, but it seems that more experts than not think that the arguments are good enough to overcome the skepticism.

> If it's not demonstrable in studies. It's of no use in coming up with solutions.

Is "If it's not demonstrable in studies. It's of no use in coming up with solutions." demonstrable in studies?

> Again, if free will exists (some extra component other than environment and physiology), if we cannot control it or even detect it, why even bring it up in debate?

What do you mean by "some extra component other than environment and physiology"? Is reasoning or desire an "extra component other than environment and physiology"? If not then free will, on some popular accounts, wouldn't be as well.

> In the same way, one should believe systemic racism exists before free will because one is more certain.

Maybe. Perhaps these "conservatives" have counterarguments and reasons to doubt the conclusions that are drawn from the data, that in their view make it less certain. I think you should take it up with one of them and ask for their arguments.

> Well, I don't know what free will implies. That's the point. As I've shown, the definition is circular, vague, and unproven.

All you've shown is that you haven't really researched the subject well beyond listening to Sam Harris. What free will implies depends on the account of free will your interlocutor accepts, and can be learned from the relevant literature like Frankfurt's Freedom of the will and the concept of a person or Fischer and Ravizza's Responsibility and Control. So again, you should take this up with the actual people you're addressing, because otherwise you're arguing against no one, and it's really no wonder that this abstract "Mr. Nobody" has vague beliefs.

u/FluffyN00dles · 4 pointsr/Destiny

If any of you need to up your memorization game this book is amazing for that, it literally changed my life.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/0143120530

the author went from knowing nothing about the techniques he would use, to eventually winning memory competitons

it goes over this concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci ) but with extra details from "memory competitors" that helped

An example of this concept in action can be seen with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiKg08WoKPM

A version of teaching the techniques by guy I know of (a med school who also won 2 memory world competitions) can be found here https://mullenmemory.com/memory-palace-basics. The author can memorize 80 digits in 17.65 seconds.

Other than that, teaching/explaining concepts in your own words and integrating information into previously acquired knowledge will help you remember things better as well.

u/aberugg · 1 pointr/Destiny

In regards to the Russel bit, I think getting into any of his technical works is a mistake for a noob, but this is necessary foundational reading for an amateur who isn't going to college for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy

In my view as an autodidact to philosophy, this was an excellent introduction. I think people really should not be reading selected specific academic works like Rem has suggested without guidance from a professor/teacher. One I've seen suggested before for a typical starting out laymen is:

https://www.amazon.com/Tetralogue-Im-Right-Youre-Wrong/dp/0198728883

My Grandma enjoyed it, she's the most educated person in the family with a Master's in English but never engaged in Philosophy before. If she can read into it amateurly and understand it at 82, no one else has got an excuse.

If people really want to dive deeper, they really should go to college, or just buy a bunch of used books and plow through them, read the IEP and SEP articles on the subjects, compare their understanding with peer-reviewed understandings, etc...

u/MemeticDesire · 1 pointr/Destiny

> Secondly, I'm reading Yuval Harari's Homo Deus right now, in which he makes the claim that Marx would probably want people today to study how the modern economy works with the advent of computers, genetics research, etc., rather than reading a book that was written when steam was the coolest technology on the planet

That doesn't give you an excuse to not read Marx though, just an encouragement to read some recent stuff after having read and understood Marx. What you're implying is equivalent to "I shouldn't read Aristotle, Kant, and J.S. Mill on moral philosophy because we have moral questions now that didn't exist back in their times, like those on ethics of human cloning".

EDIT:

If you really want something recent to read then I guess you could read Shaikh, at least he will be better than fucking Sowell

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Competition-Conflict-Anwar-Shaikh/dp/0199390630 (libgen.io btw)

Shorter lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBHCiDd8ew&list=PLTMFx0t8kDzc72vtNWeTP05x6WYiDgEx7

Book lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShIg-3NRQj4&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

u/ICanThinkOfUsername · 3 pointsr/Destiny

Accelerationism is pretty stupid, but the Accelerationism Manifesto is a good start for it. Nick Land is the modern, popular, theorists associated with it.

For Zizek, I'd start with the book Violence (pdf version of the book is here). It'll introduce you to his criticism of liberal capitalism and it's relationship with violence. It's also a great introduction to his theories on ideology. Some of the book (when he starts talking about Hegel, for example) aren't necessary and you can skip them.

Zizek writes in an easy to read, borderline rant-like, style that's easy to read, but also allows him to introduce random thoughts (he has a section on a "self love/masterbation" event. There's only a loose theme throughout the book so skipping some sections isn't a big deal.

u/Winzors · 2 pointsr/Destiny

@Destiny @exskillsme

The definition of good economic governance/lobbying is that which protects and incentivises competition.

The definition of bad economic governance/lobbying is that which produces financial security, allowing any individual, group or company to exist outside meritocratic influence.

Good governance thereby mitigates corruption.

Bad governance maximises it.

Further reading (if either of you give a fuck): The Constitution of Liberty written by nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek.

u/MegaZeroX7 · 7 pointsr/Destiny

Pretty gross. Mao caused millions of deaths due to famines caused by his Great Leap Forward (and refused to stop, and locked up Peng Dehuai when he warned Mao about the issues). While Mao did initially push women's rights further, the women's liberation movement was slowed as he scared them into submission with the anti-rightest campaign, and shut down completely when he halted the All-China's Women Federation during the Cultural Revolution. Maoism is inherently authoritarian, with the Mass-Line primarily being justification for propaganda and party purges.

If you want to read about the women's liberation in communist china, I recommend reading this, as it is really insightful about what happened, and useful when tankies try to talk about how awesome and progressive China was.

u/DiscreteChi · 10 pointsr/Destiny

Isn't as bad as it sounds!

Currently reading Akira and Chapo while waiting for On Disobedience and a book of Cicero's writings to arrive.

u/RustyCoal950212 · 0 pointsr/Destiny

> by reality i mean everyone who's not on reddit with an economics major that's about to get switched to communications, trying to trigger people who read books

ftfy

u/Shizuma_Hanazono · 9 pointsr/Destiny

I'm currently seeking my masters degree in Physics. When I was an undergraduate, I majored in Physics and minored in Biology. My "formal" background in this entails several biology classes and two genetics classes. None of them ever, even more a moment, entertained the idea that "race" was of biological significance.

In fact, Campbell Biology, a very commonly used biology textbook in highschools and at the college freshmen level, put it pretty well, explaining that "the genetic variation between race is equal to the genetic variation between species" in the context of the human species. This is why humans are considered to be one race which shouldn't be subdivided any further. Doing so would be statistically insignificant, as any further subdivisions wouldn't exceed the standard variation innate in the human genome (i.e. you would never be able to discern a signal from the noise).

I'm not saying genetic differences don't exist. Obviously they do. But in the context of genetic determinism, IQ, behavior, and crime, genetics are far less salient than, say, culture and other societal influences. If one wanted to make the claim that a "culture is wrong" (maybe because they value the wrong things, e.g., a culture that values throwing women into volcanoes to appease the rain gods), that is a possible argument to make. But to claim a culture is wrong "because of latent genetic inferiority" --- that's simply not support by the facts.

I am not an expert in this field. If you want to learn more, I recommend examining the sources that I linked. For a more rigorous examining, you could also take standard biology progression (BIO 101, 102 -> Genetics 101).

u/Karl___Marx · -1 pointsr/Destiny

What are you trying to do here? I give you a brief glimpse into the mind of a mad man and you expect me to explain why he doesn't write about genocide?

Most serious historical accounts of what happened in Ukraine reach the conclusion that there was enough food to prevent starvation (despite the decline in output due to the brutal transition to collectivization), but the foodstuffs were withheld essentially to allow for ethnic cleansing. If you seriously want a full picture, read this book.

https://www.amazon.ca/Harvest-Sorrow-Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807

u/Shaliber · 1 pointr/Destiny

1% in gun ownership correlates with 0.9% rise in firearm homicide rate

Australia's buyback program was incredible successful in saving lives.

Buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.

Robbery and assault is similar in other countries, but American violence is the highest.


[America doesn't really have a significantly higher rate of crime compared to similar countries. But that crime is much likelier to be lethal: American criminals just kill more people than do their counterparts in other developed countries. And guns appear to be a big part of what makes this difference. They go on later in the book with recommendations. A response to lethal violence in the U.S. should include widening the punishment gap between non-violent burglary and armed robbery. It should also include a wide variety of strategies to make crime safer in the U.S., says Zimring.These would include serious efforts to reduce hand gun ownership and use, environmental deterrents to robbers and violent assaults--such as cashless buses and bullet-proof vests--and training potential crime victims to minimize the chances that violent crime will end in death--such as not resisting a robber. ]
(https://www.amazon.com/Crime-Is-Not-Problem-Violence/dp/0195131053)