2. How can the left-wing intellectual sphere be improved? What kinds of issues should people be more focused on, and how should they change how they make left-wing arguments?
3. Do you think it's worth it for left-wing thinkers to engage intellectually with the right?
1. I've read very little fiction, but more poetry and related. Probably the book of Job. Maybe the Wasteland by Eliot.
2. If people genuinely want to win -really want to win, and not just go through the motions- a lot of the pathological habits on the left will disappear. People will think much more deeply, and with less sectarianism and nastiness, if the goal isn't positioning oneself in a milleu, but winning. over people, and ultimately society In terms of issues, two deeply undertheorized issues are 1. How to build sustainable social institution to complement movements- like the old union social clubs 2. What kind of economic policies and institutions actually work (nationalising things and redistribution are generally better than clumsy many part boutique regulations imo although there is a rule for both). 3. How to persuade.
3. I think so, but I also don't think "engage with" should be understood in terms of a kind of forced respect. Corey Robin and Walter Benjamin are two excellent thinkers who engage intellectually with the right, but there's no dance of 'oh of course I respect this rich intellectual tradition'. There is some of that in the end, but it's mostly "I've got your number" and to a great extent what these thinkers find is there *is* no tradition here.
How do you make the bear images? AI is obviously in the pipeline somewhere, but the composition seems much better than what you usually get by providing a simple prompt to an off the shelf model.
ChatGPT-4O, with probably a median of about 3 -5tries per image. The prompts generally aren't that sophisticated. The most sophisticated one I've done recently would be: "Promethean bear stealing fire in the style of Klimt aspect ratio 5:3". Other examples; "A bear achieving the singularity and ascending to Godhood via computers aspect ratio 5:3", "A bear ripping up a nasty tabloid paper aspect ratio 5:3". Maybe I just have a bit of intuition about what will work from having done it so long.
Why do you find the left-right distinction so useful? It is becoming less useful. The left used to mean working class, but now the working class, especially men are seen as quite socially conservative, because LGBTQ and feminism are clearly the voice of academia talking. Also, the working class tends to be the most against immigration. The same thing works the other way around. Wealth correlates with social liberalism (because education correlates with both). So pro-LGBTQ pro-feminism people just have to accept they are the "rich party" now.
I am more and more a believer in the alliance theory of politics, it is getting popular in some academic circles. Briefly this means various groups of people make alliances, rather randomly, and then try to generate an ideology that explains why they are on the same side, why they have a common viewpoint, but mostly it is bullshit. These alliances are random actually and there is no such overarching ideology in reality. For example it could make perfect sense if gay men would ally with rich people as they are more educated and thus more accepting. But in the past their alliance was with the poor, so a bullshit ideology was generated that both gay men and the poor want egalitarianism, an ideology of equality. If the alliance shifts and they will be allied with the rich, then wealth will be downplayed, education will be emphasized and the gay-rich alliance will generate a pro-education, pro-enlightenment ideology.
How do you think the Left should navigate the tension between concern for the global poor and concern for the developed-world working class? It's very relevant for major controversies over free trade, immigration, and foreign aid.
I believe there is a state of utility flow such that the agent would prefer to be unconscious than experience that flow, and I think that can reasonably be considered the cut off for negative utility.
I've been thinking about Paul Graham's What You (Want to)* Want article for a while. What do you want? is an easy question to answer in list form. What do you want to want? is also an easy question to answer in list form and is a very different list; interesting. I can't parse What do you want to want to want? it baffles me. He even provides an example that I get: you could want to want to like classical music, for example. But I can't generalize the question as stated. I restated it as What would your best self want to want? and that seems... close. And productive, suggesting alternatives for N: What would your N self want to want; N = (enlightened actualized transcendental et cetera). So: what do you think of my N approach? And how far down the recursive rabbit hole can you take it? I got two, maybe 2.something if you think the N approach has merit.
One plausible view is that my best self would want to want the things they did want, because their desires and their second order desires would be aligned. If they should want X, then they will want X, and want to want it. If they should not want X, then any desire they have for X will be removed, and any desire they have to desire X will also be removed, because they are ideal. Hence ideality implies a harmony in the iterative levels of desire.
One way to avoid this is the suggestion that the good life inherently involves inner conflict, in which case the various levels might still contradict even in one's ideal self.
There's a huge range of mostly overlapping distinctions corresponding to the Analytic versus Continental divide on style, authors read, problems tackled and substantive philosophical views (e.g. realism v anti-realism). It emerges quantitively in clustering studies etc. They are, to use what is by now a cliche, "family resemblance concepts"- but then almost all concepts are. People who reject the coherence of the distinction mostly do so because they don't want anything so pat and jejune to be true, but sometimes the world just is a bit pat and jejune!
1. What are your favorite works of literature?
2. How can the left-wing intellectual sphere be improved? What kinds of issues should people be more focused on, and how should they change how they make left-wing arguments?
3. Do you think it's worth it for left-wing thinkers to engage intellectually with the right?
1. I've read very little fiction, but more poetry and related. Probably the book of Job. Maybe the Wasteland by Eliot.
2. If people genuinely want to win -really want to win, and not just go through the motions- a lot of the pathological habits on the left will disappear. People will think much more deeply, and with less sectarianism and nastiness, if the goal isn't positioning oneself in a milleu, but winning. over people, and ultimately society In terms of issues, two deeply undertheorized issues are 1. How to build sustainable social institution to complement movements- like the old union social clubs 2. What kind of economic policies and institutions actually work (nationalising things and redistribution are generally better than clumsy many part boutique regulations imo although there is a rule for both). 3. How to persuade.
3. I think so, but I also don't think "engage with" should be understood in terms of a kind of forced respect. Corey Robin and Walter Benjamin are two excellent thinkers who engage intellectually with the right, but there's no dance of 'oh of course I respect this rich intellectual tradition'. There is some of that in the end, but it's mostly "I've got your number" and to a great extent what these thinkers find is there *is* no tradition here.
How do you make the bear images? AI is obviously in the pipeline somewhere, but the composition seems much better than what you usually get by providing a simple prompt to an off the shelf model.
ChatGPT-4O, with probably a median of about 3 -5tries per image. The prompts generally aren't that sophisticated. The most sophisticated one I've done recently would be: "Promethean bear stealing fire in the style of Klimt aspect ratio 5:3". Other examples; "A bear achieving the singularity and ascending to Godhood via computers aspect ratio 5:3", "A bear ripping up a nasty tabloid paper aspect ratio 5:3". Maybe I just have a bit of intuition about what will work from having done it so long.
Why do you find the left-right distinction so useful? It is becoming less useful. The left used to mean working class, but now the working class, especially men are seen as quite socially conservative, because LGBTQ and feminism are clearly the voice of academia talking. Also, the working class tends to be the most against immigration. The same thing works the other way around. Wealth correlates with social liberalism (because education correlates with both). So pro-LGBTQ pro-feminism people just have to accept they are the "rich party" now.
I am more and more a believer in the alliance theory of politics, it is getting popular in some academic circles. Briefly this means various groups of people make alliances, rather randomly, and then try to generate an ideology that explains why they are on the same side, why they have a common viewpoint, but mostly it is bullshit. These alliances are random actually and there is no such overarching ideology in reality. For example it could make perfect sense if gay men would ally with rich people as they are more educated and thus more accepting. But in the past their alliance was with the poor, so a bullshit ideology was generated that both gay men and the poor want egalitarianism, an ideology of equality. If the alliance shifts and they will be allied with the rich, then wealth will be downplayed, education will be emphasized and the gay-rich alliance will generate a pro-education, pro-enlightenment ideology.
How much "compromise to win" is too much?
(Sorry if this is too late):
How do you think the Left should navigate the tension between concern for the global poor and concern for the developed-world working class? It's very relevant for major controversies over free trade, immigration, and foreign aid.
I might not be phrasing this question properly, but do you believe in negative utility?
I believe there is a state of utility flow such that the agent would prefer to be unconscious than experience that flow, and I think that can reasonably be considered the cut off for negative utility.
I've been thinking about Paul Graham's What You (Want to)* Want article for a while. What do you want? is an easy question to answer in list form. What do you want to want? is also an easy question to answer in list form and is a very different list; interesting. I can't parse What do you want to want to want? it baffles me. He even provides an example that I get: you could want to want to like classical music, for example. But I can't generalize the question as stated. I restated it as What would your best self want to want? and that seems... close. And productive, suggesting alternatives for N: What would your N self want to want; N = (enlightened actualized transcendental et cetera). So: what do you think of my N approach? And how far down the recursive rabbit hole can you take it? I got two, maybe 2.something if you think the N approach has merit.
One plausible view is that my best self would want to want the things they did want, because their desires and their second order desires would be aligned. If they should want X, then they will want X, and want to want it. If they should not want X, then any desire they have for X will be removed, and any desire they have to desire X will also be removed, because they are ideal. Hence ideality implies a harmony in the iterative levels of desire.
One way to avoid this is the suggestion that the good life inherently involves inner conflict, in which case the various levels might still contradict even in one's ideal self.
Are the concepts of "analytical" and "continental" philosophy coherent. Is it a useful distinction to make?
There's a huge range of mostly overlapping distinctions corresponding to the Analytic versus Continental divide on style, authors read, problems tackled and substantive philosophical views (e.g. realism v anti-realism). It emerges quantitively in clustering studies etc. They are, to use what is by now a cliche, "family resemblance concepts"- but then almost all concepts are. People who reject the coherence of the distinction mostly do so because they don't want anything so pat and jejune to be true, but sometimes the world just is a bit pat and jejune!