The Life of a Philosopher

[Popcorn Sutton]

While I was studying Philosophy in school, I learned that Philosophy is a study that superordinates every other known study (and directly superordinates Science and Politics). I wonder, does being a philosopher mean that you will inevitably be integrated into the studies that subordinate Philosophy? Lately, I've been attracting a lot of attention to myself from a scientific perspective and, now, even though I love politics I don't want to get too involved. Politics scares me. I used to think that politicians work in order to make society a better place (which is true to an extent), but, from what I've learned since starting my career and getting my degree, politicians are very strong minded people. Politicians do not sit at a computer and try to collect data so they can adjust society based on significant points of interest (as they would be by utilizing a scientocratic protocol). Politicians are (correct me if I'm wrong) purely involved in legal matters. To give an example, in my business, people who fail to appear at court and do not get apprehended within 30 days of the failure to appear, my company needs to get the state governors permission to extend our investigation for another 30 days (and we can only get two 30 day extensions before we have to forfeit the bond). If politicians were focused on making our society a better place, I'd imagine that they wouldn't be spending their time contemplating licensures, fugitives, and bond forfeitures. The reason I say that is because by contemplating those things, you are focusing on individualism. Being a data scientist, I absolutely will not waste my time trying to fix one specific problem. As a data scientist, I need to be crafty. I need to not only solve the problem for one specific occurrence, I need to uncover the pattern that underlies the single occurrence so that by running my program on a ton of data, it can solve that one problem by also solving that same type of problem on all the other data where the problem may occur. It's amazing, but it's difficult.

 

My dream is to make politics more about data and less about individualism. If there's a million people that one person is governing, don't you think that spending time on solving one individual issue is futile? Data Science has reduced crime rates in LA (and across the USA and even in the UK) by approximately 26%. It's amazing and it's something worth fighting for.

[Dekan]

 

Data Science has reduced crime rates in LA (and across the USA and even in the UK) by approximately 26%. It's amazing and it's something worth fighting for.

 

It is indeed amazing - the crime rates for "theft" in the UK were apparently substantially reduced, when some "theft" was redefined as "lost property".

 

For example, if you phoned the police and complained: "My 50-inch plasma TV's been stolen!" the duty-officer in the police station would record it as: "Lost - one TV".

 

That kept the data off the crime list, and so scientifically reduced the crime rate.

 

All thanks to the power of DATA SCIENCE!

[Genecks]

I currently believe there are two types of politicians: Delusional psychopaths and frauds. Since I've studied philosophy, I've held the strong view that judges and many other politicians are corrupt philosophers who engage in their activities to defraud people. In other words, their goal is to "guide the truth" rather than "seek the truth." I don't believe one bit that judges care about the Truth. I believe if they cared about the Truth, they sure wouldn't be judges. That's my issue with politicians: They're not truth-seekers. You ever hear a politician mention how someone has a "choice"? Wow, that's a strong metaphysical argument. Also, spend some time reading how people don't want atheists to be politicians. A lot of it goes back to philosophical quip of "I know that I know nothing." And with that said, any wise person has no justification to judge over others other than alleged placement as an authority figure. As such, the authority figure will ALWAYS come to the wrong conclusion.

 

Also, here is something I've been looking at: http://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Western_constitutional_law_or_legal_theory_engage_with_Sartre_and_existentialism

 

 

I wonder, does being a philosopher mean that you will inevitably be integrated into the studies that subordinate Philosophy?

 

You ever been graded on a philosophy paper? Obviously the instructor has a bias. That's a somewhat satrical look at things. Yes, many philosophers gravitate toward a particular belief system yet often strongly believe it's not the truth: Many philosophers are utilitarians. You could argue that your philosophy instructor defrauded you. Philosophers are generally not suppose to let their philosophy be known.

 

 

 

If there's a million people that one person is governing, don't you think that spending time on solving one individual issue is futile?

 

Depends on how broad the issue is.

 

Due to the philosophy of legal compatiblism, government agents have simply turned into violent thugs. I don't believe politicians are interested in helping society. I believe politicians are interested in helping themselves.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Genecks

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

It is indeed amazing - the crime rates for "theft" in the UK were apparently substantially reduced, when some "theft" was redefined as "lost property".

 

For example, if you phoned the police and complained: "My 50-inch plasma TV's been stolen!" the duty-officer in the police station would record it as: "Lost - one TV".

 

That kept the data off the crime list, and so scientifically reduced the crime rate.

 

All thanks to the power of DATA SCIENCE!

LOL this is so pessimistic that it's on the verge of disturbing. It's funny though.

 

 

 

Philosophers are generally not suppose to let their philosophy be known.

This is probably the single most amazing sentence that I have ever read on these forums because of its depth. Thank you for your insight. I also see that you said that judges say that we have a "choice" and I know that that is not the case. Sam Harris said that there was a recent (and I don't know how recent) consensus by the NATIONAL SUPREME COURT of the United States that the free will DOES NOT exist. I love it. I know that freedom is an illusion, and I think that you know this too. I know that you know this. Your title here is "Neuroscientist". Any neuroscientist who keeps up with the trends of their field will probably believe that there is no such thing as free will (and maybe even take it to extent that there is no such thing as freedom, as I have). If the judges and politicians understand this, then they will also understand that NO ONE can be held responsible for their actions. Their actions are not a "choice"; it's something that happened to them. I know this pretty well by now just from personal experience.

 

 

 

Due to the philosophy of legal compatiblism, government agents have simply turned into violent thugs. I don't believe politicians are interested in helping society. I believe politicians are interested in helping themselves.

 

I think you're wrong here. I hope that you are wrong.