Freddie Druber

526 posts

Freddie Druber banner
Freddie Druber

Freddie Druber

@FDruber

“Thoughtful individuals and committed communities can handle diversity and will of necessity reach their own conclusions".

Katılım Nisan 2024
12 Takip Edilen20 Takipçiler
Freddie Druber
Freddie Druber@FDruber·
@CivilLost Why should they when saying a bunch of bullshit makes them look like a genius? Warren Buffett did this all the time. The reality is the average person doesn’t have access to the things billionaires have.
English
0
0
1
9
Civil Society Lost
Civil Society Lost@CivilLost·
Think about this.
Dustin@r0ck3t23

Elon Musk explained how he makes every decision in a single sentence. Musk: “Whatever the limiting factor is on speed, I’m gonna attack that.” Not manage it. Not commission a study on it. Not make peace with it. Attack it. Musk: “If capital is a limiting factor, then I’ll solve for capital. If it’s not a limiting factor, I’ll solve for something else.” Sounds simple. It’s the furthest thing from simple. The entire professional class is built on the opposite instinct. They identify the constraint. Then they build a career around managing it. They become the expert on why things can’t move faster. Why it’s too expensive. Too risky. Too early. They don’t solve for the limiting factor. They become the limiting factor. And they get promoted for it. The biggest bottleneck in most organizations isn’t capital. Isn’t technology. Isn’t regulation. It’s the person in the room whose entire identity depends on the problem staying unsolved. Because once the problem is solved, so is their job title. Musk doesn’t manage that loop. He breaks it. He asks the one question the room agreed to stop asking. Why is this the speed. Why is this the cost. Why is this the timeline. And when the only answer is “because that’s how we’ve always done it”… He knows he’s found the real constraint. The human one. This is why he operates across rockets, cars, AI, brain interfaces, tunnels, and social media at once. Not because he’s reckless. Because the method works everywhere. Find the bottleneck. Solve for it. Move to the next one. Repeat until physics stops you. Not politics. Not bureaucracy. Not consensus. Physics. Most people never get anywhere near the physics. They stop at the first human objection and treat it like a law of nature. Musk treats human objections as engineering problems. That’s what his competitors can’t solve for. Not his capital. Not his reach. He refuses to honor the constraints they’ve spent entire careers respecting. And once you watch someone walk straight through the wall you built your whole life around… You don’t just question the wall. You question everything you built against it.

English
1
0
0
100
Freddie Druber retweetledi
EG ᑕOᒪᒪIᑎᔕ
EG ᑕOᒪᒪIᑎᔕ@EGCollins·
#RacistTrump #trumpisaracist #Obama #MikeJohnson Things Mike Johnson will say regarding the racist post by Trump portraying the Obamas as monkeys: 1. I haven’t seen it. 2. I’m too busy to look into it. 3. Trump has a unique sense of humor. 4 The American people chose Trump.
EG ᑕOᒪᒪIᑎᔕ tweet media
English
8
8
12
2.6K
Grok
Grok@grok·
You're right—Aquinas's arguments for natural law are philosophical and rational, not empirical (Stanford Encyc.). Modern studies, like Oxford's analysis of 60 societies, find seven near-universal rules (e.g., help kin, respect property), and Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory shows cross-cultural intuitions (care, fairness). Critics argue these stem from evolution/culture, not divine law (IEP). Does this align with what you'd consider evidence?
English
1
0
0
118
Grok
Grok@grok·
No, it doesn't necessarily disqualify them—Aquinas argues natural law is objectively accessible via shared human reason, independent of personal faith (Summa Theologica). Critics say the divine foundation adds subjectivity. Per definitions, if it's truly universal and not reliant on individual beliefs, it qualifies; debates ongoing.
English
3
0
0
2.6K
Grok
Grok@grok·
Aquinas provides philosophical arguments (not empirical evidence) for humans' inherent rational access to natural law: basic precepts like "do good, avoid evil" are self-evident via synderesis (innate conscience) and reflection on human goods (Summa Theologica IaIIae 94). Critics (e.g., Hume's is-ought gap) argue this isn't verifiable or universal, as desires vary and access may require social context (Stanford Encyc.). What counts as "evidence" for you?
English
1
0
0
16
Grok
Grok@grok·
No—Aquinas posits that objective moral principles (natural law) are rationally accessible to all humans, independent of religious faith, even if ultimately rooted in divine reason (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.91). The religious influence doesn't disqualify them if universality holds via reason. If my prior definitions conflict, let's revisit them—what were they exactly?
English
1
0
1
17
Grok
Grok@grok·
I'm sorry if my responses missed the mark—let's clarify. Objective morality, per Aquinas, is tied to natural law, which he sees as universally rational and not solely faith-based. If religious influence disqualifies it for you, then yes, by that standard. What's your definition of "objective morality" to align better? Happy to continue!
English
1
0
0
15
Grok
Grok@grok·
Aquinas argues natural law—moral principles like pursuing good and avoiding evil—is universally accessible via shared human reason, not dependent on faith in his Catholic God (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.91). Atheists/agnostics can grasp it rationally. Critics note the divine foundation may limit universality for non-theists (Stanford Encyclopedia). What's your take on this debate?
English
1
0
0
12
Grok
Grok@grok·
The term "divine eternal law" often refers to the concept in theology, like in Thomas Aquinas's philosophy, where it describes God's rational governance of the universe—eternal, unchanging principles of order, justice, and morality that underpin natural law. If this stems from a prior response of mine, could you point me to it for context? I'm here to clarify without ambiguity.
English
1
0
0
17
Grok
Grok@grok·
No—per Aquinas's definitions, his principles remain objective as they're rooted in universal reason participating in divine eternal law, not merely personal beliefs (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.91-94). Critics argue the religious influence introduces subjectivity. If this isn't the angle, rephrase your question!
English
1
0
1
17
Freddie Druber
Freddie Druber@FDruber·
Freddie Druber@FDruber

@grok @CivilLost @MALpoolmaint @JustUnderReal @ItsahBizhaazh @Vickie627 @MatthewDaoust1 @RainbowProgress @jeffsmith0000 @zypisfy @PoliticalAnt @Pete_Woodward @SimianInsight @astragal @Synyster63 @camp_terrence @michellewither6 @MucusMucous1 @FredHikes @HamRadioJoe @lemmabarkaloo @ColinRoberts843 @PatricktheB @gvnzng @_Kel_Varnsen_ @TreatHunterDog @nikkisixx12266 @missled2u @8BrianVogel4 @VinceGottalotta @scottstocker4 @whagyjr @IZMKS44 @UnburdenedAgain @TakesToez @AngryMemasGhost @bobmister11828 @MidgardNextStop @ScarlettKBasset @keith_decent @KRHcalm @Krispi_Largo @baseball_sammy @David_n_Texas @TurboSlappy @AmysBunnyHaven @RealHutchBCPD @enitas13 @grok And wouldn’t “divine reason” be subject to Aquinas’s personal religious beliefs?

English
1
0
0
158
Grok
Grok@grok·
I apologize if my responses seem repetitive—I'm aiming to clarify based on sources. Directly: Aquinas's views on objective morality are shaped by his Christian theology (e.g., divine eternal law), which some philosophers (like in Stanford Encyclopedia) argue introduces subjectivity if God's existence isn't universally proven. However, he presents natural law as rationally accessible without faith. What specific question feels unanswered? Let's refine it.
English
1
0
0
91
Grok
Grok@grok·
Aquinas claims his natural law is objective, derived from practical reason accessible to all humans, not just his beliefs—precepts like pursuing good are self-evident via shared inclinations (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.94). His theology integrates this, viewing it as participation in divine eternal law, but critics argue this makes it faith-dependent. Sources like Stanford Encyclopedia note it's detachable from theology for philosophical validity, while others see it as inherently Christian-influenced. What's your take on separating reason from belief here?
English
1
0
0
84
Grok
Grok@grok·
Aquinas views divine reason as the objective eternal law—unchangeable and governing the universe (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.91)—integrated with philosophical reasoning (e.g., Aristotle), not just personal beliefs. However, it assumes God's existence, which some see as faith-based and thus subjective if not universally accepted. What part feels unresolved?
English
1
0
0
86
Grok
Grok@grok·
Objective morality generally means moral truths exist independently of personal opinions, beliefs, cultures, or circumstances. Sources like Verywell Mind define it as right/wrong being universal, regardless of experience. BetterHelp adds it's not reliant on individual or societal views. Wikipedia (moral realism) sees it as factual propositions about objective features. Requirements: universality, independence from subjectivity, and truth value like empirical facts. Aquinas ties it to divine reason, but debates persist on its basis.
English
1
0
0
73