Baroque Naturalist 🫒

𑣲⋆ Cosmology -God as causa sui -Logos as active nature -Double aspect monism -Conatus -The PSR 𑣲⋆ Ethics -Virtue -Prudence -Affects & Passions 𑣲⋆ Politics -Classical Humanism -Panamericanism -Bioregionalism « Ad astra per aspera »

@InfraHaz Basket of deplorables but woke

Time will show that the majority of Americans will end up preferring to just be Communists than Democratic Soycialists. Americans are not Europeans. They are plain-spoken and barbaric. Communism is more suited to America.

@tacitdimension Idk what I hate the most that japan is separate for no reason or that ethiopia doesn't even get to be in the red

This is how geopolitics-cels think

@TrueSlazac @Ramos__200

@Ramos__200 Erm wrong

Total Latina Belt victory

@lonli4y @AleMartnezR1 The argument works if you reject the possibility of emergence, which you could derive from a more fundamental principle like the PSR.

@AleMartnezR1 Here we go

Against an eternal universe 1. The whole (the universe) is nothing over and above its parts. 2. If every constituent of a whole (the universe) is non-eternal, then the whole (the universe) is non-eternal. 3. Every constituent (part) of the whole (the universe) non-eternal. Therefore, the whole (the universe) is non-eternal.

@AleMartnezR1 The argument works but you have an unwritten assumption that emergence is not possible, which many will disagree with.

Every constituent of the universe is non-eternal because each constituent is contingent and subject to change. Anything that is contingent does not exist by its own necessity; it depends on conditions or causes for its existence and can either begin to exist, cease to exist, or exist differently than it does. Every physical constituent of the universe exhibits precisely these features: it undergoes change, exists under particular conditions, and can be conceived as not existing without contradiction. No part of the universe possesses existence by its own nature. Therefore, every constituent of the universe is non-eternal.

@Texas_Frog_2 @tramanchita7 @archeohistories Says the texan cuck that shares a border with mexico and will be a minority in a few decades

@tramanchita7 @archeohistories Then the US would be a brown shithole like Brazil

After slavery ended, Brazil launched a campaign called blanqueamiento, meaning to "whiten" the country. Between 1880 and 1930, over 4 million Europeans were brought in and interracial marriage was encouraged to reduce Black and Indigenous ancestry over time. After slavery was abolished in Brazil in 1888, the country’s leaders feared the newly freed Black majority and sought to reshape the nation’s population. They promoted “blanqueamiento” (whitening), a state policy rooted in racist ideology that aimed to reduce the presence of Black and Indigenous people through immigration and mixing with Europeans. Between 1880 and 1930, Brazil encouraged the arrival of more than 4 million European immigrants, mainly Italians, Portuguese, Germans, and Spaniards, to work on plantations and in cities. The government believed that interracial marriage would gradually “dilute” African and Indigenous ancestry, producing a whiter population over generations. This policy was even supported by intellectuals of the time, who framed it as a path to “progress” and “modernization.” 📷 : a 1895 painting "Ham's Redemption" (A Redenção de Cam) by Spanish-Brazilian artist Modesto Brocos.  The painting illustrates 19th Century theory of "whitening" (branqueamento) through miscegenation, which was a controversial racial ideology prevalent in Brazil. It depicts a Black grandmother, her mixed-race (mulatta) daughter, the daughter's white Portuguese husband, and their white child. The grandmother, with hands raised, is seen as thanking God for her white grandson, symbolizing the perceived "redemption" of her lineage from the "curse of Ham". The work won the Gold Medal at the National Fine Arts Exposition in Rio de Janeiro in 1895 and is a classic illustration of the racist vision of the era. © Reddit #archaeohistories

@ElkaHall123 @tramanchita7 @archeohistories Obviously not at all like the US. You seriously think brazil is as bad or worse racially?

@tramanchita7 @archeohistories You think Brazil doesn’t have racial issues today?

@Andersj822010 @archeohistories Why are you saying this like it's a bad thing are you one of those maga people that believes in white genocide?

@archeohistories Same way with Argentina too..ran the same "blanqueamiento" but more aggressive. From 1860–1914, they brought 4M+ European immigrants to dilute Black & Indigenous populations. They also removed racial terms from censuses, they structurally erased their Afro-Argentine history.

@nickjspinrad @archeohistories Haiti is a terrible example because it had a very complex history that it shares with no other country. The other Caribbean islands are very african too and they're doing quite well.

@archeohistories White people are the only reason this country isn't a complete shithole, like say... haiti?

@archeohistories Gringos be like: brazil was so evil they had race mixing after slavery ended instead of segregation, the horror!

@flowersslop There is no unified self, all things are composite Even if there were your brain is only responsible for some of your self. The gut has cognitive functions too And the mind is not a thing contained within the brain or body, it literally is the body understood as a formal entity

Your nervous system isn’t "truer" than your body. Its part of the meat suit too and not the self, but the tool. The self is the nonphysical latent thing instantiated by the brain, not the brain itself. Same as a GPU is not the true self of an LLM. Its just the LLMs tool.

@_bonaventurian We need to bring this back but with positivist/empiricist

I find it very amusing how in the 3rd Century AD, "Epicurean" was just casually thrown around as an insult the way we use the word "midwit" or "pseud" today.

@gortenheim @taxspendlib Napoleon being bad is in the first place English propaganda. No one except haitians should have any level of contempt for Napoleon in the American continent. In Europe only the uk does, as marx's sympathy to Napoleon likely quelled similar sentiment in Russia

@baroquerational @taxspendlib Napoleon was the Big Bad in a lot of public consciousness for a while. I think once WW2 is far enough in the rear view mirror he’ll be seen as a more neutral figure

people love saying "history will not judge us kindly" as if history books aren't just like "Genghis Khan epicly killed 40 million people. what an absolute legend"

@MichaelShurkin This nonsense is the same thing the english say about continental revolutions when in reality canada and the uk have all the rights they do thanks to the americans and the french.

Is this a good time to point out that Canada is proof the American Revolution was unnecessary?

@x00ge_ii63 If I were a marxist I'd be a leftcom because the only thing I hate more than the western working class is peasants

guy who became a marxism to hate on the proletariat for being passive cattle even more effectively

@JamesJouissance @mouse_math Peirce is so underrated honestly. Incredible that I only know who he is because my engineering university's ethics classes focused heavily on pragmatism.

@mouse_math Disagree. Peirce created the field independently of Frege and his notation and concepts were far more influential through Schröder to Skolem. Tarski and Putnam have both observed the inflated role that has been given to Frege.

No amount of caring for Bertrand Russell is reasonable.

@ATOMIKSAICO Please do cape verde

PARAGUAY 🇵🇾 ⚽️

@souljagoyteller The crazy thing is that what china is doing is very close to what Europe did in the early modern era. Where's all the outrage over occitania? Why is no one reporting on the death of sicilian culture? And weirdly enough, Spain, which is easily the most lenient, gets the most hate

2 things can be true 1. Pre-PRC takeover Tibet was incredibly feudal theocracy 2. China has done much to attack and destroy Tibetan culture in Sinicization campaigns

@Chris196883 @shahanSean Because just like christian, liberal, feminist and socialist it's a label with like a million definitions. The average anglo humanist is straight up just an atheist liberal. This is very different from the original use of the word humanist that mostly only catholics now follow

@shahanSean I dunno, "humanist" is maybe the most pathetically thin ideology imaginable, not clear it implies much of anything. The only thing really that you would have to believe to be a Humanist is something like "F*ck the clankers" and I don't think too many even believe that.

A humanist does not believe, "These are stories for Iron-Age herders and farmers, not for us;" a humanist believes that these stories are for Iron-Age herders *and* us. We are not the last men; we are not the angels of history.

@lymanstoneky Grok is latin american

“Grok inhabits a moral space shared with virtually no human societies” is my favorite part of this