I ask you this. What if a man meant to write something in satire, to troll another man using poes law...

I ask you this. What if a man meant to write something in satire, to troll another man using poes law, but unwittingly said something that was inspiring to the trollee. Realizing that what he said actually reflected truth on it's own merit, the troll realizes that he indeed agrees with the satire he's written. This complex scenario doesn't seem to be one that could be forced, but only one that could occur spontaneously. What say you, of this scenario, Veeky Forumsizens?

isn't this what the bible was?

bump

I have no idea what you're saying, but I like Albert Camus in this picture. He is so attractive and manly.

if u love him so much why dont u marry him LMOA

Why does he wear such a large jacket? Was he a Talking Heads fan?

That's how /pol/ became what it is now

I don't know. I don't think we'll get along very well since I can't speak French and I don't like that he smokes.

If the man agrees/believes with something, potentially 'abstract' as what is labeled in op, does this mean he really knows some timeless truth about 'himself'?

How to know the degrees it says something about reality 'the objective validity of 'the information of the satire'', or about himself (and which himself, that current version of himself, more than half of his total self, 'true self', 'timeless self'?)

He can believe and agree with the satire for 10 days or 100 years. It can be a true that is relatively generally timeless. It can be a momentary fact (a fly flew by that flower right there just now, I am certain), or it can be more political, sociological, economic, lawful theory and practice.

I think (know, what conditions?) X is good and right in this time and place, for this amount of time, for these types of people, for these reasons. I think Y is good and right for all places, all times, all types of people, for these reasons.

So either the satire reflects something true (partly or whoely) about the person and/or reality/world,

Or it doesnt, and the writer was momentarily mistaken, in that he was inspired or thought it true for 10 minutes and then convinced himself it was unworthy and not true likely for all conditions, or only nearly impossible rare ones.

Then there are likely, a nearly infinite grey area of things which do not really fit into some objective value judgement of belief, need, desire.

For example, if I wrote a satire criticizing people criticizing high heel shoes, and I started to sympathize with criticizers of high heel shoes, there might be no objective universal timeless platonic ideal in relation to the existence value of high heel shoes, near my person, or in a/any/the public sphere. (however, perhaps there are some more common objections approaching the fringes of potential, like 'that high heel shoes should not be used to stab eyes out', and others would strongly feel and think about sticking them else wheres.

((It is possible for a man to surely be certain, that he knows more about himself and the world than he did before, and that he will not change his mind on that particular fact. There is a large area of things that that statement likely holds true for. ))

Damn

I don't get it
What makes him handsome?
Are those kind of eyebags considered hot or not? Because I have kind of similar but I don't think it's an advantage.

I've concluded that he was just a really suave guy with good dress sense, his face is kind of repulsive t b h

The person who called camus handsome, either looks like camus, so wants to reassure himself, and put it in the collective conscious, that people that look like that (and who are into deep edgy brooding philosophy) are handsome.

Or. They are a dark edgy emo tween gay twink boy who wants a motorcycly older rough whisky man to whisply whisk them away on the back of their hog, reciting satre and watching Godard from on ipad on the back of his leather jacket.

He's French, they're like that.

even Sartre was a qt

Interestingly some points here, may relate to what he may have been highlighting and getting at, with his conception of 'le absurd'

He has a very smooth, cool looking expression in most pictures of him; this is almost universally attractive to people. Moreover, he has a good blend of experience (minor wrinkles and bags) with a rugged sense of adventure (disarming and inviting posture, small amounts of stubble). It mostly comes down to his confidence as to why people think he's attractive, in addition to how "deep" his philosophy is, its edgy and brooding and dark but not overwhelmingly so, again, a good blend of experience/wisdom and ruggedness/danger.

but wasnt he a notorious ladies man

Now the subject, of what is possible to inspire via satire, the information is either true objectively, so some provable good and bad, but if it is good or bad to a persons disposition, tastes, desires, is it possible for these to more and less to degrees relate to any true objective 'relation, comparison of all (possible) coherent, meaningful information', is any answer always 'the democratic result on average of what could have to within reason probabilistically occurred, with attention paid to novel, intriguing outliers and different branching 'time line' paths'

or is there some ideal 'every actual possible human action, all possible timelines every second, by which the whole and any part, can be changed, which can have relatively profound effects, on, parts, and/or the "whole"

We need more examples of 'satires' which the writer could have a change of mind. What I am trying to say is it will either end up being: "hm, actually I wouldnt mind that, I can see myself enjoying myself if such were the case, so therefore, it should be enacted, it must be good, and right, and I am not sure, am I sure (?), if I will think and feel this way (to what degree am I, can I be, we all ultimately have to pick some thing/s and some way/s, am I thinking of what every possible version of every possible person might want, or how what I am proposing to be enacted will effect them, how certain am I it will be good for them, do I care, how do I know if I should and how much,.

So then, the most desires, the most powers with the most desires, most shape the world, so a person believes and thinks and feels way ABC, they write their thoughts and feelings, satire, mocking thoughts XYZ, "I think things should be XYZ because that would be better for 123",

Writer thinks, I was writing that to make fun of XYZ person, but they might be right... They might be right? Which would mean information in reality would correlate to the word signifiers agreed to correlate to objects and relations of objects in reality.

But right in this circumstance, already implies, 'better for ..." ... There can only ever be better for me and/or better for that which is not me or relatively directly related to me.

Powers, desires, implies, 'better for me', I, we, do what is better for I, we.

Better, implies certain agreed up relative base things (le pyramid of needs, and desires).
Greater ease and access, more and more insured and assured quantity and quality of quantity and quality.

Difficulties in practice come into play, when disagreement on certainty of knowledge of 'better for one', truly is and means (better for all, as well), and the hiearchies of power, and their relative knowledge, ignorance, and care about knowledge and ignorance, and relative real powers, and how those real powers influence the former, which use their power and desire, to institute measures which most benefit the I, and we, which is them and they.

Camus probably fucked more qts than all of us combined

For example, a person proposes, that a better world would have been, if the earliest most numbered and able humans, conquered earth for their kind, and eradicated all others. Though it might truly be better, for individuals, and Earths history and potential, for there to be different races and cultures, and genetic diversity, which in degrees, can mix, to form new novel beings, which might have unobtainable any other ways, latent tricks up their sleeve. Someone might claim, one would not have to worry about race, or the awkwardness of that, or war, or harsh competition between nations, there would and could still be differences, and conflict, etc. but there definitely could be difference. A person who could be sympathetic with such, would only ever be thinking: "I could like to live in a world like that", or "all people should, truly do whether they 'know it or not' want to live in a world like that" or "the only good or right world, or at least, to some degree much more valuable would be, if the world was like that, history, on average the individuals existence, and the whole, would be better, if that were have to happened", how does/could one know this? Again what does it matter? What should a race who had the chance to conquer the world, care, for any others not a part of it? Or to their future potential mixed progeny if they do not.

What should they care about history books, or individuals perception, why should they not care for, opportunity to experience the best existence, to create a perfect kingdom, for me, and then my childrens children and childrens children children ever more, why should they care if; "we do this, maybe Mozart, or the Emipire state building, or starwars, or Mercedes or Christmass" might not exist; is there anything worth weeping over being lost to the future that could have been?

Are yall 1 or 2?

There are truths beyond God and God must know this, God did not invent the circle, the eternally true and equal concept of circle; but I suppose it is possible for God to have arisen in a realm; in which it could not accurately depict or represent or conceive of a True Circle (what percent of proximity roughly equals a grasping equals?), but create a realm in which beings can (approach true depiction and projection, conception, perception, of a True Circle); is this true? Is it possible for a being to attempt to create a mechanism which depicts a concept, the being is trying to depict, without that being having any true absolute apprehension of the concept in their realm? Could God have been unaware of a circle, and created a realm, in which the circle was possible? How could God have stumbled upon the circle? could God have existed in an uncreated realm in which the circle was possible? Impossible? How? What would entail, God conceiving and depicting a perfect True Circle? Could God prove such, know such? When God knows the True Circle, lets say 100%, and lets say (b) 50%, if we were to know the True Circle, 100%, would we precisely know the same thing, what would we know? 50%?

there is truth, and then there is desire that makes truth. There is, every book about all the known information regarding tree X, and there is me, who wants to cut it down, does, and creates the historical truth of, tree X existed here, person Y cut it down, this is truth occurring, tree is being chopped up, and it is now true that there is a table, desires, action, creates the truth of historical facts. These are the simple distinctions it seemed could not be clarified and understood in the Sam Harris convo.

Can something be for my own good if I never feel good from it? Is the amount total that is good for me: the highest possible amount; quantity per unit time over longest quantity of time, +/x quality; of good feeling? Does it all come down to feelings, pain, pleasure? When it is said, 'something is for your own good', and it is implied, 'trust us, you do not feel pleasure from it, but there is enough evidence, that in the long run, it has been proven, that this is the correct way to think/thing to do', what percent of those possible sayings are actually true; what has to occur, for the person who would say such, to be right, what are all the cases of rightness in such regards, what is the minimal distinction to bar one off, notch one down, from correct 'understanding/knowing' 'The Truth' to give the advice "do this, make historical truth this, because I am certain, that doing so is the best option, because I know what 'better for you, and all' means, and I know the values relation between those terms", so that one says "do this, its for your own good", and one does it, and ends up not being for their own good? Well certainly there are freak accidents "you told me drinking this juice would make my life better, but I drank this juice while crossing the street and got hit by a car and now im seriously injured", that circumstance has practically nothing to do with the juice, so my advice is not proven faulty just because this negligibly related circumstance.

(for example, a child who does not want to eat their vegetables, perhaps they eat them with every other meal for life, and do not like the experience every time, they would say it is something like painful, they rather not, but they are told its for their own good, it is possible that it really is for their own good, they are recieving good nutrients that greatly increase their well being and health, longevity, than as the all likelihoods of them eating any series of anything elses during that time, but it is perhaps possible, that there is some vitamin, or protein bar or shake, that contains the exact same nutrients, is equal or cheaper in price, equal or cheaper in ease of preparation, and possibly would give the child, to adult throughout life, a more enjoyable experience, they like the taste: that is a case, and furthermore another case would be, it turning out after 30 years, that the shake/vitamin/energy bar they were taking, actually did not have such and such vitamin/mineral/nutrient and now they have a deficiency. Though still in that example, the concept, that if the individual wants well being, that roughly in some sense, translates to obtaining this amount of this kind of nutrients this often, and that there are many ways to get them, so thinking that way 54 was good, and it turns out it wasnt, doesnt mean 'getting quantity and quality of nutrients is not good and correct desire' (even if it doesnt make you feel good? well the argument is underlying there is a inherent feel good of 'base being alive at all', but it is arguable someone can live without eating vegetables, and maybe even a decent time without the nutrients of vegetables, though who someone might tell a person, their child, I really want you to eat all these nutrients, even though you potentially could live without this quantity of these qualities.

In this case, the satire becomes truth. You see, truth is nested inside of a larger truth using a Darwinian framework. Your micro-example fails here.

Hi Jordan Peterson.