Hammocks4All

It actually doesn't really bother me, especially with memes and random internet content like that. I've seen posts on Reddit that were actual art, where the title of the repost implies the poster created the art and that it's not a repost. It's lame for a few reasons, such as commenters trying to engage with the alleged creator and the OP not replying, then people finding out it's a repost, etc. But, honestly, whatever.

That’s an interesting point.

Upon further reflection, I discovered I don't fully understand the nuances. So I tried to think it through.

I think it goes as follows:

• Nihilism says there is no meaning so any pursuit whatsoever is futile. (Not goal based.)
• Existentialism says there is no universal meaning but it is the individual who creates meaning. So we project our meaning into the world and live in it and therefore live in a meaningful world. We should search for our personal meaning. (Goal based.)
• Absurdism says there is no universal meaning and if there is, we'll never understand it. This doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy transient pseudo-meanings, though. In fact, we SHOULD enjoy them. But we should be aware that they're not eternal and not objective. (Not goal based.)

So, on second thought, I think the meme does a great a job at capturing absurdism. Still, the difference between existentialism and absurdism is subtle.

What do you all think? Is that kinda the idea?

I wonder if Existentialists or Absurdists consider our biological reality and needs when developing the ideas. For instance, we need food, shelter, social acceptance, and so forth. What does this say about "meaning" and pursuits like fashion and style (as it relates to social acceptance?). How does Maslow's hierarchy of needs fit in with these philosophies?

The absurdism depicted isn’t pure absurdism because there’s the presence of style, which is a system of meaning and value. So, as depicted, that’s more existentialism or a healthy and cool blend of absurdism with existentialism.

It would be nice if there would be attribution for reposts. Maybe subreddits and such could do weekly / monthly / annual / all-time highlights? Feel like I need to say that I hate FB and deleted mine, BUT the "memories" thing could be interesting in a place like Reddit or Lemmy.

I appreciate the humor but I think your initial comparison is pretty bad.

Wild pigs don’t depend on waste from humans. They’re invasive to the Americas, sure, but there is a huge difference between hunting an invasive species that is wreaking havoc in the ecosystem (and possibly going through your “waste”) versus raising domesticated pigs in abysmal conditions — and all other associated negative consequences — for a market with inflated demand.

Also, the issue with H1N1 is, again, mostly due to farming.

So, no, pigs inherently aren’t “almost parasites” and although they can get diseases, like all animals, the threat of transmitting those diseases to humans come from farming practices.

Mosquitoes are consequential and our relationship with pigs is largely voluntary. The difference is enormous.

Not sure if you are arguing for or against pig farming. I’m against mosquito farming btw.

Mosquitos are almost parasites and are vectors for disease. It’s a pretty different relationship we have with them.

???

Getting roaches, which invade your space, don’t contribute positively to it and, in fact, can cause disease is quite different from voluntarily raising chickens for slaughter.

Yes. That wasn’t the best word choice; maybe “group” would have been better. I meant groups of people who are willing to take some level of risk. Imagine the categories are “low risk takers”, “medium risk takers”, and “high risk takers”.

Compared to A paying out $40, if you make B $50-n you’ll only get the high risk takers choosing B. If you make it $70-n you’ll get high and medium risk takers. If you make it $120-n you’ll get almost everybody.

If risk taking is a value between 0 and 1, the categories are groups of people inside certain intervals. For example, low could be [0, 1/3), medium could be [1/3, 2/3), and high could be [2/3, 1].

I once heard of an experiment in economics that offers insight into this.

Say you have 100 people. You give each of them one of two choices:

A : you get $40 unconditionally B: you get $70 - n, where n is the number of people who choose B

You end up getting, on average across experiments, n = 30.

If you move the numbers around (i.e, the $40 and the $70), you keep getting, on average, a number of people choosing B so that B pays out the same as A.

I think the interpretation is that people can be categorized by the amount of risk they’re willing to take. If you make B less risky, you’ll get a new category of people. If you make it more risky, you’ll lose categories.

Applied to traffic, opening up a new lane brings in new categories of people who are willing to risk the traffic.

Or something. Sorry I don’t remember it better and am too lazy to look it up. Pretty pretty cool though.