Topic: Nihilist philosophies seem idiotic to the general public... - page 2. (Read 3315 times)
Not sure I'd call most of what you listed as Nihilist.
As long as people continue to think that controlling and managing systems is always the best way to achieve an end result, nihilistic philosophies such as libertarianism, anarchism, etc will continue to be treated as anti-intellectual or idiotic.
I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.
All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.
This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.
It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.
I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.
All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.
This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.
It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.
Interesting concept. Of course I'm assuming you're talking about less wrecks. Obviously the faster you're going the less chance you'll survive the crash (assuming everything else is equal). Also you'd be more alert but have less time to react. I think it would be interesting to compare areas that have similar traffic and different limits. For example a road in the middle of no where Montana (no limit) vs a road with similar traffic in Texas etc. You could do the same comparing the autobahn to a similar road with a low limit 100kph or whatever. Obviously have to eliminate the other variables.
For some reason it seems Americans crash more to me, I'm going to look in to it more. I've lived in a lot of countries and they all seem to drive worse (more crazy / faster) and crash less. I don't get it.
I'm in Chile now and it makes national news when someone dies in a car wreck yet back in the states it made the local paper and maybe national news if it was an entire cheerleading squad or something, maybe.
As long as people continue to think that controlling and managing systems is always the best way to achieve an end result, nihilistic philosophies such as libertarianism, anarchism, etc will continue to be treated as anti-intellectual or idiotic.
I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.
All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.
This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.
It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.
I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.
All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.
This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.
It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.
Jump to: