Ooh, dark object oriented onthology applied layer, awesome. We do live in a postmodern, and denying that and locality of knowledge and legitimacy is borgeosie bs. Sure I'm in your locality on this.
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
9 points (76.5% liked)
Anarchism
2801 readers
10 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a good read on the topic: Crimes of Perception: Individualism and Consensus Reality
Hell yeah! Would you be so kind as to repost this to !soulism@multiverse.soulism.net?
Well. "Soulism" sounds very much opposed to my own worldview and politics, to a point where I'm not really interested in participating in that. But you can do what you want, obviously, it's just a link to a pdf!
Based on the manifesto, I would suggest that soulism is just another model which divides body from mind ("matter" and "information"), and that it doesn't account for the way political forces are involved in producing subjectivity, identity, desire, and the individuated bodymind. I had something like a psychotic episode related to mind/body dualism a few years ago, and I try not to engage with or involve myself with ideas like that now, cause it brings back feelings of like, chaos and instability.
Actually, soulism is a misnomer. It has very little to do with dualism and much more to do with anarchism of perception. The more accurate name is anarcho-antirealism. So I hope that's safer for you to engage with.
Maybe, idk. I'm very much a realist, just in a very, idiosyncratic way I guess. But "anarchism of perception" is appealing to me.
It's a garbage philosophy based on the ignorant premise that science starts with a conclusion and uses evidence to justify it.
From their manifesto:
When you apply empirical evidence-gathering to a construction that is racist, you will find racism. You will find a scientific basis for racism so long as you believe in racism. Should you believe in empathy, tolerance, and kindess, you will find a scientific basis for those instead.
...which is not at all how science works today. Bigots will still work backwards from their conclusion to try to justify their bigotry, but good science is emergent and draws no conclusions until sufficient evidence has been gathered. They're trying to say that (bad) science has been used to justify harm, but rather than saying maliciousness or ignorance are the problems, they're lazily gesturing around and saying that it's all of reality that's the problem.
Meanwhile, everybody getting their own subjective reality absolves the bigots of responsibility, because under the anarcho-antirealist paradigm, it is wrong/harmful to enforce your reality upon others.
Good job listening to those inner warnings, BTW!
No, neither of those two things are true.
I don't think all scientists work backwards from their own conclusions. But I do think they work forwards from the conclusions of those who came before. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. Science cannot create axioms, so the foundation of scientific knowledge is always nonscientific reasoning and observation.
And I think it's perfectly appropriate to use violence on those whose worldview is violent. Look up the tolerance paradox sometime for an explanation why.
But I do think they work forwards from the conclusions of those who came before.
You're really missing some key information here. When people go to school to become scientists, they retest old experiments as part of their training as a way to demonstrate:
- How we know what we know
- That science is repeatable. Results and behaviors fall within the models of our understanding.
However, these are not hard and fast models that must never be questioned. Science is constantly changing as new objective facts are uncovered, experiments are reviewed and retested, and new ones are scrutinized by expert peers.
Science cannot create axioms, so the foundation of scientific knowledge is always nonscientific reasoning and observation.
No, the foundation of scientific knowledge is facts. That's why we can unilaterally say that trans women are women. That's why we know that evolution is true. That's why we don't say that people with extra melanin in their skin are a different species from people with less.
It's true that the interpretation of those facts comes from our subjective understanding in an effort to get as close to an objective model as possible. We necessarily experience the objective universe subjectively. But the fact that experiments are repeatable and certain facts remain the same no matter how many times we observe them is a key indicator that reality has objectivity.
And I think it's perfectly appropriate to use violence on those whose worldview is violent.
I don't know that I personally agree (maybe if we agree what "violence" means), but I'm aware of the tolerance paradox. I was pointing out that the philosophy to which you hold does not seem to be internally consistent. I think it's excellent that you do not hold space for bigots, but if you believe in a universally subjective reality, and it is universally wrong under your philosophy to enforce a subjective paradigm upon someone else, that notion must apply universally. It cuts both ways, as it were.
In other words, it seems that the Tolerance Paradox is baked into the notion that reality is wholly subjective.
I have a Bachelor of Science, and plenty of experience with the scientific method. And I don't really feel like having a debate over epistemology, so I'll give you a challenge instead: Find an empirical study on JSTOR which proves that an external world beyond our senses exists and we are not being misled by Descartes' evil demon. I'm asserting science is built upon axioms, you're asserting science is foundational. So use science to prove that the world beyond our senses exists, and you're not allowed to use any other areas of philosophy! Just science. I expect the paper to be peer reviewed.
it is universally wrong under your philosophy to enforce a subjective paradigm upon someone else
Ah, but I do not believe it is universally wrong to enforce a subjective paradigm. I am quite happy to use violence to enforce My subjective views. For example, if someone throws a Sieg Heil on national television, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to hit them in the face with a baseball bat until they agree to believe in the subjective opinion that genocide is bad. Surely you agree that ethics have no objective truth behind them, yet I would endorse the use of violence to enforce a particular form of ethics that says we should not mass murder people for their ethnicity. Much as the Allied soldiers did in World War 2.
Ah, but I do not believe it is universally wrong to enforce a subjective paradigm.
Then you're doing the exact same thing as the people you claim are unjustly enforcing objective reality, undercutting the very reason for rejecting it in the first place. That's why I said the belief is internally inconsistent.
The realists tell the lie that their beliefs are objective truth. I enforce My beliefs on others, yet tell no lie.
But You're like, rich of heart, You know?
Aw, thanks!