Month: January 2025

On the Woke Mindset

Someone on Facebook asked, “Do you agree? Why or why not?” about the following: “The ‘woke mind virus’ is literally just empathy. That’s it. It’s empathy.”

Here’s my response:

No, I don’t agree. It’s virtue signaling; it’s people looking for problems such as racism where there aren’t any, just in order to feel morally superior or to give themselves a sense of purpose; it’s trivial word policing as if it’s actually changing the world; it’s canceling people, ruining their lives, for saying the wrong thing, doing something that has bad optics if you don’t look at it deeply or with forgiveness and tolerance, sometimes even things they said 20 years ago when times were different; etc.

I’m not saying it’s always these things; sometimes it’s real empathy, but these are the reasons I dislike wokeism. And I’m saying that as a liberal Democrat.

Oh yeah, and it’s also elevating previously oppressed classes of people to the point of making cis white heterosexual men the most hated demographic. As if I’ve done something wrong just by having been born a white male and not being gay or transgender.

And the whole forcing-people-to-use-nonsensical-pronouns thing, such as in popular CoC policies, is the epitome of the woke mentality, or at least one aspect of it: “I don’t want to feel offended, so we’re going to take away your right to offend me at any cost, such as the cost of having to face myself or reality.” I.e., we can’t even speak in accordance to our own truth for fear of treading on somebody else’s delicate and highly charged delusion. There are four lights, damnit.

And the people who still use the word “retarded” are the refreshingly real ones, with a kind of raw intelligence and self-agency. But God forbid we say it in public with the overeager social justice warriors about. It’s we who need a safe space now for the purpose of satisfactory self-expression. Does it really hurt intellectually disabled people when we use the term “retarded” in a way that in no way is actually meant to refer to people with a bona fide intellectual disability? I’m sure they have a thick skin by now, and/or can see that we’re just expressing frustration at something dumb somebody did somewhere. And even if they are offended, is that really worth taking away our freedom of speech in a practical sense? Or does using the term really help to perpetuate or further the stigma against the intellectually disabled? No, because people understand it as being a mere figure of speech, and they’re going to think of the intellectually disabled however they’re going to think of them regardless. So, this is just one of many examples of wokeists going out of their way to find “problematic” behavior and make themselves feel useful by chastising people or making a big fuss to be heard by those in power and change social policy.

If you look at how wokeism spread like wildfire and the common yet oddly specific forms it takes, it’s clearly a mind virus (and even the word “woke” is undeniably a meme, as in a viral idea); it preys on psychological weaknesses. It’s conformism to what’s popular among one’s peers, and it also serves one’s need to feel good about themselves: it gives people the self-esteem they should have had naturally but that was taken away from them by their upbringing, by making them feel like they’re “good people.” The problem is that their feeling that way requires that, conversely, they think of people who violate their woke/PC rules and ideologies as “bad people,” so they end up not being much better and more inclusive than the people they fight against. They were better, more open-minded and accepting, warmer people before they became woke.

Pure empathy isn’t the kind of thing that becomes a mind virus. It’s rare and special and can only be inherent or cultivated through personal life experience such as genuine inspiration or hardship.

And not to mention that someone wise once said something like, eventually society will become truly mature and will learn to give people the freedom to do and be what they want, and also society will naturally become more universally kind and empathetic through real growth, but in the meantime, we’ll try to force this growth through punishing those who haven’t yet fully grown, because we’re not a mature society yet and don’t know any better. And that’s why we have wokeism.

If you’re woke and look deep within yourself with an honest lens, you’ll see that the things I say are true. So please do better.

On the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Since I’m bored and since I want to show off my keen thought process, and since it gets harder and harder to think of new ideas to post about, I’ll post my response to this question on Facebook even though it’s a bit trivial in my eyes. At least it’s a bona fide academic issue. The question is…


From AI Copilot to keep it concise, accurate, and neutral.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a thought-provoking philosophical argument brought forth by Alvin Plantinga. The crux of this argument is that holding both naturalism (the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, with no supernatural intervention) and evolutionary theory simultaneously leads to a sort of cognitive dissonance1.

Here’s a simplified version:

  1. Reliability of Cognitive Faculties: If both evolution and naturalism are true, our cognitive faculties (like perception and reasoning) have developed solely through natural selection aimed at survival, not necessarily at producing TRUE BELIEFS.
  2. Low Probability: Given this, Plantinga argues that it is improbable (or at the very least, inscrutable) that our cognitive faculties are reliable in delivering TRUE BELIEFS.
  3. Self-Defeating: Therefore, if you believe in naturalism and evolution, you have a good REASON TO DOUBT the reliability of your own cognitive faculties, which consequently gives you a REASON TO DOUBT the very belief in evolution and naturalism itself.

This argument raises interesting questions about the intersection of EPISTEMOLOGY (the study of knowledge) and evolutionary biology. What do you think of this argument? Does it spark any new thoughts or challenges for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Evolutionary_argument…


And here’s my answer.


I’ve heard this argument before, so it doesn’t spark anything new for me. While I don’t believe in so-called naturalism aka physicalism aka materialism (but I do believe in biological evolution, but I don’t think the process is entirely blind or entirely physical), I think the argument is fairly weak. The problem is that it’s very possible, likely even, that being cognitively apt at navigating our environment and such also leads to being able to infer true things about our environment. Simply speaking, wouldn’t it be easier/more likely/more efficient/more effective for the mind to navigate its environment if it holds true beliefs? In other words, there’s probably a strong correlation between which beliefs/models/etc. are useful/effective and which are true, because truth is inherently useful, and nontruth is misleading/misguiding.

Or, we can say that a mind capable of abstract, general thought/intelligence to the degree that humans have would, as a side effect, likely be able to infer the truth about things most of the time…especially since our intellect is not only skilled with respect to our environment, like the other animals’ minds more or less are, but it’s generalized and abstract, which means its being able to navigate its natural environment is just one relatively “arbitrary” or specific application of its general ability, so it should be equally adept at doing other things it sets out to do, such as inferring truths, or even creating the sophisticated, unnatural technology we see all around us, which is very unrelated or indirectly related to the natural environment we evolved in.

And the means we’d use to determine objective truth (if there can be said to be such a thing; see https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/is-there-objective-truth/ and https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2022/01/19/the-truth-is-not-out-there/) would be science, scientific instruments, scientific hypotheses/theories/laws/models, peer review, experimentation, prediction and observation, cross-validating observations via different senses and/or different scientific instruments, and scientifically or philosophically compensating for the known weaknesses and peculiarities of our own biological sensory apparatuses, brain processes, cognitive biases and propensity for logical fallacies, etc.

And thirdly, if the premise is true, then our entire notion of truth is necessarily fundamentally based in utility. In other words, there would be nothing that “truth” as far as we understand it—as far as everything we’ve ever thought of as being “true” goes—can mean other than that an idea is useful, so our models and beliefs we evolve or create for navigating reality would be more or less by definition “true.” I’ve written more about this point here: https://exalumen.blog/2024/08/13/on-pragmatism/.

Ps. You should “like” this post because I’m clearly a genius.