Stellaris - Hints Explained

[Finnway]

I don't really understand. What socratic dialogue are you referring to, that of the actual Socrates or the literary device used by Plato? In any case there wasn't any peer-review before publication, that's pretty obvious.

No it isn't. Philosophy essentially developed according to a system of peer reviews. Phillosphers coversed and debated each other's theories and the theories of their predecessors until they arrived at a better explanation. By the time Socrates came around circa 400b.c.e. the tradition of Greek philosophy was already 200 years old (although it wasn't accepted by mainstream Greek society yet.)

The method of giving everyone the chance to state their opinion, giving everyone the chance to raise objections and answer all objections to their theory, and then accepting the opinion which was able to answer all objections raised against it as the truth later came to be called the "Socratic Dialogue." Modern debate classes are considered to be a form of Socratic dialogue. The Scientific Method also makes use of Socratic Dialogue in the sense that a hypothesis has to be verfied by other scientists as plausible before it can become a theory.

If you want to read a general history of pre-socractic philosphy, you can check out the wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Socratic_philosophy

Why does printing something make it more serious than spending hours upon hours of writing it.

Good question. What about all those poor medieval monks who spent their life in a basement translating Latin texts? I guess their work was meaningless....

 

[Finnway]

I guess I just like the idea that the galaxy doesn't have to end as some utopia in the end.

Yeah, Utopias are boring. Good thing there's never been one in history, or else Paradox games would be boring too

 

[Demarque]

will stellaris use monarch points (obviously would be named something else, like 'empire points' or 'stellar points')


please paradox, say no.

We would instantly start to call it "Stellar mana" or some s***t like that.

 

[TheDungen]

Yeah, Utopias are boring. Good thing there's never been one in history, or else Paradox games would be boring too

In a way we're living one, in a way history itsellf is one. Throughout human history the situation of the median human has been ever getting better. Never before has a smaller porportion of humanity bene threatened by war starvation or disease.
A future that is worse than the present makes little sense with that in mind.

Is a utopia a perfect society or a society that keeps improving? The former seems contradictory, in order to be perfect a society could not be complacent. Thus the only perfect sosciety must be one that continously challange it's imperfections. And that civilisation is the one we live in, that our ancestors have been living in for then thousand years.

 

[Finnway]

In a way we're living one, throughout human history the situation of the median human has been ever getting better.

True. But that in no way means that modern day is anywhere near the ideal of a utopia. Sure, the quality of life is much higher than it was 500 years ago. But a Utopia this is not.

A future that is worse than the present makes little sense with that in mind.

No amount of technology will ever get rid of greed and corruption. As long as there are human beings there will always be evil because evil comes from the human heart. New technology also creates new opportunities for abuse. WW1 and WW2 says, "Hi."

Thus the only perfect sosciety must be one that continously challange it's imperfections.

Your defintion defeats the concept of a utopia. According to you, every !@#$%&! society on planet Earth has been a utopia, thus rendering this discussion, and Thomas More's thought experiment that invented the term, completely pointless. There isn't a single animal on planet Earth that won't try to improve it's living conditions if it is able.

 

[Demarque]

Your defintion defeats the concept of a utopia. According to you, every !@#$%&! society on planet Earth has been a utopia, thus rendering this discussion, and Thomas More's thought experiment that invented the term, completely pointless. There isn't a single animal on planet Earth that won't try to improve it's living conditions if it is able.

But he has a point. A perfect society with no problems and no challenges won't be perfect, as there would be the risk of stagnation and laxity. And I dare say that it are the problems of the world which make our lives interesting and gives us a reason to keep living.

Edit: why haven't they added the agree or disagree voting systems in this forum yet?

 

[Finnway]

But he has a point. A perfect society with no problems and no challenges won't be perfect, as there would be the risk of stagnation and laxity.

True. But by the defintion of a utopia you would just factor that into your vison of a perfect society. So a perfect society would require an ongoing struggle to keep people going in addition to no war, disease, suffering, etc (which I still say will never happen, but hey, it's a hypothetical discussion.)

 

[TheDungen]

With enough technology we may in fact be able to change human nature, every species has come to be by transcending those before it. Humanity may in fact only be the larval form for the true scions of earth.

As for thoma's moore's utopia... you do know he intended it as a satire right? And the word has evolved what he meant with it. Yes I would hold that a society in ethernal change evolution and growth is the true utopia, not one of stagnation. I cannot immagine such an end goal that it would make further aspirations meaningless. There must always be something more to discover, somewhere else to go, or everything becomes meaningless. A perfect static society is imperfect by it's very nature. It's an oxymoron. Only an infinite universe is perfect.

 

[Finnway]

With enough technology we may in fact be able to change human nature, every species has come to be by transcending those before it. Humanity may in fact only be the larval form for the true scions of earth.

COULD is the keyword here.

As for thoma's moore's utopia... you do know he intended it as a satire right? And the word has evolved what he meant with it.

Yes, I am well aware. But this whole discussion is purely hypothetical.

 

[Prince Ire]

By definition, a perfect society should not ever change, as it can only change for the worse. Change is not in some inherently good thing. It is only good insofar as it corrects an evil.

 

[lordreaven448]

I was leaning towards a Dark Ages game until the hint about technology. Paradox, please give me a Dark Ages game. It's a shame that I have to play either Attila total war or Barbarian Invasion for RTW. They barely scratch my itch.

 

[TheDungen]

COULD is the keyword here.

Yes, I am well aware. But this whole discussion is purely hypothetical.

We either change or we die, that is how nature works.

 

[TheDungen]

By definition, a perfect society should not ever change, as it can only change for the worse. Change is not in some inherently good thing. It is only good insofar as it corrects an evil.

But without offering the people in a chance to affect it and improve themselves it cannot be perfect.

 

[TheAtreides84]

No it isn't. Philosophy essentially developed according to a system of peer reviews. Phillosphers coversed and debated each other's theories and the theories of their predecessors until they arrived at a better explanation. By the time Socrates came around circa 400b.c.e. the tradition of Greek philosophy was already 200 years old (although it wasn't accepted by mainstream Greek society yet.)

The method of giving everyone the chance to state their opinion, giving everyone the chance to raise objections and answer all objections to their theory, and then accepting the opinion which was able to answer all objections raised against it as the truth later came to be called the "Socratic Dialogue." Modern debate classes are considered to be a form of Socratic dialogue. The Scientific Method also makes use of Socratic Dialogue in the sense that a hypothesis has to be verfied by other scientists as plausible before it can become a theory.

If you want to read a general history of pre-socractic philosphy, you can check out the wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Socratic_philosophy

You don't need to educate me about presocratic philosophy with Wikipedia. I've gone to high school, you know. But you're twisting the concept of peer-review here. There was no "journal of philosophy" who could refuse publication to bogus theories. There was no replication because you can't really replicate if the prime principle is water or fire. Hell, sophists mantained that there was no objective truth at all.

 

[TheAtreides84]

And what is publication? Artistotle wrote down his throught does that not count as a publication? Or does it have to be printed? Why does printing something make it more serious than spending hours upon hours of writing it.

Nothing really. But there was no academic body who could refuse publication in an high-impact journal if Aristotle said the moon was made of cheese, and ten other philosophers had papers showing it was made of rocks. We are talking about a time when the line between literary metaphor, scientific fact and mythology was ill-defined. Lucretius wrote a poem about natural sciences, just to quote one guy. Erodotus freely mixed history, legends and local gossip in his works. Virgilius' Georgica are both a treatise about agriculture and a collection of poetry.

 

[TheDungen]

Nothing really. But there was no academic body who could refuse publication in an high-impact journal if Aristotle said the moon was made of cheese, and ten other philosophers had papers showing it was made of rocks. We are talking about a time when the line between literary metaphor, scientific fact and mythology was ill-defined. Lucretius wrote a poem about natural sciences, just to quote one guy. Erodotus freely mixed history, legends and local gossip in his works. Virgilius' Georgica are both a treatise about agriculture and a collection of poetry.

Nietsche wrote all his work in somekind of meter. And he's considered the greatest philosopher of the 19th century. How someone writes is of no consequence to the validity of the work, and the socratic method was all about askign questions, if someone said the moon is made of cheese, to ask them how do you know, cna you probe that? And if you disagreed you write your own text saying that the other guy was full of shit. The arabs spend hunderds of years writing texts about wheter socrates plato and aristotle were right or wrong about things. There are famous arbaic philosophers who dedicated their lives to the works of the ancient greek philosophers.

 

[TheDungen]

You don't need to educate me about presocratic philosophy with Wikipedia. I've gone to high school, you know. But you're twisting the concept of peer-review here. There was no "journal of philosophy" who could refuse publication to bogus theories. There was no replication because you can't really replicate if the prime principle is water or fire. Hell, sophists mantained that there was no objective truth at all.

High school philosophy? Come back when youäve studied philosphy and science at a university level I have. And yes that is an appeal to authority fallacy but so were yours, mine's just better.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Nietsche wrote all his work in somekind of meter. And he's considered the greatest philosopher of the 19th century. How someone writes is of no consequence to the validity of the work, and the socratic method was all about askign questions, if someone said the moon is made of cheese, to ask them how do you know, cna you probe that? And if you disagreed you write your own text saying that the other guy was full of shit. The arabs spend hunderds of years writing texts about wheter socrates plato and aristotle were right or wrong about things. There are famous arbaic philosophers who dedicated their lives to the works of the ancient greek philosophers.

I wasn't aware Nietzsche wrote in meter. Most of his works looked like plain prose when I read them. Do you have any source? And I don't see how this is relevant to a specific kind of process, that of peer-review. It's not about asking questions, is about comparating a piece of work with the accumulated knowledge of the academia. In the example of the moon, yeah, Philosopher A wrote the moon was made of cheese and Philosopher B wrote it was made of rock. There you are, two "papers" with the same "impact factor". Because there wasn't peer review, you know. Eliocentrism and Geocentrism coexisted as models for centuries, and there was no real way to determine who was right. Galilei in the 17th century was faced with aristotelian quotes!

High school philosophy? Come back when youäve studied philosphy and science at a university level I have. And yes that is an appeal to authority fallacy but so were yours, mine's just better.

Oh my. I was saying that wikipedia-level philosophy is learned in high school. If you need to know I have a bachelor in Humanities and a master in Journalism. But what has this to do with the topic? And the topic is, I remember: there is no peer-review process in classical times. I don't see how you can argue against that, really. There is scholarly discussion, sure, but that has nothing to do with peer review.

 

[Monkbel]

1 - This will be our first new major IP released since the original Crusader Kings over 10 years ago.
Well, this was to say to you that it was NOT rome2 or victoria 3.

What does "IP" mean in this context?

 

[bitmapmedivh]

What does "IP" mean in this context?

Intellectual Property.