this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
905 points (98.5% liked)
Political Memes
11035 readers
2181 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To remove morality you have to remove humans. No humans, no politics and no science.
You can't argue with that. You either have morals and science, or you have pure objective amoral reality but no humans.
Objective truth is an oxymoron, to have objectivity you have to remove the subject. Thus eliminating the dichotomy entirely and making the argument collapse. To have true-false value arguments and statements, you need subjectivity and a frame of reference. This is a logical constraint, without anyone to observe and judge the truth, there's no objective reality to be judged. Minerals and crystals, despite our best efforts, do not elaborate moral judgements, and they definitely don't conduct science.
So when the tree falls in the forest and no one is around not only does it not make a sound, but the forest and the tree don't exist at all in the absence of a subjective observer?
Reality exists and continues to exist regardless of analysis or even consideration by any human. Science is a methodology invented by humans for trying to understand said reality. The earliest examples of scientific thinking are ancient and the social and moral frameworks they operated within are not at all similar to or very compatible at all with that of western Europe and North America in the early 21st century, yet underlying reality continues unabated. And yet we can continue to build off of their discoveries, despite them operating under moral and political frameworks that are abhorrent by modern standards.
You are confusing the map with the territory - the territory cares not that the mapmaker decided parts of it were immoral to include on the map the territory is what is, regardless of anyone's perspective on it. Reality does not conform to the Overton window, only what we can say without running afoul of social, political or moral issues does.
So now we are quoting Korzibsky. Remember that its development, Bateson for example, has as a consequence of the ontological limitations of sensible experience, that one could say the territory is ultimately inaccessible to the mind. Why bother with it thus, since the hypothetical tree only exist because the mind has thus elaborated it and put it in the hypothetical forest to make it fall by sheer will of the model, based on previous sensible experience. A falling tree has to be observed and mapped, in order for a mind to conceive a tree that falls unseen. Its reality cannot be asserted but post-hoc, after observing evidence of its fall. Or ex-ante, by predicting its hypothetical fall by way of a priori evidence.
Or perhaps consider the Bonini's paradox whereas a model as complex and specific as the reality it represents would be impractical and useless for science. To delve and insists on a science that removes the human is folly. The models we create exist entirely within the limits of the mind. Or as Brudilliard puts it:
The model precedes reality. In fact, what reality we can think about if there is no thinking mind to model it? To question what reality would be without a human to think it, is circular idiocy. Suggesting to remove morality from the model requires one to create a thinker without morals, a non human, effectively an alien, that would not be any more real than the moral one. In fact, it would be further removed from reality, as the observer doesn't exist but on the map. What reality can be attested by a meeple that stands over a map?