bluefox said:Honestly, this whole "primitivism" thing is just... well, it's a trip. The people pushing it? They’re actually pretty damn good at what they do—super savvy about riding whatever the latest trend happens to be... so naturally, they cooked up this whole "subversive primitivism" angle. It’s clever, I'll give them that. Just when you think you've got a handle on things, boom—this ABS braking system of a concept slams into every single crack and crevice of society... totally catches you off guard... SJEK..
I’ll say it again: once other people start meddling with your personal character, you’ve become corrupted. That’s where things go south. Take this whole religious expansionism thing...
Faith is, in many ways, self-delusion. But does that make it inherently bad? Not necessarily. It shouldn't be about providing logical truths; it’s more about finding that spark of passion and strength you can draw from a figure on a cross—whoever that may be...
As an agnostic, the closest I get to faith is being a die-hard Yankees fan. Even when I know they’re likely to lose, I still believe they won't. It just makes those nine innings a little more entertaining.😁
I honestly don't get why faith is constantly dismissed as primitive or treated like an exclusive club for believers 😕
Everyone possesses their own subjectivity through which they interpret the world. I’d argue this internal lens evolved specifically to help us endure psychological hardship. Looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, the concept of faith had to serve a purpose for us to develop it in the first place. It’s just tragic that certain people decided to take those raw feelings—that sense of soul or subjectivity—and force them into rigid structures, imposing fabricated mythologies on everyone else. In reality, we all construct our own belief systems and personal mythologies starting in childhood. Even Jung noted that every individual carries their own unique mythology...
Lawrence Robinson5 said:Humans exploit everything: other people, different species, the entire planet... We’re inherently selfish, and even when we try to be selfless, it’s usually just a thinly veiled way to feed our own egos. Humanity is the root cause of ecological imbalance; we're the only species actively fighting against the very system we belong to...
And then you have the complete opposite: "Man is a noble creature, the measure of all things," and so on and so forth.
I’ve been feeling a bit lost lately navigating the constant contradictions in how we judge our own species. I see so many posts on this forum where the tone is heavy with disappointment and condemnation, even when people are trying their hardest to sound objective... and I can't help but wonder why.
It feels like there are really only two ways to look at this:
1) Humans are simply part of nature—which means we aren't inherently "good" or "bad," we're just biological facts. Everything we do happens because the environment we inhabit allows us to do it, so the evolution of our species—including all those messy mistakes we make while learning—is still just evolution, not some kind of cosmic destruction.
2) Humans are not part of nature—we've broken away, warped ourselves, and now we're just a burden to ourselves and everyone else. Our society is unnatural, our thoughts are unnatural, our very feelings are unnatural...
Since the second option clearly doesn't hold water, isn't it a total rookie mistake for a thinker to claim that a human action is wrong *a priori*? Human civilization is a natural phenomenon precisely because we are a product of nature. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for what we do—but responsibility can only lie with the individual, because the individual is the only one actually acting. Society, as an abstract concept, can't take the blame for the things that make us feel guilty; blaming "society" is often just a psychological trick to scrub our own consciences clean of actions we aren't proud of...
Conscience is also a natural phenomenon, just like accountability. A dog doesn't run from a crime scene—not because it's incapable of doing something "wrong," but because it doesn't view its actions through that lens. That doesn't make humans unnatural; it just makes us different... and honestly, animals do show a sense of conscience; it's almost funny, like watching a toddler who knows they did something they weren't supposed to and tries to hide so they won't get grounded... but we only really see animal consciousness when we use punishment to train them—which is a fundamentally flawed (and unfortunately common) way to link those two ideas together... Every person, like every living thing, knows when they aren't doing the "right" thing—because that's when they are acting against what they actually want. A dog knows it shouldn't swipe a steak off the dinner table, but sometimes it does it anyway because it wants that steak—and we do the exact same thing, just in much more complex ways.
Our true nature hasn't been corrupted; it's just buried under layers of "civilized" behavior. We've adopted hundreds of social rules about what's allowed and what isn't, spent lifetimes inventing justifications for them, and ended up in a place where there's no room left for honest, natural desire. The real irony is that these rules were born out of distrust toward our own natural impulses. It was a lack of faith in our own correct judgment that led us to outsource our decision-making to others, and eventually, to dump all responsibility onto an abstract entity: society.
Society isn't some freakish mutation; it's just the physical manifestation of the human idea of itself—as a being that isn't allowed to, doesn't know how to, and shouldn't... it's the natural expression of a natural mental capacity: the ability to doubt, even our own selves. And if we don't like it, it's only because we are all participants in that doubt.
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me— nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
Shakespeare definitely saw it coming...
The truth is, you can't just opt out of being part of nature; you can only temporarily distance yourself by making things unnecessarily complicated. A man makes a sheet of paper, tosses it into the woods, and eventually, it decomposes and returns to the earth. He makes a glass bottle, and after a much longer stretch of time, that does the same. It's all just a matter of how long it takes for things to cycle back. We can try to act eternal if we want, but thank God nature ensured we don't live forever. 😁
Sure, that's the ultimate endgame for everything, including the universe itself. But if someone wants to preserve nature exactly as they imagine it during their lifetime, why stop them? ☕
rustymaker5 said:Man, i seriously doubt negative emotions serve as a defense mechanism. 🤔 Especially depression; it doesn't protect you at all, quite the opposite—until you overcome it, it just drags you deeper into the gutter.
And look, regarding the Renaissance, yeah, there was a massive boom, especially in art. But when you look at how much progress has actually been made in art (music, painting, even architecture for example) since then, it’s honestly not that mind-blowing. In fact, it feels like we're only making unstoppable progress in technology, while the entire other side—the soulful, emotional part—is being totally neglected. Or perhaps, we simply assumed that evolving our emotions would automatically lead to the evolution of satisfying purely material needs and whims.
You know that old cliché? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But you actually have to survive the mess first. You have to claw your way out of the dirt to gain any semblance of confidence or whatever. I suppose. 🤔
rustymaker5 said:Man, i seriously doubt negative emotions serve as a defense mechanism. 🤔 Especially depression; it doesn't protect you at all, quite the opposite—until you overcome it, it just drags you deeper into the gutter.
And look, regarding the Renaissance, yeah, there was a massive boom, especially in art. But when you look at how much progress has actually been made in art (music, painting, even architecture for example) since then, it’s honestly not that mind-blowing. In fact, it feels like we're only making unstoppable progress in technology, while the entire other side—the soulful, emotional part—is being totally neglected. Or perhaps, we simply assumed that evolving our emotions would automatically lead to the evolution of satisfying purely material needs and whims.
Art can't really "progress" or get better. It’s just a matter of what was considered "in" at the time, which makes certain eras stand out more than others. Art can only be different. At least, that's my take.
Negative emotions are essentially defensive mechanisms, right? They kick in when we sense danger. You could even argue that depression functions similarly—it’s like an internal alarm telling you that something in your life is off, forcing you to fix it before things go south. It feels like a byproduct of biological evolution. Even fear serves a purpose; it can unite people against a common threat, which is arguably how nations were formed in the first place. Beyond just survival, looking at it biologically, the development of organized states exists solely to increase our odds of staying alive.
As for art and that innate drive to create... I suspect it’s part of our social evolution. Though, who knows? Does art actually matter in the grand scheme of things? This thought occurred to me while thinking about the stagnation of the Dark Ages. For centuries, there was no progress, no invention, and then suddenly, the Renaissance hit. Since then, we’ve been constantly evolving across every facet of life. My struggle is figuring out what "social evolution" actually achieves if simply surviving as animals is enough. I'd say this social progression drives our hunger for knowledge and the urge to create—not necessarily high art, but creation itself. But how does that actually upgrade us? Perhaps art enriches us? You can clearly see the difference between someone from the Middle Ages and someone living in modern-day America. Does it perhaps fuel the development of intelligence? I don't know anymore. If anyone actually follows my train of thought, let me know, because I've completely lost my way. 🤔
mistyrider7 said:A few years back, just out of pure curiosity, I dropped in on a lecture by Manjackal's father—he’s this well-known Catholic charismatic from India.
The guy mentioned, among other things, that before he finally made it to the States, he’d been speaking all over various countries in the European Union. He claimed that during his time in the European Union, he felt this constant pressure—some kind of dark, negative force weighing him down. He also said that on his way toward America, that pressure started to ease up as he got closer to the European Union borders, and it let up a bit once he crossed into Mexico (which wasn't part of the EU back then). By the time he hit the American border, he said it felt like those dark clouds above him just vanished and the sky opened up. That heavy feeling from the negative force? Gone.
At the time, the story sounded weird to me—I mean, how could America be such a positive place when it's practically drowning in corruption, theft, and all sorts of other evils? Back then, I figured it was just psychological—maybe Manjackal's father was just reacting to the idea of arriving in a "true" Catholic nation. But honestly, I'm not so sure anymore. It seems possible he actually felt something real—some actual negative occult force creating an invisible dark shroud over countries that belong to its Dominion here on Earth.
Is it the "Reptilians," like David Icke believes, or is there some other occult organization casting its spiritual shadow over nations under its thumb? Maybe it doesn't even matter, but if there's any truth to it, we really have to ask what it means for us to fall under the rule of a Dominion like that.
Falling under the control of a network like that is a massive deal with deep, far-reaching implications—and I can't help but wonder if America, with its push to align more closely with the European Union, might literally be selling its soul to the devil...
I guess you have to wonder if we aren't being naive, handing ourselves over to a negative occult force for a little bit of change—one whose true nature won't be revealed until much later. Maybe the corruption we see here is just a drop in the bucket compared to the invisible shadow we're blindly and naively rushing toward...
PS: Mods, this is a political topic and it belongs here. Politics is about interests pursued through a collective, and I'm talking about the interests of the citizens of this country and their political decisions regarding them. If some of the moderators don't buy into the occult side of things, that's their business—it shouldn't affect the classification of this thread, which is fundamentally political.
🙄
So, are we supposed to just abandon the USA because some guy got an upset stomach while traveling through Europe? Honestly... really?
Besides, if the USA is such a disaster, we’ll probably just break the whole thing from the inside once we join. Every union we enter tends to fall apart anyway.😁
Hannah Barnes said:The headline asks where we are headed... To find an answer, one would have to attempt to forecast the trajectory of civilization over a massive scale—something on the order of 100,000 years... In principle, there are two possible scenarios: 1. Conservative-ecological 2. Technicist
The first would entail preserving the original human form (and I don’t mean that in a literal, physical sense)... And, naturally, preserving nature at any cost... That would necessitate banning any modification of the human genome and prohibiting interventions into brain structure... It would also involve a ban on the symbiosis of man and machine, or the separation of personality from the biological body...
The second, the technicist path, assumes the replacement of our current ecosphere with a technosphere... In this scenario, certain remnants of nature might remain, but they would become entirely dependent on us, much like a pet depends on its owner... Think of forests maintained through artificial means, or "wild" animals whose very survival is regulated by laboratory protocols... Interventions in the human body would be drastic... though again, I am not referring to changing outward appearance, except perhaps for fashion...
How would this impact our emotional landscape? Even now, we see evidence of people feeling a profound love for their cars... This is unprecedented in history. A love for a horse is something else entirely, because a horse is a living creature... The term "love" is conditional here; I would argue we are witnessing the birth of a new species of emotion... If, for example, the possibility of machine-based brain expansion develops, what will our emotional attitude toward such an augmentation be? And what happens when Artificial Intelligence emerges? Could we fall in love with a machine, or feel a sense of friendship? Can we even call those emotions love or friendship, or will we be forced to invent entirely new labels...
The technicist scenario seems more plausible to me. Suppose science eventually masters the architecture of the brain completely. We could achieve something akin to mind uploading or a Matrix-style existence, where consciousness lives on eternally while various machines handle the maintenance of the physical world. It would basically be heaven on Earth.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this is just survival. But today, we spend all our time chewing on debates about happiness and God—ideas that might actually be physically realized in the future. Our concern for others, love, and social cohesion has steadily expanded through history; we moved from caring for the family to the village, then the town, then the nation, and now humanity as a whole. We are still focused on survival, just on a global scale. So, basic emotions remain relevant, while "higher" pursuits like art might only truly find their purpose in the distant future.
Hannah Barnes said:In the pages of Jean Bruller’s *beast*, there lies this unsettling proposition: that the solitary line separating humanity from the animal kingdom is nothing more than our capacity for transcendental feeling. What are your thoughts on such a claim?
Well, sure. That would include art, God...
It’s a grim thought, isn't it? To consider that even those things might just be another form of "dependency"—tools used to make daily life more bearable. It suggests that everything we prize is actually just a survival mechanism dating back to the Stone Age. We sit here playing philosopher, pretending to contemplate the meaning of existence, when in reality, it’s all just a way to facilitate basic survival. How depressing.😢
Thanks for the blunt warning from the moderator. Just to be clear, I’m talking about emotions—not just raw sensations—and how they evolve over time. Plus, what actual utility they provide.
If you check Wikipedia, there’s plenty of research on how animals display negative emotions in ways that mirror our own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals I assume that would include the most fundamental one I mentioned earlier: fear. After all, isn't that essential for survival?
What else would you call that relentless drive? That constant, nagging search for purpose, for God, for some kind of higher meaning? From a purely biological standpoint, isn't that basically just a glitch? A malfunction that borders on insanity? If we follow that logic, then every artist out there must be mentally unstable—which, let’s be honest, isn't saying much. But who exactly programmed these "disorders" into our evolution? 🤷
It’s common knowledge that animals have feelings. At the very least, they have fear. Looking at evolution, it seems humans had to take that single, primal emotion and spin it into the million different sensations we deal with today—most of which don't even seem to serve a purpose for our survival in a modern society. Take love, or a sense of the divine, for instance. What exactly are those for? Aside from making life significantly more complicated? Since we are still evolving, albeit in tiny increments, can we actually predict where this is heading? Will we eventually perceive the world more acutely, or perhaps experience emotions we haven't even conceived of yet? And why are we becoming so complex in the first place? Why did evolution decide that feeling more was better than feeling nothing at all? 🤷
Jessica Chavez85 said:What about Christmas? You know, when shopping malls are plastered with ornaments, cards, themed gifts, and those tacky holiday displays? Or Easter, with its plastic eggs, chocolate treats, and endless rabbits? Is that not commercialism? Every single holiday is commercialized. People should be allowed to celebrate however they want, for whatever reason they choose. The rest can stop preaching and acting like they have some kind of moral high ground. 🙂
The issue isn't actually that Halloween is commercialized. It's just that because it comes from the USA, they feel insulted that they aren't making a profit off it. ☕
I honestly don't get the hype. Where exactly are you people seeing this? I haven't seen any kids running around or costumes, let alone any spooky decorations. In my experience, it’s just people looking for any excuse to throw a party and act reckless. So, let's not be hypocrites—nobody is actually celebrating a holiday here. We all know what this really is.
Children of Men is easily the best of the bunch. People tend to go overboard when they talk about The Matrix or The Core... especially regarding computer tech and A.I. Artificial Intelligence. We’re actually hitting a wall there; we can't just keep shrinking integrated circuits forever, and the era of microscopic processors is nearing its limit. Plus, we're running out of the raw materials needed to build them. And let’s be real—once the oil runs out, things are going to get ugly because renewables won't be enough to pick up the slack.
In my opinion, it's the most believable depiction of a collapsing society...
Tyler Hall83 said:What exactly is it about her that you see?... 😁
Honestly? Lately, nothing. 😬 There were some posters out last month featuring her, and man, she looks so skeletal. On one of them, I actually thought she was a guy. 🤣
I actually caught this one in theaters. There are a few jump scares here and there, but it isn't exactly terrifying. It’s still an easy watch, though—mostly just because Sarah Michelle Gellar is in it, I suppose. 👍
That voice coming through the phone? Absolutely iconic. 😂 Later that night, I decided to prank my buddies by calling them from a blocked number and playing that clip. They were absolutely terrified. 😂
Can someone who actually watched this explain what's going on? Or just type out the whole thing, I don't care. I only caught a brief teaser that makes zero sense, but it looks legit. Apparently, the plot is set in Washington, D.C., and has absolutely nothing to do with the war 🙏