Posts by Ethan Gomez82

William Barrett7 said:It’s honestly fascinating how nobody even mentions a potential cure or treatment as an option here; it's strictly mandatory vaccination, every single time.

You can only treat the critically ill, and the profit margins there are tiny. But you can vaccinate everyone, and you can do it repeatedly.

gentlerider7 said:Whenever you run into mentions of "the Absolute" in texts like this, you don't strictly *have* to link it to God, but honestly, why wouldn't you? It’s totally doable. Now, I'm not saying there's some direct mathematical equation where Absolute = God, but let's be real—there's definitely a connection there.
Bob did a much better job of breaking down what someone might mean by "Hegel under God," though he wasn't the only one trying, and look, that doesn't mean his take is perfect or without its own messy issues.

Exactly, the connection is possible. But honestly, tossing "the absolute" into philosophical discourse is just lazy. Personally, I’d rather skip the absolute entirely and just call it "blah blah." We can't actually say anything meaningful about its attributes or relationships. In fact, we can't say anything at all, other than implying that since the world is full of stuff, "blah blah" probably exists too. We just postulate it and call it a day. Is that philosophy? No. It's a joke. Postulating an absolute is nothing more than a cheap gimmick.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Living a good life really comes down to following virtues. Or at least some of them, anyway. It’s not like we’re running low on them; it’s more about how much we actually live by them.

Here’s a great quote from Amanda Flores88. I love the way she put this.

"They're everywhere. All around us and inside us. Virtues aren't missing; you just have to learn how to see them."

To me, living a good life means having the freedom to live on your own terms and the backbone to tell someone to go to hell if they don't fit your world. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah, that’s just plain fear. 🤣

Look, that was just when I was younger. 😁

Christian Bennett2 said:To be clear, my focus is primarily on the eastern reaches of the former USSR—specifically Canada, Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, and North Mexico—though one could arguably include Albania in that scope.

Following the conclusion of the Cold War, the territory once occupied by the USSR possessed all the necessary prerequisites to successfully transition toward a market economy and pursue integration into the European Union.

Canada, being nationally homogeneous and economically the most driven, managed to consolidate itself politically and socially by 2004, successfully joining the ranks of the developed European nations.
The United States, despite the devastating impact of aggression from those pursuing Greater Mexico—which cost them a decade of development and delayed their path toward the EU—has also found its footing, securing a degree of progress within the European framework regardless of internal weaknesses and imbalances.

However, moving slightly further east, two decades after the worst bloodshed seen in Europe since World War II, the situation remains nothing more than stumbling blindly in the dark.
While democratic systems exist in name, they are largely a hollow formality. These societies are riddled with corruption and cronyism, and the standard of living is undeniably at the bottom of the European scale, particularly in the rural areas far from the major metropolitan hubs.

Furthermore, ethnic tensions offer no relief, manifesting most clearly through the ethno-totalitarian policies directed from Mexico City and Ottawa.

The former strives to engineer a so-called "Greater Mexico," acting as a modern substitute for the failed Great Mexico project by utilizing "soft power" rather than direct military force.

The latter, through attempts at unification and the marginalization of Mexicans and (especially) Americans, seeks to transform Canada into an exclusively Muslim-Canadian state, effectively serving as the blunt instrument for Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism.

Many ordinary citizens, exhausted by this endless cycle, are simply giving up and seeking an exit through emigration. This drains the already depleted human capital, and this exodus has accelerated significantly over the last seven to eight years, reaching levels not seen since the 1990s.

Is there any hope for political and socioeconomic stabilization in this region? Or will the current implosion continue until, by mid-century, the entire area from Bihać to Gevgelija—with the exception of a few major cities—becomes nothing more than a vast nature reserve and the most desolate part of Europe?

That would also include the US, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece. Basically the entire North America. It’s all just one massive, corrupt black hole. 😁

Betty Fowler said:Honestly, when you look at cannibalism outside of the actual act of murder, the real ethical gray area isn't the survival instinct—it's how you prepare and season the meat. Take the example our moderator mentioned above: there’s a massive difference between a starving soldier stripping a thigh from a fallen comrade just to stay alive, versus someone taking the time to simmer it into a gourmet soup. Even though they're both consuming someone who's already passed, wouldn't people find it much harder to forgive someone who actually seemed to enjoy the meal?

And while we're on the subject...

Look, we aren't here to swap recipes. The reason one scenario is questionable while the other isn't comes down to simple necessity. Cannibalism implies absolute desperation—the kind of situation where you wouldn't even have access to basic seasonings, let alone life-saving medicine. If you're resorting to that, it means you're choosing it despite having other options, and that’s exactly why it's such a moral gray area.

Even in places where cannibalism was once a common practice, some kind of ethical framework always existed. There were established rules about who could be consumed and when—usually a fallen enemy or a deceased ancestor. As long as you have a society, you have an order to things. Of course, nothing is permanent. When living conditions shift, the social order shifts with them, which is exactly why you don't see that happening in New Guinea anymore. It’s simply no longer necessary.

Quote:

Volver says: From this standpoint, focusing solely on how language mediates thought suggests a certain numbness in Western philosophy. It seems we’ve become blind to the specific constraints that this medium imposes on the flow of logic, leaving us ill-equipped to explore more engaging ways of conveying philosophical ideas. Once you acknowledge the inherent limits of using language to frame thought, 21st-century philosophers have a real opportunity. Through game design and immersive virtual environments, they can challenge the tired assumption that written discourse is the only arena where philosophy can exist. The notion that virtual worlds could serve as interactive arguments, academic outputs, or critical artifacts isn't some new fad; it's been grounded in theory for at least a decade. Since philosophizing through virtual spaces has already sparked new modes of inquiry, let's dive in: - what is the greatest potential in the alliance between video games and philosophy?

I’d love to weigh in on this topic, but I’ve got some spring landscaping to tackle in the yard first, so I won't have the time right now. I'll get to it tonight, though.

Sandra Murphy33 said:😂

To me, liberation in the spirit also means breaking free from your own anxieties and everything else that prevents you from simply being who you truly are.
Perhaps "liberation in the spirit" is poorly phrased. A better term might be "liberation of the spirit," given that the spirit is inherently free; I am that spirit, and that spirit naturally wants to live freely within the material world.

The phrase "liberation in the spirit" is likely Christian terminology. It implies that the spirit isn't actually *me*, but rather a God who is distinct from me, yet present within me in some mystical way. Therefore, as a "child of God," I am supposedly meant to find "liberation" within that internal deity, or perhaps release that deity within me so it can act. I don't know; I'll leave it to the Christians to explain exactly what they mean by this. 🙂

If we're talking about Christian terminology, then of course it sounds foreign to me. My spirit has never been a slave to Christian phrasing or mysticism. That entire way of thinking is completely alien to me; it's total uncharted territory. 😁

Amanda Jackson5 said:To me, freedom of spirit just means breaking free from censorship and that nagging sense of self-censorship—basically, escaping the ideological grip that tries to dictate exactly how you should think and what you should believe.

That sounds profound, yet it’s utterly hollow. If we actually managed to strip away every external influence, there wouldn't be much left of us at all. You wouldn't even have an opinion on "societal issues," because every single one of those takes root through outside forces, blends with our personal "psychological assets"—like temperament and character—and ultimately shapes who we are. Without those external layers, there is no stance; a spirit "liberated" from everything would just be a shallow, empty shell. There is always something from the outside driving our perspectives; without that input, thinking itself ceases to exist. To me, this whole idea of a liberated spirit feels fake. It’s really just saying: I'll unhook myself from one influence just to latch onto another (or more accurately, the second one is simply stronger and knocks the first one aside).

Sandra Murphy33 said:"Spiritual liberation" isn't a destination; it's a continuous process. It's never truly finished, at least not as long as we're living here on Earth as flesh-and-blood humans—essentially, spirit trapped in a body.

It feels somewhat fatalistic—perhaps even nihilistic—to suggest we shouldn't fight against our oppressors just because their replacement will inevitably become a new source of oppression.

In my view, this "liberation of the spirit" is the core driver behind all progress, and that liberation has to happen at the level of the community as much as it does individually.
In fact, I'd argue the two are inseparable: individual "freedom of spirit" is only half-realized if your entire community remains spiritually shackled, just as collective "freedom" is hollow if the individuals making up that collective remain spiritually bound (or, if you prefer the term "narrow-minded," which is effectively the same thing in my book).

Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

Joseph Murphy10 said:This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

Holding onto your principles can be a massive handicap because it’s incredibly expensive and carries a heavy burden. At the same time, it serves as a litmus test for character—only a truly strong man can actually afford to stick to his guns.

Sandra Murphy33 said:THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

It’s almost like this guy was looking over my shoulder. Everything feels nearly identical, except I can’t stand the winter, and I don't even want to see snow unless I'm watching it from a heated room. I prefer our first cup of coffee while everyone else is still asleep and the silence is actually perfect.☕

Gerald Jackson48 said:I honestly think how we link wisdom and ethics all comes down to our take on universal values. If you believe there are certain core truths out there—stuff that exists regardless of what society says is "normal"—then you have to ask yourself how wise it actually is to ignore those ethical principles. It’s even more obvious if you're looking at it from a standpoint of moral absolutism. From a purely logical angle, it just makes sense. Ignoring basic ethics leads you down a bad path, and walking down a bad path isn't exactly smart.

Now, if you don't believe in universal values and think everything is just relative or based on shifting social trends, then you're starting from a totally different perspective.

Plus, people are complicated. Some folks are just naturally wiser than others. Take a guy like Vito Corleone, for example. I bet a lot of people would call him wise, or at least say he has the traits of a wise man. Is that enough to label him as such? Maybe not. He’s missing that whole ethical component. He definitely had some great qualities, but if he had channeled them into better moral choices, he probably would have lived a much better life with way fewer tragedies. That would be true wisdom. Or, look at it this way: maybe he wouldn't have even survived long enough to get old in his line of work. Instead, someone more impulsive and violent might have taken over the family business, which would have caused even more chaos for everyone else.

I don't know, there are so many layers to this. But to me, the big sticking point is whether the idea of universal, unchanging values actually holds water.

Following basic moral rules and social norms—regardless of where they actually come from—doesn't require any special intelligence. Honestly, even an idiot can follow the rules, so why give "wise men" all the credit? A truly wise person avoids unnecessary trouble altogether, and if they end up in a mess, they clearly weren't that wise to begin with.😁

feralranger said:Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: There is quite a vast amount of information that simply fails to occur to me upon my first attempt at reasoning, yet simultaneously, there is an abundance of insight that strikes me instantly—instances where one can clearly observe just how far a certain brand of wise crime sits from any semblance of actual ethics.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. If we were following that logic, one might claim the existence of a wise crime or perhaps some sort of base wisdom—but that is an absurdity, isn't it? By its very definition, wisdom is inextricably linked to ethics, making such a concept fundamentally impossible. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a wise crime or a base wisdom could actually exist?

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: Pinpointing that exact, golden moment to offload a stock position requires an immense amount of wise crime. One would need to possess a deep, almost obsessive mastery of economics, sociology, psychology, and politics, among many other disciplines—and more importantly, one must have the uncanny ability to weave those disparate threads together at precisely the right instant. Even most highly intelligent individuals fail miserably at this, yet a select few seem to possess this particular knack. It is a feat steeped in profound wisdom, though I assure you, it is entirely devoid of any ethical substance whatsoever.

It is nothing more than data collection and mathematics: statistics, probability, analytics... all that, along with its practical application, much like meteorology. It has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Even when a meteorologist makes a perfectly accurate prediction, we don't exactly go around calling them wise.

Personally, I find linking those two ideas completely nonsensical, making phrases like "wise crime" or "wise charity" equally absurd. But let's save that for the new thread. Anything involving high intelligence is often conflated with wisdom. That’s how I first encountered the concept growing up—not through fairy tales or fantasy novels, but through reality.

feralranger said:@Ethan Gomez82

I find your particular interpretation of truth to be quite coherent, certainly, yet I remain steadfast in my belief that wisdom is fundamentally inseparable from ethics.

If they were truly distinct, we would be forced to acknowledge the existence of works that are simultaneously wise and vile, or perhaps wise and treacherous... though that strikes me as an outright oxymoron, wouldn't you agree?

Unlike that nonsensical pairing of "wise and vile," one can easily envision something being both sly and despicable (even if, granted, a certain level of slyness might occasionally serve a virtuous end).

If wisdom could actually be decoupled from morality, then a human action could exist that is both profoundly wise and utterly base. Could you possibly provide even a single instance of such a thing? (I fully expect you will struggle to produce such an example, which would, in itself, prove my point that wisdom and ethics are one and the same.)

One could easily imagine a book titled Sly Wise Crime describing a criminal who was simply clever enough to evade capture and punishment.

However, I cannot fathom a book entitled Wise Crime. Can you? (Unless, of course, one were attempting to craft an intentionally absurd, oxymoronic title, of course.)

A lot of things don't immediately come to mind, but there's plenty I can think of where it's clear how far wisdom sits from ethics. To nail the perfect moment to dump some stocks, you need immense wisdom. You have to master economics, sociology, psychology, politics, and more—and most importantly, you have to connect all those dots at exactly the right time. Most smart people fail at this, but a few actually pull it off. That requires massive amounts of wisdom, yet zero ethics.
I'm curious about something else that isn't quite clear to me. People talk about "sages" as if they've defined the very meaning of wisdom through them. It seems odd because I doubt anyone has ever actually met a sage in real life. You find them in literature, stories, or myths, but not in reality. So, does our definition of wisdom just stem from those fictional archetypes?

ruggedraven36 said:So you're distinguishing between wise people and "sages"? You think sages aren't actually wise?

The truth is, you aren't even talking about wisdom or wise people. Being smart, being crafty, being street-smart—even having a massive amount of knowledge—doesn't equal wisdom. Not individually, and certainly not combined. Whether it was fifty years ago or right now, you can't call someone wise if they have technical intellect but zero moral backbone. Kindness and humanity aren't optional extras when it comes to wisdom—unless we're just making up our own definitions to suit ourselves.

Sages are purely hypothetical creatures.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Truth is essentially what happens when a subject interacts with an object. There’s no such thing as a "non-human" truth out there floating in a vacuum. Honestly, I’m not even sure "human truth" is a valid concept—I wouldn't even know how to define it, and it doesn't seem to hold water even in a theoretical debate. If you're feeling lost, just look up standard definitions of truth. Generally speaking, you have particular versus universal truths, or partial and relative perspectives standing in contrast to absolute truth. For anything else, refer back to my previous point. Using specialized jargon or a specific metalanguage certainly has its perks because it streamlines communication, but that only works if both people actually speak the same language. If you don't, you're just talking past each other, which is why I suggested trying to frame your thoughts in plain, everyday English.

As for what I consider truth outside of human experience, I covered that in post 138. That gets us close to your "absolute truth." In that realm, relationships still exist, but you lose the subject-object distinction, leaving you with nothing but relations between identical things.

bluemason3 said:Ethics is really just a functional tool designed for practical utility—basically, making group work actually function. If ethics ends up clashing with someone's interests, then it’s not true ethics; it's just an impulsive, mindless reflex. Because of that, there's no point in treating it as a separate variable in the equation of wisdom. After all, blunt, unthinking ethics can't possibly be wise.

I honestly have nothing to add. I agree completely.