Posts by Ethan Gomez82

vividwolf10 said:I suspect social sciences just want to turn everything into universal rules. That's impossible. You have conflicts even within the same state—like urbanites vs. rural folks. If people are rational, anything is possible. With the irrational ones—the narrow-minded or those with other issues—nothing is possible. They can't handle themselves. That's the problem.

Andrew Booth29 said:There is no paradox here. They didn't flee from Islam; they are Muslims. They fled poverty. Some might have even fled the extreme stubbornness associated with it, but not from Islam itself. Ghettoization is a choice. Honestly, if heaven forbid I had to move to Switzerland, I’d much rather live in an working-class urban neighborhood than a Swiss one. You know the vibe—the grill is smoking, the neighbor yells for you to come over for a beer, kids are jumping around from dawn till dusk, dogs are barking... wives are teasing their husbands... Rather than having a Swiss neighbor glare at me because my lawn is 0.23mm taller than the legal limit—measured by a tool certified by the local municipal office for grass measurement, accurate to within +/- 1 micrometer.

ruggedraven36 said:How is that not clear? A good life is obviously more meaningful than just existing.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The whole debate about purpose stems from the belief that there's something greater than just the day-to-day experience of living. Rejecting that idea usually leads straight into anti-intellectualism (which, let's be honest, might actually work for some people—philosophy isn't everyone's cup of tea, even if it technically is for everyone)

ruggedraven36 said:Exactly. That’s why I can’t help but wonder what they mean by the "meaning of life"—it’s a completely useless concept if you're looking at things through a strictly evolutionary lens.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

swifttiger75 said:I’m offering a status report on this subforum, but also a look at the broader crisis of meaning in the world. I want to know how you all see the future of philosophy. It’s easy enough to track its evolution and impact on civilization from the ancient era right up to the present day.

But today—specifically the era we're stuck in—places philosophy in a very tight spot within a society colonized by economic logic. Is there actually any room left for philosophers here? Technical experts, including engineers, economists, and HR managers, have essentially become slaves. Granted, they hold a privileged position among those slaves because their specialized knowledge keeps the machine running. Any technical expert who actually provides value can find a niche within this self-regulating system dedicated to one thing: the infinite optimization of efficiency. Philosophers aren't "useful" in the corporate sense of the word, though perhaps philosophy itself could be. If philosophy can't contribute to improving operational efficiency, productivity, or profitability, then we have to ask what its actual role is. Nowadays, it functions—and indeed does function—as little more than a consumer good for personal indulgence.

The intro is just my take on an article I found online, but it’s really meant to kick off a discussion on how you view the future of philosophy.

Here is what Jean-Paul Sartre says about it:

Lisa Jackson7 said:Actually, it's pretty hard to say how the evolutionary mechanisms described in modern or extended evolutionary synthesis necessarily lead to "progress"... simple adaptation to an environment doesn't automatically mean that.

So, someone or something has to define what "progress" even means... Is it a higher GDP? More output with less labor input (people who, instead of digging canals, could be designing space stations right now... yeah, sure, let's go with that)... or maybe a healthier society where more people actually get a chance to contribute to defining and building that "healthier" state.

feralranger said:Do you truly believe there is any logic to this?

It is, quite frankly, entirely irrational and utterly nonsensical. 😬

Or perhaps I am being too hasty... considering how little time actually elapses during the printing process... hmm...

feralranger said:Come now, let us dispense with those little emojis you use to signal that you aren't quite... well, what I suspect you aren't. Let's be clear, shall we? Because unfortunately, basic clarity does not seem to be included in the package alongside your perceived erudition...

Pray, articulate your thoughts using specific instances regarding choices or decisions:

a) what is, for instance, rational, yet falls short of being logical?
b) what is, for example, reasonable, yet fails the test of logic?
c) what is, say, reasonable, but lacks rationality?
d) what is, perhaps, rational, but entirely unreasonable?

e) the interplay between what is reasonable, what is rational, and raw emotion (such as love, hatred, or fear), illustrated through tangible examples.

In short, I am requesting substantive answers via very specific scenarios; otherwise, I shall be forced to conclude that you are simply being obtuse, given those emojis you employ to imply this is all trivial and that you have mastered these nuances effortlessly...

(Of course, it is quite simple enough to isolate logic as a universal constant devoid of affective components... but navigating the remaining boundaries, overlaps, and subsets of these definitions is hardly such a straightforward endeavor.)

David Vaughn75 says:


The rest of Europe sees the Waterloo commemoration as nothing more than a political rally, yet we somehow fail to notice.

bluemason3 said:One innocent person in jail.

Someone who breaks social norms—whether those are unwritten rules or official laws passed by the government.

bluemason3 said:It’s not a stretch to say that WW2 was essentially an anomaly. When you look at the entire timeline of human history—from our earliest beginnings through the long stretches of peace followed by various smaller conflicts—those two wars stand out as massive outliers. If you follow your own logic and look at the bigger picture over much longer periods, they’re just statistical deviations.

Even if we brought them into the equation, I’m not sure it would change much. For instance, during WW2, only about 3% of the population was lost. Compare that to the Stone Age—some archaeological findings suggest violent deaths consistently hit double digits, sometimes even topping 50%.

Sam Martinez9 said:I don't think that's accurate; reality is actually quite the opposite. Take the US, for example—we had a significant conflict relatively recently, yet even so, there are far fewer people who have killed another person than there are people who have never killed anyone at all.

If you look at Germany or any other major Western nation that hasn't seen war since 1945, the percentage of killers is incomparably lower. Therefore, the ratio heavily favors those who have never taken a life.

As for animals, modern technology has reached a point where fewer and fewer people are actually killing animals for food—in fact, they aren't killing them at all.

And animal cruelty? That speaks more to the profound misery of the abuser or a rage they haven't learned to control. In the past, an angry man might have vented his frustration on his wife or child, but today, in places where such behavior is illegal, they vent on an animal, and in places where even that is forbidden, they take it out on a store shelf.

bluemason3 said:I’d say the topic is a bit more niche than that and doesn't really encompass those types of communities.

There are similarities, sure, but plenty of differences too.

Ashrams are a pretty loosely defined phenomenon; they're basically just places where people gather around certain spiritual ideals, but they lack a rigid structure. A lot of them operate on commercial programs where most residents are actually just transient guests providing revenue through fees and donations. Very few actually sustain themselves through some kind of self-sufficient industry, so comparing them to the communes we're discussing here feels a bit off.

Most religious communes have a heavy ideological backbone—often involving strict hierarchies (sometimes with shady cult-like dynamics), intense discipline, and so on. On the other hand, so-called eco-communes are essentially a modern spin on the hippie movement, attracting groups of people who tend to be anti-establishment.

I wouldn't include monasteries or ashrams in this conversation at all, even if they happen to have some production or economic independence. Given how strictly they are organized, it's a completely different ballgame. Living in a brotherhood that functions as a surrogate family, or living with your own biological family, brings in the need to secure a future for children (which leads to the automatic accumulation of capital, right? 😁). Then you have multi-generational dynamics that can totally shift the original ideals (since kids aren't there because they share the ideology; they're brought into it by "force" and might hold very different modern views), plus schooling needs, and the broader requirements of monastic or religious communities, etc.