Posts by Jonathan Brooks8

If someone’s own rigid mindset prevents them from ever truly learning—and since growth through learning is the only way to actually find freedom—then they are effectively a prisoner of their own supposed "liberty." Real freedom and genuine knowledge arrive "from the outside," much like the way a sudden breeze enters when you finally crack open a window.

The concept of a truly "free individual" is nothing more than a myth—because at best, such a person is merely a prisoner of their own psyche and their rigid, unyielding perspectives. And frankly, there is even less clarity regarding the underlying forces that shape such an attitude in the first place... all of which ultimately stifles any real capacity for learning.

ironmarlin1 said:When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Come on now, stop hiding behind the sarcasm and actually say what you mean....

Amanda Jackson5 said:It isn't about killing off your emotions; it's about learning how to channel and sublimate them. If we actually managed to wipe out our feelings entirely, civilization would fall apart overnight.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...ts_Discontents

Actually, I’d argue that altruism, humanitarianism, and volunteering are themselves acts of sublimation—a qualitative transformation of raw emotional instinct into a civilized response to societal dysfunction.

When that emotional impulse proves to be more than just a fleeting moment of affect—when it becomes a sustained state—it finds its outlet in altruism as a philosophical stance, and in humanitarian work and volunteering as practical, political action.

So, framing emotion itself as "the problem" misses the mark entirely here. Since we are dealing with the realm of politics, the counter-response must also be political. For instance, one might use the argument mentioned above—that providing aid actually increases the demand for more aid—but even that falls apart... because the underlying need for help exists regardless of whether anyone steps up to provide it.

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

Your premise seems to be that one must kill off emotion through sheer force of will, just so the intellect can be liberated to pursue the evolution toward a "new human."

I believe the necessity lies elsewhere—in rationally examining emotions and emotionality from every possible angle to truly understand their role in the human experience. One should acknowledge them rather than fighting them... much like we don't think it's necessary to wage war against our basic physiological needs.
In short, you are currently in a dynamic phase of attempting to rationally analyze emotion, but that phase still feels somewhat... juvenile.

steelridge58 said:

Sure, even if I personally enjoy being on the opposite side of the fence, I think disagreement is always this great catalyst for self-reflection and collective questioning, which ultimately helps us sharpen our shared perspective.

I feel the exact same way because of that very reason,
it isn't just about disagreeing for the sake of it, but rather having the actual opportunity for dialogue—real, reasoned conversation.

Or to put it even more bluntly; it serves as an alternative, or perhaps anarchy in relation to hierarchy, or like antimatter meeting matter—something that wedges itself in, relieving the pressure—truth, which remains vulnerable to all the same flaws and sicknesses that plague the system itself.

That’s exactly it.

Honestly, that sharper way of framing things was exactly what was needed here.

Looking at what you wrote—specifically that part about truth being subject to all the diseases of the system—I can't help but wonder, where does the core of the problem actually lie?

I guess I would frame it through a comparison like this:

amateurism (our alternative to the establishment) versus professionalism (the established system).

Should we be looking for the answer in the very essence of human freedom and the freedom to simply "be"—is freedom the master key to human potential, the one under which a person's true nature opens up, much like how a vertebra might close up when that same key is turned in the opposite direction?

Indeed, human freedom is the key—it acts simultaneously as our greatest blessing and our most profound curse. Everything we destroy out of a sense of liberty is precisely what we attempt to repair through that same liberty, though even the act of repairing necessitates a certain amount of destruction...

steelridge58 said:I don't think so. 🙂) Actually, when I first read that, I realized I was probably thinking more along the lines of "bureaucratic madness."
I feel like you have this knack for stripping things down until they reach that necessary, fundamental understanding,
whereas my whole approach tends to lean much more toward the idealistic "how things ought to be,"
even though, deep down, we're really coming from the exact same place.

We are—and I actually find a certain comfort in our disagreement—because that friction always serves as a catalyst for self-reflection and a shared interrogation of ideas, which ultimately leads to a sharpening of our collective perspective.

volver said:Regarding volunteering—not just official charity work, but the general humanitarian impulse to tackle the problems we face in our daily lives—it isn't merely about fixing systemic failures; it’s about intervening in the moment (a sort of "life on the ground") whenever it becomes necessary. In my view, this acts as a counterpoint—a worldview alternative to the prevailing narrative that sends us such qualitatively different messages, representing a refusal to simply conform to the status quo.

Or perhaps even more pointedly: it is an alternative—anarchy versus hierarchy, or antimatter against matter—something that wedges itself in to relieve the pressure, acting as a truth that remains susceptible to all the very maladies that plague the system itself.

lonegardener said:"To pause life, its ineffable process, is not only impossible but, if we try, we shall fall into the blackest of depressions; the days will pass for us lacking all transcendence, they will drag and we can banally waste them, since nothing essential is transacted in them."

Like the difference between stagnant water and a flowing stream?

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

That really depends on how you define rationality... for instance, if the drive to propagate the species is considered an irrational impulse—something buried in our subconscious or a primal instinct to persist—then it stands to reason that a viewpoint opposing that drive would be perfectly rational.

steelridge58 said:

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't stay still, always looking for that next peak to climb or some rugged trail to get lost on, though I have to admit my knees aren't quite what they used to be when I first started hiking through the Rockies. kaže:
To actually get this democratic engine running and start tackling our problems head-on, we really need to dive into the deep end of informing people, educating them, winning them over, and basically just getting everyone fired up and aware of what's at stake—it’s all about that collective awakening, honestly. I honestly don't know how you even begin to approach something like that, but I suppose if you really want to push someone into doing something they're clearly resisting, you just have to find that one specific lever that makes them realize they don't really have a choice in the matter. The public is just too passive and disinterested right now, honestly, and they seem completely oblivious to the fact that we actually need to take action, which means the only way to truly wake people up is to lead by example through our own individual efforts.

So, you actually managed to nudge me into diving deep into the weeds of the Affordable Care Act and how health insurance actually functions, and honestly, after spending some time digging through the official guides, I’ve stumbled onto something that really bothers me. I found this one specific procedural detail they insist on following—something that seems completely nonsensical to me—but even when I pointed out how illogical it was, those agencies wouldn't budge. It’s frustrating because, from where I'm sitting, their refusal to adapt to common sense feels like a straight-up violation of how the Affordable Care Act is supposed to be applied.
I honestly feel like we really need to put in the work to educate ourselves and stay informed, because if we don't, we’re never going to truly grasp that frustrating gap between what the textbooks say should happen and how things actually play out in the real world. It isn't enough to just sit back as passive users or people simply checking off boxes to meet some requirement; we have to step up and be active participants who actually call things out when they aren't working right.
It’s probably true that we’re just as much in the dark in other areas and fields too, mostly because there is just so much we don't know simply due to being poorly informed.

When it comes to volunteering—and I don’t just mean the official stuff, but that deeper, more fundamental sense of being a decent human and stepping up when life gets messy—I don't think it's strictly about fixing the cracks in our broken systems. To me, it feels much more like an act of immediate intervention, a way of engaging with "life on the ground" exactly where it's happening, which serves as this vital counterpoint to everything else. It’s almost like a worldview in itself, offering a completely different kind of message than the one we usually get from the world around us, and honestly, it feels like a quiet, necessary refusal to just accept things as they are.
I truly believe that nothing works quite like a personal example, because that’s the only way you can actually transmit real energy to others. It’s that specific kind of spark—the one that connects people and breathes life into them through a shared sense of purpose—that serves as the absolute backbone of any meaningful activism. You just won't find that kind of collective spirit within the rigid machinery of a government agency or a massive federal bureaucracy, mostly because that raw, driving force comes from a grassroots volunteer movement fueled by pure idealism and a genuine belief in what we can achieve together.
But you have to admit, she possesses this incredible creative force that really acts as a glue for everyone around her. Honestly, the world is just starving for that kind of energy right now—that genuine spirit of cooperation and true friendship.

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but find myself constantly looking toward the horizon, always itching to get out there and tackle some rugged trail or scale a peak, because honestly, there's just something about being high up in the mountains that makes all my little everyday stresses feel completely insignificant. kaže:
So, what I’m getting at—and I think this is exactly what you're seeing as both a massive opportunity and a genuine necessity—is that the entire environment where these volunteers operate needs to step up. We’re talking about that passive layer of society, the folks who aren't necessarily out there on the front lines doing the heavy lifting, but who act as a theoretically active voting bloc, and they really need to be backing the political forces that actually give a damn about the goals and missions these volunteers are working so hard to achieve.
Then you have to consider how political forces, once they actually secure a mandate from the voters, start exerting their influence over the entire bureaucratic machine, which then begins to funnel resources, mobilize agencies, scout out locations, open up job postings, and basically dictate how budgets are proposed and planned all according to their own specific political agenda.

Our voting bloc just doesn't have that kind of critical mass or collective consciousness required to actually trigger a shift that promises real change. It feels like we’re stuck, and a friend was just telling me the other day that we simply don't have the right foundation to leverage progressive individual values into an election result that looks any different from the same old cycle we've been trapped in for years, which basically just keeps us stuck in this aimless, directionless status quo.
It’s honestly kind of a paradox how people tend to just hand power right back to the very folks they should probably be trying to escape from.

My whole philosophy starts with the idea that, generally speaking, following rules and procedures should never take precedence over respecting human life, because the right to live is fundamentally more important than any regulation.
In that light, the responsibility of public agencies to enforce rules shouldn't ever outweigh their broader purpose; if those rules are used to justify someone's suffering or leave them stranded without help, then the system is failing its original mission. Tools like rules and regulations ought to serve the core idea behind them, not the other way around, and we really ought to be adjusting those tools—or finding better ways to think about them—to meet the actual needs of the people and the communities those services are meant to represent.

On the flip side, that purely procedural nature of the government—as he puts it—really undermines its credibility when it comes to upholding the rule of law, mostly because, in my view, the public perception of these institutions has been pretty badly compromised. And for any system to work, people need to trust it. But a system can't maintain the moral support of the community it serves if it lacks that essential layer of credibility.
To help make sense of that connection, I'll include a thought from a professor at the University of Chicago: "There is a profound link between human values and social norms on one hand, and the legitimacy of an economic system on the other."

Later on, once I have a moment, I'll post about Ernesto Sabato and his piece "Community Values" (the fourth letter from his book *Resistance*).

Don't get me wrong—I'm not exactly out here defending "public administration" or "bureaucracy," but it is a product of social evolution, an inevitable byproduct of progress, and we don't really have a better alternative at this stage.

I agree that—on an individual level—it’s often better if someone bypasses a rule to satisfy a higher standard of justice or simple compassion for a neighbor, but rules exist fundamentally (interestingly enough...) to protect the very person who *needs* assistance from being bypassed by someone else who might exploit a loophole.

The common perception is that the bureaucratic machine favors those trying to dodge clear standards while screwing over those whose rights were stripped away by those very dodgers. Of course, that happens—far too often—but that isn't the goal. The goal is the equitable distribution of resources, making that fairness the central benchmark for evaluation.

The fact that such a perception exists is, in itself, a critique of the immaturity of the systems tasked with fair distribution—it's clear that the "human factor" is still under immense pressure to act on tribalism, nepotism, or even organized crime principles like the "Cosa Nostra."

But, I suppose there's no need to dwell on that for too long.....

The collective wisdom found on an internet forum is, shall we say, a reliable guarantee of intellectual depth... can you even imagine?😁 (And that’s just my secondary thought—my primary one involves the alchemy of cultivating naivety as a prerequisite for eternal youth, constant rebirth, and the shifting of perspectives...)

ironmarlin1 said:In this twenty-first century, given how much we've advanced in science and everything we learned from Darwin, trying to claim that altruism is truly selfless feels more like a bit of a collective delusion than anything else. It makes you wonder, though—is being deceptive or dishonest actually considered an altruistic or even a "humane" act? If you ask the humanists and the lifelong altruists, they’d probably tell you that it most certainly is.

If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

steelridge58 said:

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but wander off the beaten path, always looking for that next ridge to climb or some remote trail where the air actually feels clean for once. There’s just something about being out there, miles away from the noise of the city, that makes everything else feel so much smaller and less complicated than it does when I'm stuck behind a desk. It’s a bit ridiculous, really, how much energy I spend planning these treks just to end up exhausted and sore, but I honestly can't imagine spending my weekends any other way. kaže:
The system—whether you look at it as a massive government bureaucracy or just the general way our society functions—is always going to fail us more or less often than we’d like. I truly believe that volunteering isn't just about being a nice person; it's actually a way to shine a spotlight on exactly where the gears are grinding and where the whole machine is breaking down, forcing the powers that be to finally look at the cracks and actually bother to adapt. But then again, there's another side to this... It’s the volunteers who really make this whole community what it is.I honestly believe that’s exactly how a community works—it’s through that very process of collective effort that we manage to step in and fix those mistakes that might otherwise just slip through the cracks and get overlooked.

You're spot on about that. Honestly, patching things up like that usually just ends up being a band-aid solution—it provides a little bit of immediate relief, sure, but there's this nagging tendency for those quick fixes to just stick around until they become the permanent status quo.
Fixing mistakes on the fly is absolutely essential because life doesn't just pause for us to catch up, but at the same time, we really need to apply pressure on the community to act as a catalyst for change, pushing for those adaptations exactly where volunteer efforts show they are needed most—just like you pointed out, steelridge58. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the community shouldn't be allowed to just sit back comfortably and distance itself from the necessity of finding systemic solutions, which would actually allow us to tackle the root causes that lead to these vulnerabilities in the first place.

We also can't forget that the government apparatus—acting as our representative community—isn't actually driven by empathy, but strictly by its own interests, yet we have to remember that people, and all living creatures for that matter, truly suffer, and it’s that capacity for empathy that serves as the vital spark for altruism and basic humanity. It's honestly that missing piece of compassion that allows us to fix the fundamental flaw in the system, which is its complete and utter lack of feeling.

If you ask me, I’d say we aren't just dealing with a system that lacks empathy, though that's certainly part of it; rather, what we're really seeing is a fundamental breakdown in good governance and the messy fallout that inevitably follows such a failure. "Good governance" might sound like some fancy, modern administrative buzzword to some people, but honestly, the term itself carries enough weight to stand on its own as a vital principle for how things should actually work.
I’ve been sitting here chewing on this idea, wondering just how much of a negative slant we’re actually adding when we describe the federal government as being "merely interesting," because it feels like that phrasing carries this subtle, underlying weight—like there's a hidden motive or a specific direction it's pulling toward—and honestly, it keeps leading me back to this frustrating loop where I find myself using the word "interest" in two completely different ways, which doesn't help my case at all.
I’ve always felt that when we use the word "interest," there’s this subtle, slightly nasty undertone baked right into it that hints at pure ego. It carries this weight of self-centeredness, describing a mindset where someone views the entire world through such a narrow lens that they only see what serves them. It’s like they have this built-in reflex to filter everything—every conversation, every event, every person—through a single metric, automatically deciding what’s worth their time and what isn't based solely on how much it benefits them personally.
If we look at "interest" through a different lens, it really boils down to a fundamental need—that wide spectrum of requirements every living being has just to function. When we talk about what’s truly in someone's interest, we’re talking about their quality of life and making sure those basic needs actually get met. If you take that specific meaning of the word, then being open to someone else's needs—being the kind of person who is both willing and able to step up and help—becomes this deeply altruistic way of relating to them. It’s about looking out for what’s best for the person in need, even if, in a way, our own sense of purpose and connection is fueled by that very act of helping.

I really want to drive home the point that when we talk about being willing to step up and help others—that raw altruism and basic humanity—it isn’t just about having empathy or feeling someone else's pain. It goes much deeper than that, because at the end of the day, what truly drives us is our sense of morality, that heavy weight of duty, and just following our own conscience.
Look, if a government agency—one of those massive, bureaucratic institutions that’s supposed to serve the public interest—can't manage to be driven by actual empathy or any kind of selfless altruism, then honestly, it shouldn't be allowed to act out of pure, unadulterated ego either. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Look, if we’re actually being honest about everything I just laid out, then trying to argue that the system is inherently heartless doesn't really hold any water for me, because at the end of the day, the whole idea of accountability is baked right into the very foundation of how the system is supposed to function.

If I sit back and really look at the idea that the government apparatus exists solely to serve specific interests, I honestly think that might actually be enough to make a case for it. But I only mean it in the sense where, when you look at the relationship between a community and its representatives, "serving our interests" becomes the ultimate goal, because you have to view every single factor affecting the community through that lens of mutual interest.
When you look at how democracy actually functions, if the entire government apparatus starts acting like a completely detached entity that has zero connection to the people it’s supposed to serve, then the whole thing becomes nothing more than a hollow shell, where the substance is just being masked by a bunch of colorful, superficial layers.

Thinking that we’re actually doing more good by withholding help or just looking the other way—as if that somehow forces change—is completely backwards, and honestly, it sounds a lot like the logic used by that third group of people...

We really shouldn't be turning our backs or refusing to lend a hand when we can, because at the very least, that’s what we owe one another—but we have to be realistic and realize that simply patching things up isn't going to fix a chronic, systemic issue. True activism should, by its very nature, push further to find solutions within the existing framework, digging deep to tackle the root causes that keep these problems alive in the first place. But that's where you hit a wall... since success ultimately depends on the people who hold the actual decision-making power.

I skimmed through the articles in those links—not fully, because there’s just so much to get through—but I think we could draw another distinction here:
Volunteering to fill the gaps where the community is failing to improve the quality of life.
Volunteering to support the community by contributing to programs that are already up and running.

In that first scenario, activism should really be about initiating or creating entirely new pathways for progress.
In the second, you're just plugging into the systems that are already in motion.

Volunteers essentially represent the "conscientious neighborhood"—those community members who refuse to sit around waiting for some democratic management model to finally kick in and address local needs. They can't afford to wait, precisely because such a sluggish mechanism might be far too slow to react when a crisis actually hits.

So, what we are seeing here—what you are identifying as both a possibility and a necessity—is that the environment surrounding these volunteers (that segment of the population that remains passive in terms of volunteering, yet is theoretically active as a voting bloc) needs to support the political forces that actually care about the goals and tasks highlighted by the volunteers' actions.
Then, once those political forces secure a mandate from the voters, they can exert influence over the bureaucratic apparatus—which then uses its political leverage to allocate funds, activate agencies, find resources, put out RFPs, and propose or plan budgets...

That is how it works in theory, but—and this is the rub—what happens if the people, that very voting bloc, aren't particularly interested in tackling general community issues because they are already overwhelmed by their own personal problems? Which, let's face it, is usually the case in practice. Furthermore, in an environment crowded with massive crises—including those artificially amplified by the media—who is going to have the willpower to tackle the myriad of small, hidden issues that the public ignores?

To get this democratic problem-solving mechanism moving, you have to inform, educate, win over, mobilize, and raise awareness—essentially, you have to force the inactive, uninterested, and oblivious part of the public into action, which can only be achieved by leading through personal example. Imagine if someone trying to spark this movement was themselves completely disengaged... where would their legitimacy come from?

I remember watching a news segment once about volunteers who were taking in and feeding stray cats in their own apartments, houses, and yards—cats abandoned by owners who were away on summer vacations. It’s clear that, in a perfect world, we need to raise owner awareness to a more responsible level, control the population through spaying and neutering (for which owners or the community must fund), and ensure proper care and veterinary oversight. But until that systemic shift occurs, you have to deal with the reality of the moment and sensitize the public to the issue at hand.

volver said:What I want to emphasize is that, beyond empathy and compassion, other vital drivers for being willing and open to helping others—altruism and humanity—are morality, a sense of duty, and conscience...
And if the system (the governing body) cannot be altruistic based on those principles, then it certainly cannot be egocentric either.

Given everything I’ve laid out here, treating the system's lack of feeling as an unchangeable fact is actually irrelevant—because accountability is one of the core pillars upon which any functional system is built.

The bureaucratic machine carries responsibility, sure, but it isn't answerable to the community's needs directly—not on an ad hoc basis or in response to individual crises—but rather indirectly and broadly through political channels, by executing planned tasks within its jurisdiction and sticking to pre-allocated federal budgets; its direct accountability lies solely with its superiors—the Executive Branch and various federal agencies.

The Executive Branch, in turn, is held accountable to the Legislative Branch—Congress—for how it enforces laws and upholds the Constitution.

Take this scenario, for instance: an official working at the Department of Health and Human Services or a major insurance provider might deny a patient a life-saving medication simply because that specific drug isn't on the approved formulary covered by their budget. In the eyes of the bureaucracy, that is considered "responsible" behavior. If that official were to bypass the rules and approve the medication out of pure altruism—say, because they felt for a single mother struggling to provide for her five children—they would actually be deemed *irresponsible*... A situation remarkably similar to this happened quite recently, where a patient, aided by a friend who mobilized a grassroots fundraising network via Facebook and other online platforms, managed to crowdsource the funds to buy the expensive medication privately. Eventually, after some movement within the system, the bureaucracy finally caught up and approved the coverage.

So, I'm not suggesting that the bureaucracy shouldn't be empathetic—it just can't be, by definition—since empathy is a human trait, not a structural one. The system exists to apply rules, ensure compliance, and execute the law... and that's about it.

steelridge58 said:I really think we need to draw a clear line between volunteering for the sake of our community and working *instead* of the community as a way of structuring society itself.
When you work for the community, you're actually building things up and helping it grow, whereas working instead of the community is mostly just patching over holes where the system has already failed us.
Helping people in need is obviously altruistic and fundamentally human—and honestly, it’s vital whenever the government fails to provide—but that isn't really "working for the community" in the sense of improving our social functions so these crises don't happen in the first place.
At the end of the day, the very fact that we even need this kind of humanitarian aid is a massive red flag, signaling that we desperately need activism aimed at fixing the actual glitches in our societal framework.

So, sure, volunteering to help the poor, the vulnerable, or the marginalized is wonderful and deeply compassionate, and for those individuals, local charity might be their only lifeline, but it doesn't drive the systemic change needed to ensure those groups aren't left behind to begin with.

It makes me wonder, when you brought up those old-school "community work drives," why can't we pull off anything like that in today's formal democratic setup? I suspect it's because there's such a massive, widening gap between the people in power—the folks running the political and economic machinery—and the actual citizens.
That deep alienation makes it impossible for any real sense of solidarity to bridge the gap between the elected officials and the public. There's just no spirit of shared responsibility coming from the top, and that's precisely because they've become so disconnected from everyone else.
In practice, our version of democracy feels a bit like an "opium for the masses"—the more you indulge in it, the more sober and disillusioned you realize you actually are.

Precisely. The United States has established its own framework through the Volunteer Act
, much like how regulations function in Canada and indeed, most developed nations follow suit.
Based on these legal frameworks, a structured set of rights and responsibilities is established via volunteer agreements—for instance, one might look at guidelines like http://www.volontiram.info/vazno/osn...o-volontiranju.

Essentially, this means the community—acting through its political bodies and legislative acts—defines the parameters for voluntary service.

In doing so, the community implicitly acknowledges that through standard politics, federal budgets, and various government agencies, it simply cannot identify or address every single need arising from poverty, neglect, illness, injustice, misfortune, crime, or missed opportunities. There will always be a need for informal engagement; however, by codifying this, the state protects both the institution of service and the individuals who step up to provide it—because, ultimately, ensuring this support exists is a fundamental responsibility of the collective.

In stable, advanced democracies, the opportunity to volunteer is widely available, though the necessity for it tends to decrease in areas where social injustice and inequality are minimal, and where civic consciousness and individual conscience are more deeply rooted.

volver said:Working for the community fosters growth and contributes to its evolution, whereas merely working instead of the community just serves to mitigate the damage caused when the community itself fails.
Helping those in need is an altruistic and profoundly human act—absolutely vital wherever the system falls short—but that isn't "working for the community" in the sense of improving its core functions to prevent such damaging consequences from occurring in the first place.
Ultimately, the demand for this kind of humanitarian aid serves as a signal: it highlights the need for activism and work aimed at driving positive change where there is a "glitch" in the social fabric.

So, while volunteering for the impoverished, the vulnerable, or the marginalized is wonderful and deeply compassionate—offering a lifeline to those for whom local aid is their only hope—on the other hand, it doesn't inherently lead to the systemic shifts required to ensure these groups no longer face such hardship...

The community—as a machine or an apparatus—will always, to some degree, falter. Volunteering is a way to point out exactly where those failures occur, forcing the community to recognize them and, hopefully, adapt. But, looking at it from another angle, the community is comprised of the volunteers themselves, which means the community uses that very engagement to correct the mistakes made against the vulnerable.

If we tried to signal the community's failures through mere passivity, we would achieve nothing—passivity cannot fix a broken system. Only active participation can drive change, because that activity exerts pressure on the collective conscience of all of us who make up this society, pushing through the complex, messy, and often clumsy mechanisms of our political system toward actual political will and decisive action.

We also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the federal government—acting as the representative of the community—isn't driven by empathy, but rather by self-interest; meanwhile, actual people (and all other living beings) truly suffer, making empathy a vital driver for altruism and humanity. This is precisely how we correct the inherent flaw in the system: its cold indifference.

The notion that withholding help or simply looking the other way actually helps more (by forcing some kind of change) is completely backwards... it’s a logic that most closely resembles the mindset of that third group of people….

volver said:I find myself wondering—since you brought up "community work projects"—why aren't they possible within our modern, formally democratic social structure? My conclusion is that they aren't feasible because of the massive alienation existing between those in power (the functioning economic-political establishment) and the citizenry.
That profound sense of estrangement prevents any meaningful idea of solidarity from bridging the gap between the elected leadership and the public. Such ideas simply don't exist among those holding office, largely because they have become so detached from the people they serve.
In practice, democracy acts as an "opium for the masses"—the more you consume it, the more soberly you perceive reality.

I suspect the reason is quite prosaic, even "stupid"; namely, there is simply no one left to spearhead or organize them. Even in the past, these collective labor efforts were often imposed "from the top down" as a political tool—a way to mold socialist youth—and once the socialist system collapsed, those elements, which were intrinsic to that specific social order, were discarded along with the failed system itself. I imagine that anyone even remotely well-intentioned who tried to organize something similar today would be branded as someone pushing for a "return to the old ways," so nobody dares to touch it.

A second factor could be the shift toward the perspective defined by that ubiquitous capitalist mantra: "there's no such thing as a free lunch." From that viewpoint, expecting someone to work for nothing is considered immoral, and anyone willing to perform voluntary labor (even when it involves grueling physical work) would likely be dismissed as either crazy or foolish.

steelridge58 said:I already knew my last one was a little more than I actually needed. 🙂)

No, it’s actually about a lack—specifically a lack of attention on my part; I completely missed your reply...

I wouldn't dream of dismissing the idea that someone who is typically passive might suddenly activate—perhaps driven by suffering, a newfound awareness, or perhaps even transformed by a significant life event, like a major accident or even a war—to begin helping neighbors, relatives, strangers, plants, or animals...

We are all, to varying degrees, influenced by an impulse to re-evaluate our own stances regarding acting—or failing to act—for the common good through volunteering. If I were to categorize these personal responses, I would identify four basic types:

- The first is a natural inclination toward altruism, occurring without any need for deep personal introspection or any complex calculation of the personal costs versus benefits resulting from such actions.

- The second stems from a sense of dissatisfaction with the plight of those (or that) in need, coupled with a frustration with one's own passivity—which prompts a person to engage in various ways and to various degrees.

- The third involves recognizing a problem and feeling dissatisfied or frustrated, yet that feeling remains insufficient to trigger actual movement.

- The fourth is a fundamental absence of any perceived need or desire to help in this manner.

Without having conducted formal research—just speaking from a gut feeling and a rough statistical intuition—I would suggest that the majority of people fall into the second or third groups. Furthermore, I suspect the first and second groups contain a higher concentration of young people, and that, overall, there are more women than men among volunteers.

The societal attitude toward volunteering is also crucial, which ties directly into how a socio-political and economic system functions. For instance, under the old systems seen in places like the former America, because of the concept of "social ownership," people tended to be more relaxed and receptive toward community work. It was actually possible to organize large-scale volunteer work projects where citizens would donate their physical labor to the community—I was one of those participants myself, so I speak from firsthand experience. On the other hand, while volunteering is highly developed in Western capitalist nations, it is often geared toward young people seeking skill-building for future careers. Meanwhile, wealthy nations—take Scandinavia, for example—have social programs so robust that they significantly reduce the necessity for such individual intervention, which then tends to pivot toward addressing global issues like ecology or wildlife conservation.

Amanda Jackson5 said:No, I’ve never claimed anything was mystical, nor do I hold any sort of private, occult beliefs. Honestly, I’m a spiritual child of the Enlightenment. But it’s also a mistake to assume that everything which defies calculation is inherently mystical. You can't reduce everything down to mere math or pure quantity. It’s pretty straightforward—quantity is essentially meaningless without its counterweight: quality. You see this even in the concept of "magnitude," which is really just the marriage of quantity and quality.

It’s difficult, or rather impossible, to calculate because we aren't talking about quantity here. Pure quantity is basically the negation of being. What we're dealing with is essence, not just a conceptual structure itself. I actually went into quite a bit of detail about this in that other thread on emergence, where I was unsuccessfully trying to explain the concept to Aphex Twin:

Essentially, for something to exist, it has to be determined. Existence is only possible in the form of a determined being. For any existence to be genuine, actual, or real, it must be rational; in other words, actuality is the union of existence and essence (or reflection; actuality is the realization of formal possibility, or the concretization of an idea). Actual things are the unity of appearance and essence (which implies that contingent or irrational things aren't truly "real," even if they can manifest as appearances). Appearances are fleeting, whereas essences are enduring (or at least relatively more stable). Put simply—though it's not particularly helpful—essence is that which is not an appearance within a thing; that is, it is what does not merely "appear" (even though the very nature of an essence is to manifest, at which point it ceases to be purely essence). Essence is internal, while appearance is external. Essence is what people claim varies subjectively across different cultures when discussing chairs or similar objects. If essence were determined to the same degree as appearance, it would merely be its correlate. Instead, essence is what a thing truly is—its thing-in-itself. By that same logic, a law of nature is also an essence.

I’d argue that a "heap" is defined far more by its quality than by its sheer number. Think about it—if we claimed a heap of sand was defined solely by count, what happens when a significant amount is scattered across space or time? In other words, they must be unified in one place at one single moment. Furthermore, the contents of a heap need to be of the same kind—they need a common denominator. A heap of trash means that the pile consists entirely, or at least predominantly, of garbage. There isn't exactly room for junk in a pile of cash, for instance...

If a heap were defined purely quantitatively, I suppose I would say the requirement is simply having more than one item (meaning, two grains or more) in the same spot. Of course, there will always be those who disagree, so it wouldn't be an objective metric. Therefore, in terms of raw amount, it remains a subjective, arbitrary number—one where we reach a consensus, establishing a standard through agreement, which then becomes our objectified measure.

Sandra Wilson68 said:PLANINAR

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were one of the more dangerous "isms" in my book. You used an ant colony or a beehive as a model for humanity, which is just pure collectivism. It’s dangerous because it threatens individual freedom for the sake of some grand ideal or the total freedom of the collective—leaving the individual completely subservient to the group.

It is honestly wild how much ignorance regarding "collectivism" and "freedom" you just dumped in those first two sentences. Collectivism doesn't mean stripping away individual liberty; it’s actually the exact opposite. Look at the human body as the ultimate example of perfect collectivism. It’s made of billions of cells and about 42,000 different parts and organs. Compare the benefits of life that a human organism provides to those cells versus the life they would have if they were just isolated individuals—like amoebas floating in some swamp or a gutter. Then ask yourself what true freedom is for them: Is it living within a perfectly organized collective where they can maximize all their biological needs and desires? Or is it living in a swamp where they can achieve nothing as lone amoebas? Or maybe ask this: did those amoebas spend four billion years evolving, working, and learning just to build a human organism as their collective, only to lose their individuality? Or is it the reverse—that through the human organism, they reach a higher, almost divine form of freedom?

Also, just answering the thread's question here: I think it’s impossible and unnecessary to strip a person of ideology (whatever "-ism" it ends up being). Humans need to create or follow an idea to guide them. That guidance is essentially politics—even if it's just personal politics—and any idea that functions as politics is, by definition, an ideology.

Your take is a textbook example of human ignorance. Why? Because it assumes a society where everyone has the right to their own idea and their own "-ism," plus the freedom to live out that idea independently from everyone else. And what do we get from that kind of "freedom"? We get the unfree world we live in right now. We live in a world where nobody can truly live by their own ideas because they end up infringing on everyone else's. No one can realize their own vision without needing help from others, which inevitably means clashing with other people's visions and freedoms. All this leads to a fractured world split by ideologies, intolerance, hatred, exploitation, wars, terrorism, casualties, laziness, failing economies, poverty, hunger, and misery. So, with this "democratic" view of the world as a way to achieve freedom, we end up achieving the exact opposite. We limit ourselves in countless terrible ways, creating UNFREEDOM instead of liberty. No matter how you spin it, the final conclusion on the easiest way to achieve freedom is this: COLLECTIVISM. Not some random ideology, but a system based strictly on the Science of Self-Preservation. This science offers the best, most natural, and universal solution for maximizing good and avoiding evil. That solution is always a social and economic community—an organism like the human body or a beehive—built on the fair division of labor and its results. The evolution of the entire universe is moving toward this specific form of organization and freedom. Of course, that's assuming you aren't part of the foolish human society that still hasn't a clue about these universal laws of self-preservation and free living.

That’s all well and good, but my point was simply to suggest that you, too, are a representative of an "ism"—actually, more like a promoter of one—which really clashes with your claim that you don't belong to any particular school of thought.

Furthermore, since this is your concept (even if you call it "universal"), it can only function within a society of individual freedoms; in a truly collectivist setting, such a proposal would be nothing more than an outlier. For instance, a drone wouldn't even be allowed to suggest something like this...

Lawrence Bailey77 said:.. and I suppose someone else makes a tidy little profit just by "purging that evil from the equation" along the way ☕ .. it reminds me quite vividly of certain other methods used to "combat evil" while lining one's pockets 🙂 .. though I suppose profit is deemed "justified" if it is supposedly "for the greater good"😵

I would argue that the volunteers' perspective on this is incredibly naive—though perhaps not in the way people think. They are fully aware that others—those we might call the "realists," or those more comfortably integrated into the system—view them as simpletons or easy targets for deception because they work for "free." Yet, despite knowing exactly how they are perceived, they continue to volunteer.

It would be worth digging into that supposed naivety.... I suspect that beneath the surface, there is actually a certain level of calculation—or perhaps even a distinct logic at play.

Sandra Wilson68 said:DAVMLA:

Is there anyone out there who doesn't belong to any group?

Hell yeah there is! That’s me. I have zero respect for national, religious, political, or class divisions. They've been the root cause of every major war, terror attack, genocide, and bout of poverty in history. Honestly, they're just pure evil. Because of that, I built my own worldview centered on global unity—basically by stripping away all those labels people cling to. I base all of this on discovering a single, universal law governing matter, life, and nature, which I laid out in my book:

THE LAW OF EXISTENCE.
http://ul.to/50ibd5tn (US)
http://ul.to/ebhuaye7 (eng)

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were actually a proponent of what I consider one of the most dangerous "-isms" of all when you suggested using an ant colony or a beehive as a model for human society—namely, collectivism... It's dangerous because it sacrifices individual liberty at the altar of communal ideals, forcing the person to become subservient to the group's interests.

As for the original question, though, I would argue that it’s both impossible and entirely unnecessary to strip a human being of ideology (even if we give it a fancy name ending in "-ism"). A person needs to either create or follow an idea to guide them—to provide direction—and that guidance is, inherently, a form of politics (even if it's just personal policy)... and once an idea becomes a policy, it effectively becomes an ideology.

steelridge58 said:You hit the nail on the head.

It really does go beyond simple charity

It’s about active, hands-on commitment.
Honestly, I think you did an amazing job breaking down those distinctions right there.
Basically, the world would be a much less hateful place if we simply had more volunteers out there....

But it makes me wonder, do you think that actually showing up and facing things firsthand might play a role in reducing that negativity? Like, could being present somehow touch people's consciences, raise awareness, challenge their existing biases or indifference, and really give them pause...
and eventually, spark a desire to volunteer themselves?

In other words, by creating that direct, lived experience.

In this light, what we call "evil" is really just passivity, indifference, gloom, isolationism, defeatism, hopelessness, and fear—and this kind of healthy, proactive activism is exactly what drives all of that away...

steelridge58 said:You know, Jonathan Brooks8, I’ve come to this realization: everything shifts entirely once you actually face things head-on. Whether it's through some street performance by activists or a community initiative, or even just finding yourself standing there personally—looking a situation right in the eye—that’s when a person finally stops and sees.
All those empty words don't carry much weight because nothing can truly take the place of direct confrontation.
And when you really face something, it has to change you, even if just a little, by stirring your conscience and forcing you to be more aware.
There would be so much less evil in this world if we were all—in a real way—confronted with the impossible yet somehow existing ways, types, and dimensions of human suffering...

I view volunteering through a much wider lens—as a form of activism; a genuine act of rebellion against the rigid frameworks of rules, contracts, and social agreements built upon strictly predefined rights and obligations. In many ways, it stands in opposition to capitalism—whether liberal or state-driven—and even to socialism and communism (which, arguably, took things to an extreme with its "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" doctrine). To me, this goes far beyond simple altruism or humanitarianism. Sure, donating extra cash or giving away surplus goods is certainly altruistic and kind, but true volunteering means committing your time—effectively gifting a portion of your own life, your energy, your youth, and even your capacity for empathy toward a fellow human, a plant, an animal, or a healthy environment...