Posts by Jonathan Brooks8

steelridge58 said:🙂

Yeah, I actually left that out yesterday because I thought I might get a chance to circle back later, but if we’re being honest—and at least it feels honest to me—I think honesty is probably the closest thing we have to respect. They feel almost inseparable, maybe even sharing the same roots deep down.

When you look at this through the lens of reading, learning, and actual knowledge, I think it does a great job of explaining that distinction I was trying to make between just following social etiquette—you know, just acting in a way that’s socially acceptable to fit in—and behaving based on deeply held values that stem from fundamental human principles, where what's right or wrong comes from the very core of who a person is, depending on the situation.

That said, I really do believe there are certain inherent predispositions we're born with... and I wonder if all humans enter this world with the same baseline character traits, especially when you consider how much our genetics shape us. To me, honesty seems inextricably linked to sincerity as a personality trait, and to conscience—that inner voice, that quiet realization within ourselves, knowing better than we often do...

My own impression is that honesty is strictly "of this world"—that is to say, it’s a quality triggered by the experience of living rather than something fully formed beforehand. Honesty, as a distinct trait, feels like a crystallization—a hardening or a homogenization—a type of character integration that emerges through a sequence of reactions to life's various experiences. It is, essentially, an activated internal predisposition.

In fact, honesty only distinguishes itself within the theater of life by detecting dishonesty as its opposing force—meaning, honesty doesn't arrive as some sort of naive innocence dropped into a harsh environment of corruption; rather, honesty and dishonesty are born into this world as siblings.

If you view the being prior to birth as a soul, then honesty (as a worldly attribute) serves as a specific "translation" of a much broader soulful sensation—which one might describe as love—just as dishonesty can be seen as the translation of a fundamental fear.

steelridge58 said:But here's my take: acting in a way that's socially acceptable doesn't necessarily mean you're being honest; it just means you're following social norms, which can certainly be a learned skill, but true honesty itself isn't just a skill.

Honesty is something deeper entirely, and it doesn't even need to be validated by social standards to be genuine; at its core, it comes down to the individual—their integrity, their conscience, their empathy, and that deep-seated sense of self and others... it's an intrinsic part of who they are, a fundamental quality.

A person with a truly developed sense of honesty might find themselves sidelined by society and end up bearing all sorts of heavy consequences, whether they're emotional or material, but that doesn't make them a loser. So, there's that... if we're talking about what's "worth it."

I actually went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking into the etymology of the word "honesty," and I found that some linguists suggest the roots point back to terms meaning "to read" or "to learn," implying it's tied to being instructed or educated.

So, circling back to that idea of "socially acceptable behavior," I think it's important to make a distinction: we shouldn't focus on teaching people how to follow social codes, because that's just teaching them how to adapt to a specific social climate or set of rules, but instead, we should be teaching fundamental values and inspiring a desire for knowledge, so that honesty can grow from a solid foundation.

I honestly hadn't considered the etymological side of things before—I never really gave much thought to the root of the word itself—but if we accept that "reading/learning" connection, then honesty becomes inextricably linked to culture, nobility, and intellect. This creates an interesting potential contradiction with the idea that honesty isn't a "skill" or a mere achievement, but perhaps something that exists prior to all formal education.

It seems to me that early parental guidance acts as a sort of extension of one's own biology—almost as much as genetic inheritance—and this upbringing is absolutely formative during those fragile, fleeting moments of childhood. It happens so quickly, almost like a dream, that it’s nearly impossible to tell whether honesty (absorbed from parents during that window) is something truly learned or if it simply flows from the core of the person.

That said—honesty *is* learned, because one must eventually confront the consequences of their own actions and the actions of others; it is only through these consequences that deeds, and subsequently the people behind them, can truly be characterized. When there is a lack of parental support, this learning process can be far more grueling, often carrying heavier consequences... and without a mentor to guide them, one might even walk away with entirely mistaken conclusions.

Don't be so vague—what experience are we actually talking about here? What did I say, exactly? Or is this just your own bias and assumption playing tricks on you?

When did I ever say anything of the sort?

Look, fear and prejudice... you really have to start by accepting that your own assessment might be fundamentally flawed.

You aren't actually seeing me—you're just staring at your own mental projection of who you think I am... which means you're really just looking at yourself; if you actually wanted to see me, you’d have to start by having an actual conversation.

redtinker36 said:.. no .. I don't agree .. that isn't a conversation .. which is why I consider myself a philosopher .. a philosopher's job is to dismantle the conversation ..
.. in America, they call it a "point of view" .. personally, I say .. I'm just standing here observing it .. and I say .. stay right there and tell me what you see ..

Exactly—and my response is, "Where should I stand? Right here, then"—and just like that, the dialogue begins.
A philosopher is someone capable of stepping into any human perspective; those who lack the ability, or simply refuse to try, are already far too numerous...

What you’re saying doesn't actually address my point—it isn't really a conversation if we aren't even talking about the same thing...

redtinker36 said:.. everything is wrong .. people have been misinterpreting this for two thousand years .. start with yourselves .. just be decent people ..
.. a total disaster ..
.. good people actually listen .. while those bastards .. they don't bother .. but idiots like that .. the kind who throw stones when you offer bread .. are exactly what's needed .. that's how they build the world .. and that's precisely why the world turned out to be .. such a miserable mess ..
.. nothing matters but a clear readiness to die .. my friends and fellow Americans .. God is all there is .. the god of all gods ..
(.. that's how the old shamans used to say it .. clear .. precise .. brief .. because there isn't much philosophy to be found here ..)

N'Dug once noted that "it is truly easy to be honest while being a scoundrel, but to be honest—without being a scoundrel—requires significant reflection," and frankly, what you're saying right now is born purely from fear.

The truth is, linking stupidity to honesty stems from the exact same metric: the idea that being honest simply "doesn't pay." In other words, anyone terrified that their own integrity will make them look foolish is, quite unintentionally, infected by the very standards of dishonesty that claim to be "normal" behavior.

Furthermore, redtinker36, you seem to hold this romanticized vision of the world from two millennia ago—but the world didn't suddenly become a "godforsaken mess" back then; it was always this way. Two thousand years ago, the only thing that changed was the emergence of a certain (?) force that has maintained its presence ever since. By labeling that force as the reason for our current state, you're inadvertently siding with your own enemies.
And of course, we have the "readiness for death"—but which kind? The kind that brings life, or the kind that merely spreads death?

slymaker9 said:Hegel once noted: "The fool is the man who is asked for his honest opinion and gives it."

What are your thoughts on honesty in light of this observation?
Is being candid a recipe for disaster—something reserved strictly for children, fools, the mad, or the elderly?
Furthermore, are philosophers truly sincere in their writings, or is diplomacy and self-promotion just as prevalent in their work? In your view, who stands as a paragon of sincerity, and who is merely a diplomat?🙂

If a person is already fully aware of their own foolishness, then being honest isn't a burden at all—in fact, it becomes their greatest strength... In that light, dishonesty is really just a clumsy attempt to hide one's own stupidity from others.

Why shouldn't peace be synonymous with happiness?

Shady.

Using the metaphor of light,
Jesus’s essence is the content—the living, breathing, updated source of light (the foundation),
His being is the body of light, a luminous vessel (the medium),
And His existence serves as the illumination itself—the act of shining (the role).

Willpower is essentially where continuity takes root—it’s a desire, certainly, but one backed by sheer persistence. You could say desire and persistence are two distinct threads, and when you weave them together, you get a single cord; in other words, willpower is simply desire that refuses to quit.

redtinker36 said:.. man, give me a break ..
.. just look at how many cars there are .. every single one requires hundreds of individual parts—things that need to be stamped, welded, and machined .. that's work being done by hundreds of thousands of people ..
.. major factories employ tens of thousands of workers ..
.. and then there’s the machinery .. which isn't going anywhere .. plus plows, tractors, and basically everything else we rely on ..
.. sure .. computers exist too ..
.. this is actually a Marxist perspective .. the core idea is that all labor carries value—even the work of those collecting our trash ..
.. if you don't grasp that, you don't really understand Marx ..
.. but the real question is .. can the world .. actually survive .. if we fail to realize that?

And most of the time we just call them all "Robbie"... but whatever, that's beside the point...
When discussing the value of labor, one really needs to set some boundaries—nuance and guidance are essential here... because not all work contributes equally to society, and some "work" is nothing more than a blatant scam.... There were these women involved, working for the boss and cold-calling people at random.... anyone who actually responded deserved a reward. To receive their prize, they were only asked to cover the shipping and administrative fees. Not a single person ever received anything, and those women knew exactly what they were doing—they knew their business model inside and out. Once the boss got caught, they were left without a paycheck too. Yet, instead of being upset about participating in a fraud, they were mostly furious about losing their income, so they turned on the boss and reported him.... after all, they were "working," weren't they?

Brenda Cook4 said:Oh, man... it’s happening. It’s that ultimate business model I was telling you about... just living off the "interpretation of hidden meanings"... it’s a racket, honestly. Think about it: no entrepreneur in history has ever pulled this off. No capital investment, no skin in the game, no staff, zero accountability—you just sit there and take. And then, they have the nerve to act like they're teaching the king his own lessons, even though they're standing right there on the same level, always eating from a full plate while everyone else struggles.

I get it. I don't think this is about you being uncritical; rather, it’s that sense of humanity—that flash of frustration—when you see examples you recognize or have heard stories about... still, even if you aren't making a career out of it, the words found in the Gospels carry layers of meaning far beyond their literal surface... and the Gospels themselves tell their stories in more ways than one. At the end of the day, we can only discuss Jesus through the lens provided by intermediaries (the Gospels and various, let's say, "qualified" interpreters)—and our understanding is naturally limited by our own capacity to grasp such things.

redtinker36 said:.. a world of the walking dead .. can someone with that mindset actually exploit a person? .. sure .. but you have to consider what a person actually is ..

.. regarding work ..
.. if a system is built to function this way .. then that’s simply how it functions ..
.. people like you try to change that system .. because they believe it isn't good enough ..
.. but .. what you're doing is .. well, it's almost comical ..
.. it's like splitting nutrition into just "food" and "drink" and claiming .. you're managing them .. when in reality, you only live off food, and the other person only lives off drink ..
(.. are you going to keep this up? .. just admit you messed up .. say you don't know what came over you ..)

First off, everything Jesus says demands deep reflection—one must ask if there is a hidden layer of meaning... Jesus raises the dead, like Lazarus for instance, so their state of death poses no obstacle to Him... provided that people themselves don't turn into withered raisins...

Secondly, when I discuss the concept of quasi-labor in today's economy—the very foundation upon which quasi-management and, subsequently, quasi-profits are built—I am not speaking of some vague abstraction I've simply conflated with something else...

Brenda Cook4 said:"Misunderstanding labor"🤷...I don't think anyone is "selling" anything here, for that matter. It feels more like we're just having a conversation...

...but what's the deal with this lathe operator😁? Is he actually working his own machine? Because if he isn't, then is all that grease and grime on him really considered "labor," or what?

😁
Let’s assume for a moment that being a machinist is a dying breed today—honestly, more of a relic from the past—and I see you as this modern, high-tech woman... so why on earth would you suddenly turn your mind toward manual machining in an era where people are so completely disconnected from tangible products—the age of 😁
?

Joshua Hernandez9 said:.. look .. you're out here calling him an anarchist ..
.. he isn't .. his whole vibe just validates this entire system .. and people see right through it .. WiFi is basically the crown jewel of the internet era right now .. because the web uses it to jack up its own value

.. by acting this way, he’s basically saying .. "this system is essential" .. and that it’s messed up to kick someone out when their whole existence relies on it
.. so .. what you think is anarchism .. is actually the exact opposite
.. that thing you call "fighting for free speech" .. is really just fighting to stay inside a cage .. where actual freedom is impossible .. and there's zero logic that would allow it to exist anyway

.. Jesus is the polar opposite

We’re clearly talking past one another—let's just drop it for now, if there's ever a better time to revisit this...

Brenda Cook4 said:Geez, talk about a spin job🤷

No, I’m not trying to sell you anything—nor am I insisting that I'm necessarily right—I am simply pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of how this work actually functions... (and I have to admit, being compared to a machinist as an example of my professional output gave me a good laugh)...