Posts by Walter Foster87

hollowpilot9 said:Some people say that the theory of knowledge from the Indian philosopher Socrates is actually quite similar to Kant's in certain ways—I guess you could see that! It reminds me most of Plato, though, because they both act like spiritual realists who try to synthesize all those big ambitions from the past. They both seem to make this distinction between two different levels of knowledge—the higher and the lower... it’s pretty interesting!

I think we really ought to separate those two ideas. Honestly, I feel like the whole thing goes way deeper than that—since a higher form of perception can actually be found within those relationships of idealism (you know, that realm of ideas) which is just so incredibly beautiful, even if it does end up totally captivating and trapping you!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole thing is only sensitive because, honestly, it’s mostly just an illusion that collectivists are actually in charge. It’s kind of like how—if you look at history—after any big crusade or campaign, people always end up stalling out and losing exactly what they started with in the first place. Instead of those losers taking center stage, I think we’re seeing a shift toward a totally NEW level of quality—one that I’d argue is the ultimate peak. We're talking about the intersection of individual identity and the collective, which, if you ask me, is basically this holographic, post-singularity philosophical consciousness.

Sure, you could look at it that way—and maybe you're right—but when it comes to how the Government actually operates, the issue looks more like this:
Can the truly righteous—those who actually have some moral backbone—actually build a government that takes all their hard work and sacrifice and turns it into a better life and a more functional society? Or am I just being overly optimistic? Maybe they simply don't have those skills—it's possible—and they're destined to spend their entire lives dragging along all those parasites and opportunists, dealing with everything from "planned" conflicts to random chaos, and both the legal and illegal looting that seems to happen everywhere...
So, how are things looking lately in this messy, cluttered society we’ve built? Honestly, I don't think even a purely rational person could be happy with the current state of affairs—and that's saying something! When you look at the relationship between Good and evil (which is something Reason should be able to navigate quite easily), the issue of intellectual beings being suppressed becomes even more obvious. It feels like it's even harder to see clearly when you factor in those mysterious nuances of the Mind—you know, things like mediation, the sheer inevitability of friction, and the inevitable risk of power being misused during that whole process. It's all just a bit complicated, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole idea of Liberty and Equality just doesn't seem to hold much water anymore—mostly because everything is happening within this massive environment of Absolute Liberty and Equality. I mean, I’m not exactly sure where you'd even find true Liberty and Equality these days! Is it tucked away inside an ice cube? Or maybe it's in that equivalent state where matter turns into plasma, where Liberty and Equality become absolute? I guess you could say electrons, protons, and neutrons are totally free there! But hey, let's not forget that neutrons are actually FREE even before they hit the plasma stage!! It’s kind of like people, too—neutral people are essentially the same way! In my opinion, the only ones who aren't truly free are the polarized folks who are totally dependent on others.

I don't quite "get" it—this whole transition from the realm of intellectual beings over to the world of nature. I mean, they really are two completely different worlds, aren't they? They operate under totally different versions of liberty and equality—I guess you could say they just don't speak the same language!
An intellectual being—well, besides just having that pure freedom of thought—really has this deep-seated drive and need for freedom through action, simply because they exist! I guess it’s just part of being alive. Especially since, if you think about it, our highest purpose is basically to evolve toward reaching our full mental potential. An intellectual being can't really be dependent, either—it’s just not in their nature. They really only have two paths: they’re either suppressed and subjugated, or they are free.
At long last, we have reached true equality and freedom for the thinking mind—it’s basically the very essence of righteousness that drives us to create laws, build civilizations, and give a state its actual purpose... and, well, I suppose it also leads us right to that fickle little lady we call Justice!
I mean, what’s the point—for instance—if people don't actually feel that sense of justice or how much it can be violated? We really have to credit that whole surge of enthusiasm we saw back in the early '90s for that, I guess. It seems like this pattern repeats itself in pretty much every major conflict, too. The only real issue is that the masses rarely see things clearly—so they end up thinking injustice is actually fair, or maybe politicians are just getting really good at dressing up ugly truths to look decent.

hollowpilot9 said:Plus, we have this whole dynamic where millions of minds interact with just one single mind—like comparing a Platonic view to a Hegelian one—where those individual minds always seem to sit way ABOVE millions of others. I guess that’s where the real terror lies in this whole "capable vs. incapable" philosophical principle; it’s basically just puffed-up authorities who are only actually needed by the incapable. It feels like there's actual UNFREEDOM and INEQUALITY hidden right there, which we only fight against in a formal sense, but not really in reality, right? So, in my opinion, the big SCAM of modern times is this idea that MAN JUDGES MAN, instead of focusing on FACTS or TRUTH.

And it doesn't stop there! Just listen to how they teach kids about Plato, or how philosophers actually perceive him. If you ask anyone about Plato's Republic, everyone starts blathering on about some "state of necessity"—but I haven't heard a soul cite the BEST MEANS—which Plato lays out right on the opening pages of the Republic—as the tool for managing such an understood and organized state. Now, if that means trading in marketplaces (you know, exchange), then it’s pretty obvious why I wouldn't want to present the idea of perfected commodity goods to all the Plato enthusiasts out there. But—things don't work that way.
Or, you know, all that noise about gold, silver, and bronze layers, and the "community" of goods... It’s honestly incredible how boldly and persistently they push that onto young people as being Plato's Republic, when he was really just TALKING ABOUT ORGANIZING ADMINISTRATION AND POWER WITHIN A STATE. ....

hollowpilot9 said:Philosophy has drifted miles away from facts and truths, much like how Freedom has drifted away from man due to the cages and barriers that a (blessed foolishness) human being invents and builds for himself. Establishing a CRITERION OF TRUTH isn't easy or simple, yet we toss "truths" around like arrogant people throwing cash. ...

That criterion, though—is method. And, in a CHANGING and imperfect world, the method we use to protect ourselves from delusions must have a Perfect Being as its highest criterion. Only then do you see how truths (no matter how lasting they seem)—are relative and replaceable by completely opposite truths, or maybe both are valid, or perhaps there's some kind of interconnection (unity) involved. Another big thing regarding method is purpose. Whether the purpose is rooted in nature, or just a mere reflection of our own nature onto the physical world (basically, the way humans can perceive that world)—that principle will separate the active world from the final world (purposes). It will distinguish our active purpose as a means to a final one, and it'll also teach us how MEANS MUST BE TWO. Because, wherever there is only ONE means—it actually becomes an ABSOLUTE. No matter how much we might fantasize, desire, or try to find comfort in something Sublime.

hollowpilot9 said:... The contribution of the "old" ones is undeniably HUGE, but their input isn't current; it needs to be updated, and you can't do that just by quoting the THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS. Thinking for yourself today is almost impossible in a society of seven billion heads (the crowd and the competition are just too massive and chaotic), so I'm putting my hope in a global brain—a superbrain that is, by design and content, NEUTRAL. It's made of us, created by people, but it isn't "human." BEAUTIFUL!!!

There's a lovely Schopenhauer critique here: "We forget that the Greeks and Romans were born in Freedom, while we (including him, Hegel, and the Marxist) are only just emerging from the darkness of the Middle Ages."
The kind of freedom she’s talking about—I guess she probably gave those philosophers way more breathing room, which likely allowed them to dream up all sorts of grand visions for the future.
But here’s the thing—they ended up creating an absolute mountain of wealth, maybe even too much. So now, we’re basically stuck with two pretty silly options: either ignore everything they did and just repeat their (or even the earlier) mistakes, or just drown in all that material stuff until the day we die.

hollowpilot9 said:Totally! Honestly, I felt so happy when I realized that the Old Guard knew the exact same things today's Youth know—it’s just that the tools they use are worlds apart! Today's kids use super-powered electron microscopes, whereas the Old Guard had to rely on... well, raw, pre-intellectual experience. Sheep might be "charming," I guess, but one massive ram totally floored me with his sheer size and horns. Being naive and inexperienced, I actually started showering him with praise, and he just—BAM—slammed his front hooves into the ground! I thought it was some kind of nod of approval, so I kept going. Then he did it again, harder—BAM! It happened a third time with an even bigger BAM, and by the fourth time, he was actually charging at me! I barely managed to save my skin by running away. It was only later that I realized my little pep talks were actually perceived as a THREAT! He probably "thought" I was just some other RAM trying to steal HIS sheep. The point is, the sheep themselves don't really care about any of this!! It's only the horned rams that matter, and that—well, that is the philosophical error right there!

So, we’re basically circling back to the Plato problem—how do you actually get philosophers to reveal what they’ve discovered? That’s why he proposed that little state of his, run by philosophers. If that worked, maybe they wouldn't have to constantly worry about being eaten by sheep or charged by rams, while simultaneously getting a chance to actually apply what they know.

hollowpilot9 said:... Yeah, exactly! But I've made sure to build a huge buffer against collectivism by emphasizing the qualitative difference between an individual and a group. In a pile of bricks, a brick is just a brick! In a group of disconnected, non-interactive people, an individual remains just an individual. But in a group of connected, interactive people, the individual keeps their essence while gaining the property of the group—basically adding a whole extra dimension! We really need to grasp this, because it’s the NEW thing—the way a Human gains a dimension beyond the standard, straight-line dimension we're all used to. I think we should talk more about this dimension. Because without lifting a Human to that higher level, the traditional homo sapiens and homo politicus just don't make sense anymore!

True, though it's a sensitive subject. It isn't a coincidence that those who always manage to seize power through that "higher dimension" are the collectivists—even when they start from ideals that seem so uniquely individualistic, like Liberty and Equality.

hollowpilot9 said:... I am firmly convinced that the cabinet is NOT the place for philosophical input or actual philosophizing! Sure, I'll invite the "Leviathan," Hobbes, and plenty of others, but what about Ivo, Mark, Daniel, Anthony, Mary... and so on? Do we really have better ideas than everyone else, or are we just doomed to forever "run" after Hobbes and all those other Harrys due to some kind of mental provincialism?

That's a pretty clever way to frame the whole Hobbes situation. Actually, the foundation was already laid—it was already found. But during one of our many debates, someone threw out a critique along the lines of: "That all sounds great, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back it up with the thoughts of great minds... like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel...!" And just like that, I'm lost in that "Striborov" forest. It's true—when you filter everything down, there isn't much there, but when you look at it all together, the contribution is huge. I'm talking about the material itself. However, as far as the other stuff goes... there's really nothing serious to be found.
I mean, I’m really not trying to sell anyone short—not Ivo, not Mark, and definitely not Daniel...
And honestly, let's not even get started on those folks who just blindly follow after Hobbes and the rest of them.
Here’s how I see it: plenty of people read the exact same books and study the same philosophers. But—well, most people don't actually grasp anything in those texts, even if they can recite quotes from memory. Then you have the other group—they only pick out the bits that happen to fit their own pre-existing philosophies (or biases, I guess). So, in the end, neither group is actually reaching the POINT.

P.S. I don't really notice emoticons anyway.

geza said:If you want to dig, then go ahead and grab a shovel! Even the old miners used to dig through mountains of waste just to strike a few nuggets of gold here and there. Personally, I think we really need to dive deep into the history of philosophy—or just general intellect, really—but then, more importantly, we have to get up to speed with what modern biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, and psychology are telling us today. Once you realize that some of these cutting-edge discoveries are actually incredibly similar to ancient insights... well, that’s when the real "vault" of philosophy finally swings open! Of course, that kind of work requires true original thought, not just copying someone else or acting as an apologist for old ideas. So, I am totally on board with the sentiment—if Pythagoras could pull it off, why on earth can't we do it today? Honestly, from the very first day I joined this Reddit community, I’ve been pushing for exactly this: let's kickstart some real research and take a hard look at all those theories that people still cling to like they're gospel. But man, the resistance is just so massive. It's always much easier to just "cluck along" with whatever someone famous said a hundred years ago than to actually think for yourself.

I mean—once an idea finally finds its footing within the wisdom of the Elders—that’s when it truly gains some weight, right? It’s different once it moves past the surface level. Otherwise, you just have all these "sheep" tossing around cynical little slogans like "Columbia Bra!" without actually thinking about anything.
I mean, honestly—that gap right there? Between all that old-school wisdom and the way people actually act? It’s such a fascinating phenomenon! It’s almost like most people aren't actually clueless about the basics—they just pretend to be—but they're totally unwilling to actually put that knowledge into practice. It really is quite a wonder to observe, I guess!

geza said:Honestly, having access to such a massive flood of information can feel like a total nightmare sometimes! It’s overwhelming—like, take the discovery of the structure and logo of the DNA molecule; that was practically child's play compared to what happened next. But then, people just started overcomplicating things so much that they lost sight of what they were actually saying in the first place. I really feel like a philosopher shouldn't be getting bogged down in all those tiny, granular details—you know, those little "truths"—instead, they should be focusing on the ultimate Truth that actually gives those small details their meaning. It feels like there are so few people left who are actually capable of making big-picture syntheses—and then, you know, weaving those syntheses together into one grand Synthesis of Truth. Maybe the perfect setup would be an online community—something like Reddit—with the occasional in-person meetup to keep things grounded? I guess if the right crew could find each other... honestly, I think there are at least ten groups out there today that could pull it off!
Maybe we should just launch our own website—or perhaps even our own private subreddit—instead of relying on this platform? I mean, it feels like it's something a younger person who actually knows their way around tech should handle—someone with those modern skills—and then the rest of us could step up to support them... you know, maybe even help out with the funding if that's what it takes!

Maybe we'll see the Youth Party pop up around here—and I guess The Illegals might be trying to make a move too...

geza said:..
I totally agree with that comment—but I’d always add that the relationship between an individual and the collective isn't exactly a linear thing, you know? It feels more like a qualitative shift to me! Basically, once a group of individuals reaches a certain level, they form a qualitatively higher entity than any single person within that group could ever be on their own. To put it simply—think about the relationship between a single cell and the human body. A cell is just one tiny unit, but the human being is that whole higher-level existence formed by all those cells working together... it's a bit more complex than just adding numbers up, I guess!

Look, there’s one incredibly vital point right here—maybe even more important than that whole idea of the "Origin of its own image." As much as we like to think of society as being more than just a collection of individuals—which, I guess, it is—it still isn't actually capable of producing any kind of artificial subject that could ever be considered more significant or valuable than the very last human being left in that community.
It’s all about that individualistic approach! Honestly, we've seen so many versions of collectivism before—ranging from the truly twisted stuff like old-school socialist communism to those quasi-liberal democratic styles. It's a wild spectrum, I guess!
I mean, let’s be real—this whole tug-of-war between individualism and collectivism isn't just some random occurrence in our history! It feels like there's a definite continuity here—though, if I remember correctly, I don't think any society we know of has ever truly seen individualism take the lead over collectivism—even just as a small part of the mix. It’s almost certainly not a coincidence that this tension exists, and honestly? It feels like an obvious legacy we're leaving behind for the future.
Look, I’m definitely not going to argue with you about how important upgrades are—I totally get that—but I will never, ever accept collectivism as part of that package.

geza said:..
Anyway, it would be super interesting to dive into what "the state" actually means from ancient times up to right now. As for those Eastern perspectives, I just know that some Japanese thinkers suggest their nation might basically function like a single biological organism by around 2020. So, is the state currently in a phase of merging into a higher form of community, or is it just caught up in this whole globalization thing?
The concept of Law is also such a fascinating topic, since humans are essentially shaped and brought into being through Law—the real question is, which Law, and what kind? ...

So, I guess the "Leviathan" serves as an ideological touchstone—a point of connection, at least. Hobbes actually put forward some pretty solid ideas, so I imagine Japanese philosophers might have something similar. If you happen to find a link to that—let me know! (whenever you can).
Oh, and regarding that Law—it’s sort of tied to a foundation, a prime cause, God, or the Absolute... so it feels quite individualized, too.
To put it in plain English for me: it’s all about the very essence of our nature, which allows us to participate simultaneously in both the physical (animalistic) and spiritual (legal) realms.

geza said:That’s really the heart of the matter when you're diving into a debate about philosophical legacy. For me—and I guess this might be a bit unconventional—I tend to treat those "old school" philosophers more like required reading for a history class. It's a great way to see how our predecessors thought and what their specific preoccupations were, but I haven't really given them much weight in terms of practical application lately. I mean, honestly, it's mostly because they just didn't quite hit the mark on those big, fundamental philosophical questions we're still grappling with today!

So, here’s the big question—why were they all dancing around the issue like a bunch of kids playing tag near a hot stove!? I mean, was it some kind of deep-seated wisdom—you know, that cautious instinct to play it safe and avoid making a massive blunder—or maybe Truth itself is just so blindingly brilliant that it would have completely fried the brain of an average person? Or... who knows! Maybe they were just terrified of how the folks in power might react? There could be so many reasons, honestly!

geza said:I remember jotting down something like this once—I guess my take was that while traditional philosophies definitely hold some gems, they’re also packed with a whole lot of junk. Honestly, trying to sift through that entire philosophical legacy just to hunt for a single "nugget" of wisdom feels like such an inefficient way to work!

That’s an A+ for the effort—really! But I still can't help but feel those piles of trash need to be buried or cleared out ASAP—otherwise, we’re just going to end up playing catch-up later when we should have been moving forward. To me, the bigger headache is figuring out how to force this clueless administration—if that's what it takes—to actually invest in decent libraries for the younger generations. I mean, think about it: how was someone like Hegel able to dive into Pythagorean philosophy back then? And where did he even find the space to do all that reading? If he could manage it, why on earth don't we have that kind of access TODAY? We live in an era where a single daily newspaper probably contains more information than all the philosophical texts from that whole period combined—not to mention the internet making global information exchange basically instant—and yet, it feels like we're falling behind. It's just frustrating, I guess!
Is this all just happening so some out-of-touch bureaucrats and academic snobs can cling to their cushy, high-paying gigs? Or—and maybe I'm overthinking this—is it actually about keeping certain secrets tucked away from the public eye? I guess there are a few ways to look at it!

Geza said:...
With all the incredible tools and deep knowledge bases we have at our fingertips today, I honestly think it’s much smarter to tackle those age-old philosophical questions—and the new ones too—from this vantage point. We could always just rewrite the old inquiries to see how, say, a Socratic or Platonic response would look—or better yet, what yours, mine, or our own perspectives might be in this modern era. To me, just repeating the same old arguments or constantly making excuses for them feels like a total waste of time—it’s pure nonsense! It’s exactly like Unamuno said: it's nothing but FOG!

So, this is where things get practical! Honestly, there’s just so much material out there that if you tried to cram it all into one place, you’d end up stuck in a total Sisyphus loop—just endlessly circling the same ideas. I guess that’s what people mean when they talk about the endless grind of philosophy of being research. Because of that, I really think we need to make actual moves forward whenever someone manages to digest a new concept—or, you know, when they hit those "digestive issues" after trying to swallow too much information at once!
And that’s definitely the surest path toward making progress! I guess the only things we're still missing now are the right location and a solid team to pull it off... maybe!

geza said:I was just flipping through some old manuscripts from this gentleman I know, and I stumbled upon this one Hegel quote that really stuck with me—it’s such a great way to look at things! He basically said: "Philosophy is research. It isn't just some product of individual creativity, but rather the result of generations of thinkers working together through their own individual research." I guess it's a nice reminder that we're all just standing on the shoulders of giants, right?

Exactly! You don't even need to invent her—it’s just there. I mean, it's part of our basic human drive to explore, isn't it? Even if we're doing it purely to push the boundaries of mental progress and realize what we're actually capable of. That’s why those big labels like "generations of thinkers" tend to mask the actual individuals behind them—the people who really make everything work. At the end of the day, it's only when we stand as individuals that we can truly be ourselves... you know, be human.

Walter Foster87 said:... I totally agree—it’s actually pretty sad! It feels like our Westernized culture, and by extension our entire approach to philosophy, has kind of boxed in our minds so much that we just dismiss any Eastern culture or philosophy as mere mysticism...

That might be true, but hey—"Here is Rhodes, jump here!" This is the perfect opening for anyone actually interested in Eastern thought.
What even is a state, anyway? Why do people feel forced to live by laws, even when those laws are just old customs? And what about politics? Why do leaders go through such massive amounts of effort—and make all these (sort of subservient) sacrifices—just to stay in power? I mean, if ALL OF HISTORY (in every single society and nation, without exception) teaches us anything, it's how futile those efforts really are and, honestly, how inhumane they can be.

Walter Foster87 said:...
The core difference between Eastern and Western philosophy is that Eastern thought is built on an organic foundation, whereas Western thought is non-organic. That distinction actually gives Eastern philosophy a bit of an edge, since it seems like humanity is heading toward its own "organic era." We're moving past the purely physical era—at least, that's my take on things.

I don't quite catch the main point there, unless maybe the "Leviathan" is actually that Eastern streak hiding inside Western philosophy.

geza said:.... So, if we’re looking at this chronologically, Eastern philosophy actually predates Western—or rather, ancient philosophy from places like Greece—and it seems way more aligned with modern science than the Western tradition does. ...

The real issue here is that we're using the exact same word to describe two totally different things.
Most people today treat philosophy as a "love of wisdom"—basically the study of being wise.
Personally, though—and I guess this is just my take—I see philosophy more as a love of truth.

This whole conflict gets somewhat "smoothed over" because people try to bundle them together—treating one as a tool for the other. So, for the "wisdom seekers," truth is just raw material used to build wisdom. But for the "truth seekers," wisdom is always the means to an end—whether that's a way to protect oneself from logical fallacies, a method for passing knowledge along (sometimes even "sneaking" insights past stubborn or hostile authorities and the masses!), or just a practical way to apply what they know to the real world.

I really think this clash hides a certain bias toward one specific type of philosophy or the other.

At the end of the day, though—any insight into WHAT REALLY IS—is incredibly valuable for humanity. In that sense, the differences (even when it comes to actual achievements) don't really matter.

When it comes to methodology, though—there's a bit of a snag—because honestly, none of the famous methods seem to fully hit the mark.
Even the ways we pass knowledge down feel almost like a matter of individual cleverness or how well someone can spin a story. And, well, we have to face the fact that even some of the greatest philosophers failed to get their core messages across. So, either they didn't actually have a clear message (which seems pretty unlikely when you look at their work and what they were hinting at), or their teaching methods just flopped.

Ultimately—methods for applying knowledge are super prone to "wisdom deviations," you know, like deception and lies. That's probably why there's so much intense hatred directed toward certain philosophies or thinkers.

But, let me get back to the main point. Each of us is living proof that philosophy would exist even without the Ancients. The real question is how much their ideas actually shaped our culture versus how much influence came from other traditions that might be tens of thousands of years older.

To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about Eastern philosophies. But—if they really are that valuable—it feels weird (and honestly such a shame) that these ideas aren't more popular, especially in huge areas like metaphysics, methodology, or even politics and economics.

I mean, take ancient Indian civilizations, for example—their local municipalities were so famous for being self-sufficient and resilient, even through all those collapsing dynasties and changing rulers. It makes you wonder: are we looking at Marxist lies here, or the truth? Because if it *is* the truth—isn't it basically impossible for a community to live in peace for that long WITHOUT GOOD LAWS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE? If those laws and systems were actually working, they must have been modeled after something. And that model had to be passed down, maybe through writing or oral tradition—perhaps even as a set of commands. But you couldn't have any of that without solid philosophical understanding and education.
.......