hiddeneagle98 said:Not quite, though you're definitely heading in the right direction; I'm certain that specific system plays a role in all of this.
At the end of the day, a person needs other people. We need that reflection from someone else, that back-and-forth exchange, just to maintain our very essence and actually feel fulfilled. Deep down, a human being is inherently incomplete, and we use these social interactions and reflections as a way to try and bridge that gap to become whole—even if we never truly succeed in doing so completely. If you take a person and drop them alone on a deserted island, something inside them starts to die off, it atrophies, and they eventually dwindle down into nothing more than some kind of zombie survivor.
Isn't the true essence of a human being found in simply being? ☕
I honestly think everything has its own way of being, so I don't really see how the act of being touches the core of humanity any more than anything else does, right?
I see you applying that whole "herd instinct" logic here...☕.....you're suggesting a little right-wing drift isn't such a bad thing. 👍
I suppose everything becomes, so I don't see how existing touches the core of being human any more than anything else might?
Well, I guess when nothing really touches the core of being human anymore... ...☕
Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?
Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?
Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?
In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of "This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of liberalism then and now." Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality. People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.
I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.
On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...
Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?
P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬
Are you referring to this? 👍 Isn't the whole point of being human to be? ☕
They say dogs tore Heraclitus to pieces, but regardless of that gruesome end, I’m curious to get your take from a broader perspective—you know, civilizational, moral, philosophical, historical... all of it.
Apparently, even for "man's best friend," we have to pay a tax. Is this some kind of tax on companionship? A levy on our love for a living creature that can literally save a human life? We're talking about beings that serve as emotional anchors for the lonely, the abandoned, or the elderly folks who might have nobody else left in the world to lean on.
And then you've got certain animal welfare organizations backing this, likely hoping to pad their own pockets with the revenue. Isn't that just a blatant conflict of interest?
Oh, absolutely. It's a total conflict of interest. 👎 These animal rescue organizations pull in millions in profit on... let's say... a monthly basis. I personally know at least four "volunteers" at the local animal shelter who managed to buy luxury condos in Zurich, Rome, and Hong Kong after just two years of "volunteering." 🤷 And now they want to slap a tax on dog food too? I'd rather shoot him... actually, I'd rather hand a gift to some corrupt landlord than pay an extra tax on his pathetic little scraps. But what's your take on the TV tax? Are you people paying that too?
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?
It is quite clearly both rational and "unnatural."
The kingdom of God is either something you carry within you, or it isn't regardless of any material possessions
For some, material wealth feels like a blessing while for others, it’s a curse
Some people see everything as an illusion and find it all empty yet others possess true fullness—that heavenly kingdom—even when they have nothing in reality
Isn't Jesus' refusal of material riches in the desert the ultimate paradigm for choosing spirit over stuff? I'm worried you've completely misread that part of the Gospel. 👍 Don't mention it, though I do wonder if you ever bother correcting such blatant misinterpretations? 😲
Scott Miller4 said:The idea that rich people are hollow shells while the poor are somehow more enlightened is just a tired, stupid cliché cooked up by some envious, broke chatterbox.
Sandra Morales brought up those wealthy folks who take their own lives because their existence feels empty... but I suspect suicides driven by crushing debt or the sheer misery of poverty are actually way more common.
In my opinion, having money—or lacking it—doesn't say anything about a person's soul, and it certainly isn't a basis for making broad generalizations. I guess the only thing you can really say is that people who build wealth through grit rather than inheritance tend to be more ambitious than those struggling at the bottom. Beyond that, there's not much else to generalize about.
Jesus? 🤔
Lisen mentioned rich people committing suicide because their lives feel hollow... though I suspect suicides driven by debt or the sheer misery of poverty are actually more common.
Are you perhaps holding onto that book "Hedonism-a cure for dysentery"? It’s been six months and nobody has returned it to the library. 👎Please return it. The Librarian.
In my opinion, material wealth—or the lack thereof—is no indicator of spiritual depth, nor should it serve as a basis for any kind of generalization. The only thing we can say for certain is that those who are wealthier (specifically those who earned it themselves rather than through inheritance) tend to be more ambitious than those living in poverty. Beyond that, there is no way to generalize.
Look, you're dead wrong. Material wealth is inversely proportional to spiritual wealth. I have proof. 👍I can show you, provided you wire the agreed-upon donation to my charity's bank account.
Jonathan Brooks8 said:A rare display of insight and an understanding of human psychology!
In America today, the most famous and popular "junkies" in this sense would likely be the American Mountain Rescue Association who describe themselves on their website with such unashamed, almost neurotic detail:"The American Mountain Rescue Association is a national, volunteer-based, professional, humanitarian, and non-partisan organization of public importance. Our core objectives include accident prevention, search and rescue operations, and providing first medical aid in mountainous regions and other inaccessible areas during emergencies—situations where specialized expertise and technical rescue equipment are required to preserve human life, health, and property."
While the mountain rescuers still have the chance to actually enjoy nature and the high altitudes, there are also altruists and humanitarians who are simply incorrigible masochists—this second famous type of addiction is, unfortunately, also linked to pyromania, and they truly are beyond help, and perhaps always were—I am talking about the well-known volunteer fire departments: , a very old and deeply rooted addiction that originally crossed over from abroad.
The third group I’d mention was founded during wartime; we're talking about international, battle-hardened addicts operating under the double-edged symbolic name "Red Cross"—clearly a sign of those communist Christians, which gives them an ideological edge, despite the fact that the founder was a Swiss person, supposedly neutral: "Swiss person Jean-Henry Dunant (May 8, 1828, Geneva – October 30, 1910, Heiden) found himself on June 24, 1859, on the battlefield near Solferino, witnessing the suffering, agony, and death of thousands of soldiers. Following the battle between the Austrian and Franco-Sardinian armies, 40,000 wounded and dead soldiers were left on the field. Existing medical services lacked the personnel and material resources to assist everyone. With the help of local villagers, Dunant organized aid for the wounded in nearby churches and homes, regardless of which side they fought on, repeating the sentiment that all people are brothers (Italian: 'Siamo tutti fratelli')." I implore you—especially children, women, and those with weaker nerves—to stay away from this page:
Oh sure, what an absolute burden that must be for you...
Lisa Jackson7 said:If it feels like someone is trying to buy us off with "gifts"—expecting something morally shady in return (whether right now or down the road)—then we say no, and let the donor be insulted. If we actually have any self-respect and aren't just mindless drones. And look, feeling empathy or standing in solidarity isn't a crime. Maybe one day it'll pay off... from someone... somehow.
It comes down to the fundamental human drive to give and receive. (And no, I'm not talking about anything kinky here). It’s just how we function in this age of information and matter. It's what makes us social creatures. Just as people have a drive to take—which is especially pronounced when it comes to power—altruists simply have a more heightened drive to give, whether through time or resources. If those needs aren't met, a person suffers.😳
Megan Green12 said:Exactly. People are completely hardwired that way. Selfishness and selflessness are just two different lines of code in the same program.
When a person does something kind for someone else, they often feel good about themselves—and frankly, they do it precisely because that feeling is the reward. Take, for instance, why you wouldn't turn down a gift from a donor. You wouldn't want to offend them, and more importantly, you wouldn't want them to feel redundant. Humans have this innate, driving need to be useful, to feel like they matter. So, by accepting that gift, you’re actually doing them a favor by validating their sense of worth. It’s the exact same deal with altruists. They chase that "selfless" high, performing acts of charity just to maintain that internal glow. To put it bluntly, altruists are just addicts chasing a dopamine hit through good deeds. 👍
Betty Ramos said:I’d find it fascinating to observe someone who has never heard a single word or read a single sentence about "That Something"—what would their pursuit of that Higher Truth actually look like? (There are plenty of people out there, I suppose, but if they aren't consuming any information regarding this topic amidst today's constant digital noise, then perhaps their spirit is being pulled toward something entirely different... making them irrelevant to this specific conversation.) And would such a person even exist? Or would they live more like a Native American—the way I imagine them, anyway—simply existing within Nature, living in harmony with it, and learning directly from it? They wouldn't dream of "self-improvement"; they would just... improve. We’ve all spent our lives reading and listening to everything under the sun, filling ourselves up with both garbage and flowers—and you can't just hit an eraser on all that mental clutter, no matter how much useless junk we accumulate along the way. But at the same time, new things do take hold. Newer, more subtle ideas for growth start to settle in...
You might be partially or even entirely correct. I'm not quite certain.
Betty Collins5 said:Anyone looking for God through the New Age is basically looking for bread when they should be looking for cake. My dear philosopher, you've explained your very simple thought process with such expert precision. Asceticism isn't for people who haven't been called to that life; you can dive into it philosophically, sure, but it won't bear any fruit. You enter asceticism alongside God and your soul, and over time, your soul detaches from your intellect so you can fully immerse yourself in the onostran... being in the world, but not of it. I'd recommend watching the documentary "veličanstven tišina" or checking out some of the rare works by the Carthusian brothers.
Mayke, this wasn't intended as a search for God. 😲 Let God fast if He feels like it. Besides, it’s not the 80s anymore. 😲 Are you a time traveler or something? 😲
So, here we go again. How are we supposed to deal with this utter nonsense? How can I even perceive myself as being senseless? It’s only possible through self-awareness. And then what?
Then there’s the matter of faith acting as a projection of desire toward the future. Essentially, faith in what is to come. Whether you call the mediator God, the quantum field, or whatever else suits your worldview, it all boils down to being subservient to the will. I am the manifestation of that will; I act and create as such. I am constantly reinventing myself and influencing my surroundings. That is the essence of existence. When I become conscious of the very fabric of my being, I find true satisfaction in the process—the way we find joy in play when we are children, and in creation once we mature. It's found in labor and in simplicity. It is achieved through a gaze that remains unburdened by worry.
Ryan Wilson2 said:Look, we're on the internet. People don't have to pretend to be polite like they do in real life; they use this space as an outlet.🙂
This isn't some deep question about spirituality; it's pure psychology.
There should be a dedicated thread for this, but if there were, the moderator wouldn't even be able to hold a conversation with some of the most well-known avatars on this board.
I fail to see the necessity of such a violent approach.
Violence is an inherent part of the human condition. It is simply how the will manifests itself. This entire debate is utterly pointless.
We are dealing here with a fundamental blurring of psychological definitions. An emotion is a feeling—and I mean a feeling, don't confuse it with mere sensation—but not every single sensation qualifies as an "emotion." Take a moment to consider when you simply "sense" something; in those instances, you aren't experiencing an emotion, but rather tapping into the intuitive cognitive function of the psyche.