20 posts shown.
mellowheron14 said:In the real world—the actual, raw reality—it always comes down to one question: does aristocracy win, or does ochlocracy take over? There are really only two types of power out there. Aristocracy and... Ochlocracy. Mob rule. Pure chaos.Rule by the best versus rule by the worst. That’s it. N. Berdyaev.
✦
Hey everyone.
I'm genuinely curious—has anyone on this forum actually taken a deep dive into the work of this Russian thinker I’m so fond of? He was truly one of a kind.
I first ran into Berdyaev through that massive American intellectual heavyweight, Ralph Waldo Emerson. I can't recommend Emerson’s final essay collection enough—it's pure Warmth of the soul.
So, anyway,
Nikolai Berdyaev (March 18, 1874 – March 24, 1948). Russian philosopher. Christian existentialist. Personalist. That’s him.
He studied at both Saint Petersburg and Princeton. Both the Tsarist regime and the Soviet authorities went after him. He was teaching at Harvard University in 1920, but by 1922, he was already being exiled from Russia. After spending a few years in Berlin, he spent the rest of his life living and working in France.
Berdyaev spends a huge chunk of his work obsessing over the individual, freedom, and objectification. For him, the core of the Christian religious experience boils down to three things: the person, freedom, and love. He views the Fall not just as a mistake, but as a massive spiritual and cosmic event—something primal and permanent. Freedom? It’s irrational and foundational. It's the raw source of everything humans create, full of both abundance and tragedy. Historically, Christianity positioned God against man, but modern thought tries to flip that, placing man toward God. Ultimately, he sees the future of Christianity in a divine-human unity within the Spirit.
Nikolai Berdyaev was a heavy hitter. A true heavyweight of existential thought. He wasn't just some academic sitting in an ivory tower; he lived his ideas. He focused on the tension between freedom and necessity, diving deep into what people call inequality philosophy. It’s dense stuff, but essential. He spent a lot of time navigating the chaos of the early 20th century. Think about the fallout from the October Revolution—that kind of upheaval changes a person. He saw how the spirit struggles against the crushing weight of materialist systems. He had this unique way of looking at the individual's role in the divine plan, often drawing parallels to the struggle for spiritual liberty seen during the French Revolution. His work isn't easy reading. It’s raw. He looked at the human condition through a lens that combined intense spirituality with a gritty understanding of social reality. He believed that true freedom isn't just political; it's much deeper than that. It's about the soul. Much like how Ralph Waldo Emerson explored the divinity within the individual, Berdyaev sought that connection to God. He moved around quite a bit, too. From the intellectual circles of Saint Petersburg to eventually finding footing in the US, his perspective was shaped by displacement and the search for a home for the spirit. Even when studying in places like Princeton, he remained tethered to those big, existential questions. He remains a vital voice if you want to understand the intersection of faith, freedom, and the terrifying responsibility of being human.
❋ ❋ ❋
Currently reading...Inequality philosophy — letters to enemies on social philosophy.It’s from 1918—right in the thick of the aftermath of the October Revolution. Honestly? I’m blown away by how bold and unapologetically blunt this work is, both back then and even now. It’s politically incorrect, plain and simple. They say he was actually surprised by just how biting the tone turned out, even though he never wavered from his core ideas.
I’m reading this and honestly, I’m tearing up. Berdyaev’s ideas are just too relevant right now. We desperately need to get his thoughts out there, into the mainstream, right here and right now. We're living in an era where these self-proclaimed "liberators" are running wild again. They hide behind masks of humanity and "care for the collective," but they're actually threatening to butcher whatever shred of reality we have left until it's unrecognizable.
I did these translations myself. It was amateur work, really—just me, some online tools, a dictionary, and whatever basic Russian I could scrape together. None of the English, Spanish, or German versions of this work were available to me. So, if you spot any inaccuracies, please bear with me.
❋
Every living system is hierarchical. Every single one. It’s got its own aristocracy. A pile of trash? That’s not hierarchical. No aristocratic qualities to speak of there. But here’s the thing: when you tear down a true hierarchy and destroy real aristocracy, you get fake hierarchies. You get a fake aristocracy. You end up with a bunch of scammers and thugs from the gutter masquerading as a new pseudo-aristocracy, pretending they represent some kind of social order. It’s a law of nature for anything with a pulse. Anything with vital functions. Only a heap of loose sand exists without hierarchy. Without aristocracy.
❋
Everyone preaching democratic metaphysics is just fighting a losing battle against the inherent hierarchy of power. Let’s be real: power is hierarchical by definition. If you try to tear down every single hierarchy, you aren't "freeing" anything—you're just inviting total chaos. Even in the most established democracies, that hierarchical principle is still there, holding things together. You can't have a stable democracy if you scrap all hierarchy. A "pure" democracy like that is just anarchy. Sure, maybe it works as a brief transition phase, but eventually, authority reasserts itself through differentiation and inequality. New hierarchies always rise up, even if they look different. Look at what happened after the French Revolution and all the uprisings that followed; America and the rest of the West remained hierarchical. We basically try to mash the hierarchical principle together with democratic ideals. It’s a constant struggle, which results in these disorganized, dysfunctional states we see today. But civilized nations won't let themselves dissolve into anarchic chaos. They cling to that renewing hierarchical principle because they have to. Every state is built on inequality, on social differentiation, and on the fundamental divisions within the masses. The history of the Soviet Union is a perfect example of this truth.
❋
Releasing chaotic elements isn't liberating humanity. Chaos isn't something you liberate; it's what enslaves you. First off, chaos keeps people imprisoned. A dark abyss drags the individual down, stopping them from rising up and reaching their full potential. True liberation—liberating the human person—means escaping the captivity of chaos, not letting chaos loose within people . That’s why any serious thinker knows true freedom requires rigor, self-discipline, and control.
Letting raw passions run wild just turns people into slaves. When someone is at the mercy of their own chaos, they aren't free; their personality is scattered by passion and weakened by vice. You "liberators"—the ones trying to strip away every restraint—really need to think harder about what a person actually is.
Why is there no actual personality in your revolutions? Why is the individual sacrificed to elemental storms, and why is the person drowned in the very elements you praise? You haven't even managed to properly frame the relationship between the individual and society, let alone solve it . You've lost touch with reality because your concept of personality isn't real, and neither is your society. To you, everything is already dissolved. Your "revolutionary" worldview (worldview) is nothing more than extreme atomism masked as social philosophy. Your collectivism is just the flip side of that same coin. You've abandoned true reality and want to replace it with a fake, ghostly substitute.
❋
You hoped to free humanity by ignoring evil. Based on a supposed purity of human nature—one you claim is corrupted by religion, state violence, and inequality—you built your theories of progress. You see plenty of evil in history, but you only see the surface-level social evils. You miss the radical, metaphysical evil at the core. Yet, you predict a perfect future. Your social philosophy is optimistic. Humanism is always optimistic. But is that optimism actually justified when you look into the depths of life? I don't think so. Social optimism is always shallow. Your humanist optimism needs to be countered by a deeper, harsher, and healthier pessimism. This constant social dreaming shows a lack of the asceticism required for actual liberation. It shows a lack of spiritual discipline. Pinky-promise theories of progress and utopias have too often led to cruelty and the degradation of the human spirit. Humanism had its moment in history, but its final iterations, as abstract principles, end up destroying the person. They are suicidal.
❋
The drive for equality will always be the greatest threat to human liberty. The will for equality eventually rebels against both human rights and God's rights. Both the liberal positivists and the socialist positivists completely miss the tragedy here. Freedom and equality are incompatible. Freedom is, above all, the right to inequality...
✦
I hope this presentation pushes some of you to think more deeply about these supposedly "settled" social and spiritual issues. I hope it gives you an appetite for reading this neglected giant of Russian thought. I'm looking forward to a lively debate. I want to focus specifically on the core theme: inequality philosophy as a necessary principle—a sober antidote to the threat of totalitarian oligarchy.
Once the applause dies down, the floor is yours! 😁
Thanks for listening. Wishing you all a happy and blessed New Year.
Thanks for your attention. Happy New Year.
👋
Has there ever actually been an aristocracy that wasn't a facade? What defines a "true" aristocracy? Which specific traits are required, who gets to decide those criteria, and by what standard are they selected?
How does one maintain any semblance of optimism when life feels like being dropped into a horror movie without a script? We are thrown into this chaos without guidance or instructions, forced to endure the friction of our own existence and the presence of others, all while being subject to the cold, indifferent laws of nature. In the end, we all face the same inevitable conclusion: death, leaving behind no answers and vanishing as if we had never been here at all. What is there left to hope for? There are no happy endings written in the stars...
James Miller2 said:I believe everything starts with the family and upbringing. That is where the emphasis should be placed.
Social services need to do their jobs in the field rather than just on paper.
A psychologist can point out a problem, but it is difficult to fix someone who lacks fundamental life values.
A psychologist is not a magician, but through cooperation with the rest of the government apparatus, much can be achieved.
Healthy family and social relationships are the cure for depression and anxiety.
Work should be done there.
The influence of the family is being overestimated here. A person isn't destined to be a lifelong prisoner to their parents' opinions and values as if they were infallible icons. In reality, they are just ordinary, flawed individuals whose moral compasses are often nothing more than a collection of arbitrary norms derived from outdated ideologies or the simple fear of what the neighbors might think. As people mature, they scrutinize the values they were raised with, subjecting them to critical thinking and mental deconstruction. They rebel, they push back, and they forge their own paths to develop true individuality.
Psychology itself offers very little to the human condition. People are fundamentally concerned with who they are, their origins, their ultimate destination, the purpose of existence, whether there is an afterlife, and whether humans differ from animals in kind rather than just degree. They grapple with questions of free will, divinity, eternal life, and moral responsibility. Since psychology lacks the answers to these existential inquiries, it is somewhat presumptuous to suggest it can truly understand the root causes of human "evil."
placidwolf27 said:Lately, I’ve been finding myself spiraling into these long stretches of pure, unadulterated frustration—it’s enough to make me physically ill, an internal nausea that seems to bleed out into everything I touch. Every single sensation, every passing thought, every minor stimulus triggers these aggressive waves of negativity... it’s almost like despair forces its way into my mind through these irrational, looping thoughts. The end result is this crushing resentment toward life itself, which inevitably turns into self-loathing, and eventually, a bitter resentment toward my own mother just for bringing me into this mess in the first place...
When I actually manage to push all that noise aside—when I can finally exert some control over those irrational impulses—all that's left is this raw, naked sense of existing. It’s just the sheer, visceral sensation of a living organism simply *being*... and it is revolting. Truly, deeply, utterly revolting.
The only thing I can really do is endure it. I can attempt to numb the feeling with various substances—just to kill the sensation for a while, or perhaps to induce a momentary lapse in memory—but in the long run, the feeling remains stubbornly, relentlessly there.
I’m on antidepressants and things of that nature... they offer a marginal amount of relief, sure, everything is fine in that regard, but what am I supposed to do? How do I actually escape this sensation?
I feel the exact same way.
But I don't use medication.
Because pills don't provide any sense of meaning.
Once you become truly aware of how repulsive everything is, it’s over. Though, technically, that is the true beginning. That is when you finally wake up. But life is only possible while you are asleep. Once you are awake, everything is revolting. Everyone knows this. That’s why people distract themselves and numb their senses with various methods. The ultimate goal of life, for most, is to cease existing. If you can't figure that out yourself, psychiatrists will hand you a prescription. That's the extent of it.
placidwolf27 said:Have you actually read it...?
I suspect the situation is... significantly more convoluted than that...
It isn’t that many people actively seek this out—it’s more fundamental than that. It is an instinctual, almost primal drive... much like how an animal operates. A person simply acts, driven by the immediate demands of their environment or whatever situation they find themselves navigating at that moment. It happens within the context of the group one belongs to, functioning through a sort of unspoken cooperation with "their own"—whoever those people may happen to be...
It seems that over the last several tens of thousands of generations, human interaction has essentially boiled down to a somewhat spontaneous cooperation—a necessary coordination to handle the bare essentials of reproduction—augmented by a chaotic cocktail of secondary motivations. We are constantly navigating these endless social exchanges that shape our very cognition: how we think, what we desire, how we assign value, and where we draw the lines regarding responsibility, solidarity, respect, or even the sheer terror of consequences. It’s all driven by whatever drives us—ambition, the mitigation of immediate risks, the pursuit of dopamine through stimulation or recreation, and all the other psychological nonsense that makes us who we are...
Actually, if you look closer, we possess entirely functional internal mechanisms that allow us to adapt through a sort of coordinated "imitation" when certain situations arise—it’s almost reflexive. When something unfolds within the shared space of a group, individuals feel this spontaneous urge to participate and cooperate, though the intensity of that drive depends heavily on how much autonomy they actually retain... or rather, the specific social dynamics at play within the collective. And honestly, this notion that someone will hand you something—let's say, cash—as a literal "repayment" for cooperation is fundamentally counterintuitive. That isn't how it works. The exchange is realized through the very act of cooperating itself; that is its entire purpose. It is essentially just the reproduction of everything necessary to sustain the specific mode of existence that the group has already established...
When you look at the sheer scope of what’s being demanded of us today—how we’re expected to operate across so many different layers of existence simultaneously—it becomes clear that the entire system is fundamentally broken... It’s dysfunctional, plain and simple, if you consider how human beings actually function when left to their own spontaneous, natural devices...
First off, we are being fed this relentless narrative about the necessity of self-reliance—this idea that everyone must learn to become their own internal support system just to maintain any semblance of effort or purpose. We’re told to act *as if* there were someone else there to motivate us, or to work for some phantom companion, when in reality, the actual presence of other people is treated as nothing more than a hurdle—a source of competition or friction. It’s completely backwards... The whole premise fundamentally undermines the very reason humans form communities in the first place, rather than just living like hermits scattered through the woods. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, it’s a recipe for disaster—it guts the population's demographics over the long haul, breeds total social anomie, and leaves us all utterly atomized...
The secondary reasons are becoming increasingly "indirect"—if that’s even the right word for it. Let’s be realistic here: our fundamental necessities and primal drives haven't changed one bit. We still need water, food, shelter, fuel, hygiene, social connection, sex, escapism, relaxation... the usual list. But the reality is that none of these can be satisfied directly anymore. If you actually gathered a few dozen people today to just live authentically—to exist without those artificial layers and simply meet their needs—someone would inevitably call in the SWAT team to shut it down, and the individual would likely just end up getting beaten by the police...
Instead, we are handed these various options—tasks someone else deems desirable—to perform in exchange for something tangible, just so we can afford food, goods, rent, utilities, and so on... but to actually pull it off, we have to somehow maintain the sheer willpower required for daily struggles that simply cannot be justified by any direct motivation. It relies entirely on certain semantic structures we maintain within our own consciousness—you know, the idea that if you do Y, then X will happen, and X is desirable because... well, then you start thinking long-term, or perhaps you identify with this or that, or you motivate yourself through various irrationalities, or you persist in maintaining routines that make things easier...
But honestly, it’s all bullshit. It’s like forcing a monkey to play some game just to get a banana—except the catch is that the monkey doesn't even grasp the distinction between the two...
Regardless, there is an obvious, massive importance to self-regulation—clearly more significant than it could ever be once our inherent foundational patterns are already set. This means the relative success of the vast majority of the population in navigating life depends heavily on the conditioning and formative experiences that allow for such self-motivation and discipline... which, alongside inherited qualitative differences, shapes a person so that everything functions...
So, we're talking about upbringing, education, training, labor, specific types of drills, and those experiences—again, experiences of consistent activity or work, the experience of success, the influence of drilling, routine, and habit... and certainly, the vital integration of patterns and forms from one's environment, whether that stems from family or other social situations...
That is why I am asking—could people take a moment to reflect so we can analyze what those situations were, what those influences were, what those patterns were... if we simply set aside biological inherency—because, let's face it, we don't possess the technology to manipulate that—we are left with everything else that makes one person function differently than another...
For instance, it would also be interesting to ask how much time is required for a pattern to be integrated from experience, or how tolerance for effort and frustration develops through the daily grind of nonsense—again, through experience—and generally, how one manages oneself so that the daily exertion of any kind stops being such a monumental struggle...
Precisely. That is why the discourse surrounding the burden of freedom emerged primarily within free-market, capitalist nations rather than under totalitarian regimes. Freedom inherently breeds anxiety. When you are free, you must be your own master; you carry the weight of your own choices and must grapple with the existential questions of what to do, why to do it, and to what end. Because a person is liberated and left to their own devices, failure becomes much harder to swallow. You cannot shift the blame onto a central authority or a state apparatus; the responsibility rests solely with you. Conversely, success feels much more profound for the same reason. In our modern society, this dynamic has fueled unprecedented levels of envy, frustration, and a pervasive sense of worthlessness.
Nietzsche argues that relentless pursuit of knowledge leads only to the grotesque and the hateful—to utter ruin. Therefore, the true value of philosophy lies in its ability to restrain the drive for cognition, channeling it instead toward the artistic and the vital spheres of life, where the will to Power utilizes philosophy to achieve a higher form of existence.
Life requires illusions; a beautiful delusion, if embraced with conviction, holds as much practical value as raw knowledge.
"It is precisely because of the superficiality of our intellect that we exist within a state of constant illusion. In other words, for us to truly live, we require art at every turn. Our eyes keep us anchored to certain forms. But if we are the ones who gradually train that eye, we discover an inherent artistic force within ourselves. We see, then, a mechanism built into nature itself against absolute knowledge: the philosopher deciphers the language of nature and declares, 'we need art' and 'we only require a fragment of the truth.' "
"One must even will the illusion—that is where the tragedy lies."
With both philosophy and theology effectively dismantled, art stands alone as the only force capable of tempering science, reinventing the world, and restoring a rich, meaningful existence to humanity ('art is our only salvation'). For life to flourish, it requires myth, and the responsibility of crafting those myths falls solely upon art.
Music reigns supreme among the arts because it most profoundly expresses organic life—its essence, its will to Power. Christianity, by contrast, is antithetical to life. As a religion of compassion—which, let's be honest, often masquerades as a virtue when in any sophisticated moral system it actually functions as a weakness—it drains vital energy, acting depressively, diminishing, and ultimately destroying. Its values are fundamentally nihilistic: "Christianity sides with the weak, the broken, and the unsuccessful. By opposing the instincts that sustain vigorous life, it fashioned an ideal that corrupted even the minds of the spiritually strongest, teaching them to view peak spiritual values as sinful, decadent, or mere temptations."
"Schopenhauer was an enemy of life: which is why, for him, compassion is a virtue."
Consequently, Nietzsche exalts everything that strengthens and enriches life—illusion, myth, and art—while rejecting everything that nullifies it: science, pure reason, Schopenhauer, the Christians (that 'cowardly, feminized, and sugar-coated gang'), the Buddhists, and even... the leftists: "Who do I despise most among today's rabble? Those socialist, gutter-apostles who undermine instinct, pleasure, and the sense of satisfaction felt by workers in their own small worlds—those who breed envy and teach the doctrine of revenge... injustice never lies in unequal rights, but in the insistence upon 'equal' rights."
Joshua Garcia5 said:Hi everyone
I've found myself dealing with a situation that is incredibly difficult to navigate, and even though my friends are supportive, they just don't seem to get it.
Let me explain the situation first, and then I'll address the title.
I chose this specific format because it feels more serious than the others.
I'm writing this because of what my mother is currently going through.
After battling four different incurable illnesses, she’s now facing a fifth. In my eyes, it's the worst one yet: breast cancer.
The doctors say they have to remove her entire left breast. That's "for now," at least.
I realize she isn't alone and that countless women have faced much worse, but it hits differently when you're dealing with someone who has been struggling with depression for years. She's already seen four different psychiatrists who basically gave up on her, telling us, "Psychiatrists are for people who don't understand why they are depressed. You already know why, so there isn't much more we can do." Dealing with a diagnosis like this on top of that mental health struggle makes everything so much harder.
Now, for the reason behind my title.
My friends have always been there for me, just as I've been there for them. But honestly, right now, I can't stand being close to them. One after another, they all tell me, "Don't worry, everything is going to be okay." I know they mean well. I truly do. But I simply cannot handle the empty gestures and the constant "it'll be fine" anymore. And no, I'm not blaming them, I'm not pushing them away, and I'm certainly not accusing them of anything. I'm also not looking for pity. I just want to know: have you ever been in a position where you thought, "If I hear 'everything will be okay' one more time..."?
Again, I understand how hard it is to navigate these moments and why people resort to these optimistic monologues. But really, out of all the ways you could show support, is it truly the best approach to have ten different people all tell you "it'll be fine"?
Have you ever felt that way? Have you ever felt a flash of anger the moment you heard "it'll be okay" in response to your crisis? How did you deal with it? Did you ever tell people how you actually felt about that "magical" little phrase?
Why do you assume they act out of good intentions, and why do you believe they actually care about your mother? In reality, your friends are largely indifferent; they merely perform empathy because that is the social contract of friendship. They feel obligated to act as if they care. Most people are fundamentally indifferent to the struggles of others. When they say, "it’ll be okay," they aren't offering comfort—they are attempting to clear their own schedule. Your problems become an inconvenience to them, a distraction from their own lives. People rarely have the emotional bandwidth or the spare time to shoulder someone else's weight when they are busy managing their own. They offer platitudes not to bolster your happiness, but to stabilize their own environment. If your mood shifts, it affects them, so they attempt to fix you just to return things to a comfortable status quo.
rowdytiger said:Why are people constantly on these massive ego trips? Why does everyone act like they’re the center of the universe? Why is there this desperate, pathetic need to force an impression on everyone else—like, love me or hate me, just please, for the love of God, acknowledge that I'm special? 😉Seriously?
What’s even the point? Who actually cares about making an impression? 🤷And why can't people just be themselves for once?
It stems from the fact that we are all raised on the idea that we are made in God's image. Of all religious doctrines, it is the one dogma people actually cling to with unwavering conviction. Deep down, everyone harbors the delusion that they are minor deities. It is profoundly infuriating and pathetic when the world refuses to validate that fantasy and instead sees them for what they truly are: merely ordinary, unremarkable individuals. That disconnect is the root of so much frustration, aggression, depression, and even suicide. If you want to be loved, you have to feed this inherent human narcissism; you have to let them believe you think they are brilliant, beautiful, noble, witty, capable, or unique—or at the very least, pretend you don't notice their infinite flaws, or that those flaws don't bother you. Maintaining that charade requires a certain level of stomach. Perhaps that is the true meaning behind the old saying that love goes through the stomach.
wanderingmoose15 said:It’s late—not even morning, really, since it’s only 3:23 AM—and I’m awake. Not truly awake, though. Not in any deep, spiritual sense. I just feel this constant pull to never wake up again, to stop existing in this void while waiting for some better life or a better chance for a soul that feels fundamentally broken. It’s a struggle between the urge to live and the urge to just end all this suffering and drift off into some unknown place. Somewhere that isn't necessarily better or worse, just unknown. That’s what interests me. Writing this is hard. There's this heavy weight on my chest, pulling me down, yet I never actually hit bottom. I never get to reach that floor where everything finally stops and the pain vanishes. I just keep sinking, feeling weaker every day, while putting on a front for the world. But the reality I show people is a lie; it's just a bad reflection of how I actually am. I don't want to share this realization with anyone else. I’ve come to believe that from the moment we are born, we are sentenced to be our own judge, witness, friend, and enemy. No matter how much people try to push a different version of reality on you just to fool themselves, it doesn't change anything. As I finish this, I'm thinking about the dreams I had during my last detachment from reality. The only reaction they trigger is this exact feeling, which kills my hope that maybe I’m just a sociopath who doesn't care about anyone's feelings, including my own. Sociopaths can't feel this kind of soul-crushing pain. I guess I just hope there comes a day when I'm gone from this world. A day when my drowned soul finally surfaces and can actually breathe again.
There is a profound truth in that. We operate under the persistent illusion that we can outsource our suffering to others, convinced that some savior—be it another person or God—will eventually arrive. But no one comes. And even when they do, we fail to recognize them. We crave depth and character, searching for those qualities in others that we lack within ourselves, only to encounter a void as hollow and agonizing as our own. Yet, we continue to perform this weary circus, forced to smile and play our parts... even though we are tedious, and everyone else is equally tiresome.
We talk too much while having nothing of substance to say. We celebrate too loudly without cause. We pass judgment without any legitimate justification.
We feel the exhaustion, yet we refuse to rest because we are haunted by the fear of missing out. We wait for some grand event to occur, clinging to the hope that something significant is on the horizon. But nothing happens.
The days drift by, indistinguishable from one another, accumulating into a single point in time. Then, with a sudden sense of dread, we look back and realize it feels as though only a moment has passed. In reality, an entire lifetime has slipped through our fingers—a life we didn't truly live—and soon we will simply vanish, leaving no trace that anyone will notice.
I suspect you might be referring to a specific term or perhaps a typo, but if we are discussing the concept of a priest, one cannot help but view the institution through a lens of weary skepticism. History is littered with the wreckage of clerical authority, often proving that those tasked with guarding the moral compass are frequently the ones most prone to losing their way. It is an old story, much like the inevitable decline of any centralized power structure. kaže:
It suddenly dawned on me, with a rather unsettling clarity, that I don't actually have a concrete grasp on what discrimination truly entails.😲
In that case, you become immune to discrimination, simply because you lack any sense of what constitutes an injustice.
Who exactly holds the "authority" to dictate what constitutes discrimination?
The wise, the virtuous, and the discerning—only their standards truly matter. We have no business wasting our time entertaining the definitions provided by the foolish or the malicious.
I have little interest in the current "legalistic" framework regarding how these justifications are structured or applied.
The shifting landscape of criminal law regarding "discrimination" is a moving target. It seems the definitions are in a state of perpetual flux, evolving almost as quickly as the social climate itself.
I find myself wondering about the "philosophical" side of things. 🙄 Hopefully, we’re looking at what constitutes an "absolute" definition of discrimination here.
Do you truly believe that a legal definition is merely a mirror reflecting its philosophical counterpart? I suspect it is far more pragmatic than that. In my view, a law doesn't exist to capture an abstract truth; rather, it is the byproduct of compromise, political maneuvering, and the messy necessity of social order. It isn't born from pure logic, but from the friction between competing interests trying to carve out their own space within the system.
I am unfamiliar with this term or its context. Please provide more information so I can assist you properly. kaže:
I have come to the conclusion that I know exactly one and a half facts with absolute, unwavering certainty.
So you claim I only possess one and a half facts? That’s a rather amusing observation.
bluemason3 said:Discrimination is really just a generalization that society, politics, or some individual decides isn't acceptable anymore.
Can a society, or even an entire regime, engage in systemic discrimination? It is a question that touches upon the very core of how power functions within any organized civilization. When we examine history, we see that prejudice is rarely just a collection of individual prejudices; rather, it often becomes baked into the institutional architecture itself. Think of it like a structural flaw in a skyscraper. You might have individual workers who are perfectly well-intentioned, yet if the blueprints themselves are skewed, the entire building will lean. In a similar vein, when a government or a social system establishes laws, economic policies, or educational standards that inherently favor one group while placing invisible hurdles in front of another, discrimination ceases to be about personal malice. It becomes a matter of administrative efficiency. A regime doesn't necessarily need to pass a law explicitly stating one group is inferior to practice discrimination. It can achieve the same result through zoning laws, credit scoring models, or even the subtle ways public resources are distributed. It is much cleaner, and far more difficult to challenge, when inequality is presented as a byproduct of "standard procedure" rather than overt hostility. In many ways, the most effective forms of discrimination are those that operate quietly in the background, masquerading as neutral bureaucracy.
Dennis Bailey2 said:It's not a bad philosophy, but I see things differently.
I believe meaning isn't something you find; it's something you have to manufacture for yourself. Even just the act of traveling suggests movement, so sure, "forward" is a solid motto.
As for fighting—you have to choose your battles. 🤷 It doesn't matter if your cause carries weight in the eyes of quantum mechanics or the vastness of the cosmos; what matters is that it carries weight for you.
The trouble starts when you begin questioning whether your priorities actually matter at all by weighing them against the scale of the universe. That’s when you pause, recalibrate your focus, and then get back to work. 🤷
But how does one manufacture meaning when they find themselves incapable of seeing value in anything at all? How am I supposed to decide that my life's purpose should be, say, professional achievement, if I can't find any inherent meaning in that pursuit—or indeed, in anything else?
Regarding the concept of struggle—simply choose what is worth fighting for. 🤷 It doesn't matter whether it holds weight on a cosmic scale or within the laws of quantum mechanics; what matters is that it carries weight for you.
And what happens when nothing carries weight?
Robert Rodriguez11 said:Booze, writing, and chasing girls.
I know nobody was asking me specifically, but here's my take.🙂
Responses like this are genuinely depressing. I really shouldn't have bothered opening this thread.
What exactly caused you to lose your sense of optimism?
ambermason16 said:Andrew Lopez10, if there’s any merit to what you’re saying—I get you. Dealing with mental health issues is hard enough on its own. But dealing with that, plus carrying this crushing weight of guilt because you feel like you have no excuse? That’s a double whammy. Međutoa, there is *always* a reason. Even if it's just bad genetics. If it isn't obvious DNA, then it's some distant branch of your family tree. Add in a bit of circumstance, some mistakes made during your upbringing, a heavy dose of pure bad luck, and maybe even a dash of McCormick. 🙂
Here’s the bottom line: the "why" matters far less than you think, even if we can't fully wrap our heads around it. At least, not when you're trying to kickstart recovery. That's where people trip up. You've realized there's a problem. Great. Now the next move is seeking help. Once you hand the reins over to a professional, they'll guide you through the healing process, and somewhere along the way, the root cause will reveal itself. You’ll eventually confront that motherfucker, and things will finally click. But to get to that point, you have to start helping yourself. That's the whole point. You can't change the starting line, so stop obsessing over it. Stop staring in the rearview mirror—stare through the windshield. 😉
What does a person who isn't mentally broken actually look like? How do they carry themselves? How do they live their lives? Give me a description.
The crux of the matter is this: the underlying cause, however elusive it may be, doesn't really matter at the start of the journey. At least, not if you want to move forward. Once you acknowledge the problem exists, the next logical step is seeking assistance. You hand the reins over to a professional, and they guide you through the recovery process. Somewhere along that path, the root cause usually reveals itself.
What kind of "recovery" are we all talking about here?
What sort of person is supposed to emerge once one has "recovered"?
I fail to see why there is such an obsession with this idea of recovery. Everyone speaks as if there is a universal blueprint for a "normal," balanced individual who functions with perfect efficiency, and as if we should all be striving toward that specific ideal. Who authored this template? Why should we care about meeting it? And who decided that anyone failing to fit this arbitrary mold requires medical intervention?
Sandra Morgan2 said:Honestly, I suspect he was depressed. That’s what American psychiatrists suggest, anyway. Wrestling with the perceived meaninglessness of existence is a classic symptom of depression. Even Leo Tolstoy attempted suicide a few times—which is just another symptom of suicidal depression.
He wrote in one of his letters, "If it were impossible to live, then one would kill oneself; and consequently one cannot speak of life as being unbearable. The possibility of killing himself has been given to man, and therefore he may kill himself, and he continually uses this right - when he kills himself in duels, in war, by dissipation, wine, tobacco, opium, etc."
In his book titled 'A Confession', Leo Tolstoy wrote about his inner struggle to find the meaning of his life. He explains how he decided to bury himself in his work in order to avoid facing the deeper questions of life. But the more he tried to avoid, the more problems began to torture him.
As time marched on, his bouts of depression grew more frequent and more intense, threatening him. He began to think that only death can save him from the smothering depression.
Since we've shifted from spirituality to psychology, I want to briefly circle back to the spiritual side of things. I'd argue that while life might truly lack an inherent meaning, when that realization arrives as a spiritual breakthrough, it brings a sense of relief and personal freedom. When thoughts of meaninglessness are coupled with intense mental anguish, then we are looking at a depressive state of mind.
But depression isn't the cause; it is the consequence of becoming aware of that perceived void.
Consequently, such a condition cannot be cured by psychiatrists or medication alone. It can only be resolved when an individual discovers their own purpose in life and work—a task for which no one else can provide the answer.
It is a cornered, inescapable feeling, which explains why so many people desperately turn to faith.
What else is left for them to do?
Quincy:
| Are you ruling out the possibility that Leo Tolstoy suffered from depression? |
I find that unlikely. He possessed a profound zest for life—an appreciation for women, for social engagement, a certain sensuality and passion. His anxiety didn't strike when he was lacking; rather, it took hold precisely when he had achieved everything he set out to do.
He spiraled into a crisis once he confronted the reality of mortality. He realized that death is an absolute end, and that his literary efforts might eventually fade into obscurity just as surely as he himself would vanish. He began to wonder why one should endure such struggle at all, questioning whether life is merely a fleeting intoxication that masks a deeper deception.
He ultimately sought refuge in religion, concluding that a life without God is unsustainable. To him, faith was the only mechanism capable of providing purpose, tempering human selfishness, teaching morality, and finally dismantling the paralyzing fear of death.
Peter Phillips32 said:The only two things that are actually senseless here are generalizing based on this one case—because I personally haven't found myself in a situation like that—and the way people act like this whole "life vs. nothingness" dichotomy is some massive deal. It’s honestly not even surprising that people... well, run off into those strictly controlled daycare centers.
Quincy: Tolstoy wrote in Confession:
"Life became loathsome to me—some irresistible force was driving me to find any way possible to rid myself of existence. I can't say I wanted to kill myself. The force pulling me away from life was stronger, more complete, and all-encompassing. It was a force similar to my previous will to live, just acting in the opposite direction." |
It’s honestly pretty pathetic when people turn to fiction just to try and find answers for reality.
Quincy:| "I remembered that I had only truly lived when I believed in God..." |
And instead of actually focusing on something meaningful, he just fills his own emptiness with something as flimsy as Swiss cheese. Talking about holes...
If that's the case, you aren't TRULY aware of how meaningless life can be.
It is a tragedy when people retreat into fiction to hunt for answers to reality.
Leo Tolstoy describes his own experience of losing faith and confronting the void while he was at the absolute pinnacle of his social and professional standing.
And rather than engaging with anything substantive, he fills that emptiness with something as trivial as Swiss cheese. Talking about holes...
Are you suggesting that the man who penned "War and Peace" simply needed a hobby to stay busy? 🤣
He understood perfectly well that the immense effort poured into his writing was ultimately futile and devoid of inherent value.
Yet, even while teetering on the edge of self-destruction, he eventually discovered purpose through Christian faith, finding profound inspiration in the quiet simplicity of an American farmer's life.
Anyone who truly awakens to the inherent futility of existence eventually finds themselves trapped in this exact predicament.
In Confessions, Tolstoy wrote:
"Life became loathsome to me—an irresistible force drove me to seek an end to my existence by any means necessary. I cannot say that I wished to die. Rather, the force pulling me away from life was more powerful, more absolute, and more pervasive. It was a force much like my former will to live, only acting in the opposite direction."
"I realized that I had only truly lived when I believed in God..."
Mark Torres14 said:For who exactly?
Are you telling me there’s zero point in living a meaningful life?
So, working hard and acting right doesn't matter because, per your logic, death is this great equalizer that wipes the slate clean.
But you and I aren't equal. Not even in death.
Death is a strictly individual reality. Concepts like equality, volume, or what people call "fate" don't apply here.🙂
We are all intimately aware that death exists, and it is the sole thing we truly fear. Every other anxiety we harbor is merely a shadow cast by that primary terror. Nothing in this existence commands as much reverence as death.
Since death acts as the ultimate sovereign of this world, it levels everything living beneath its heel, regardless of our perceived status or worth. To us, being human, certain lives carry more weight than others, but to death, everything is equally worthless.
It is entirely inconsequential how one chooses to live, because eventually, that consciousness—the entire treasury of thoughts and emotions an individual carries—will vanish as if it had never existed at all.
Life is banal, which is precisely why it never feels like enough. We spend our days hoping, searching, and waiting. Yet, nothing ever happens ( Godot does not come ). And then, we die. Those left behind simply resume their mundane routines and trivial pursuits. The dead are quickly forgotten.
Mark Torres14 said:You’re already broke. And you will be again.
Think about how much time you actually have for yourself every day.
Besides, there are plenty of ways to change course. Poverty is a state of mind.
Here’s a tip.
Stop watching TV.
Not even in college yet, just high school, and the other one is still in daycare...😉
Must be nice. My kids are grown and nobody leaves the house.
I get the feeling they think my wife and I were born specifically to fix their problems until the day we die.
Not at all. Everyone needs rights—or better yet, everyone needs equal rights. If everyone had all rights (whatever that implies), then realistically, nobody would have any rights left.
Margaret Thatcher’s biggest gripe with the French Revolution was that the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" included the word "equality." Equality doesn't exist, so "equal rights" don't exist either.
What's a right to me might be an infringement on your freedom, and vice versa.
Everything needs limits, including rights.
So what's the catch? Is it a question of "either/or"—either we believe in fate, or the idea that life is a "complete and self-contained value" is just a false dilemma.
Look at the phrase "complete and self-contained value." It means a value that only matters while you're alive. Once you're gone, it's worthless. In short, death doesn't exist. So if it doesn't exist, why fear it?
What are you actually trying to ask? 😁
I wasn't asking anything, I was just curious about how people view life.
For instance, I find that Hajjamov idea about being entrusted with a soul interesting.
Why is there a "you" instead of someone else?😁
On the contrary, death is the only thing that truly exists. It is the ultimate, immutable truth—the Great Equalizer. It stands over everything we have built, every ambition we chased, and every effort we made, only to spit in our faces with a smirk and say, "It was all for nothing."