Posts by ruggedraven36

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—jobs are handled on a rotation basis... unless someone physically can't pull their weight, obviously.
If a community can't even fix a problem like that—I mean, seriously—how the hell are they ever going to solve anything else?

Spot on. Honestly, I don't see any issue with it at all.

Laura Jones56 said:So, could we perhaps say that the object is merely a projection of the subject?
Existence itself, viewed as a concept... when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels as though it just means "to be perceived." It is only because someone else assigns existence to the perceived thing that it seems to hold weight.
I'll probably take another look at the source later.

But then, saying it resembles "nothing" still sort of defines it, doesn't it? Without a subject, it seems to me that, well, nothing even exists. Without the subject, there is nothingness—it’s unknowable, an absolute end. Or rather, the end happens before that even begins. The subject is both the beginning and the end. Is everything we can ever discuss or think about—everything within our grasp—contained entirely within the subject's representation?

I'll give you that—everything stays within the subject's perception—but it isn't just limited to that. Sure, nothing exists without a subject, but that doesn't mean the subject is all there is.

Jack Williams6 said:Philosophy died a long time ago—honestly, it’s been dead for ages. It’s been completely usurped by science. Science actually provides answers to questions, and when faced with a question it can't solve, it uses scientific methods to hunt for one. Nowadays, calling someone a "philosopher" is basically just a polite euphemism for saying they don't know anything. (And if you aren't familiar with the term, a euphemism is just a stylistic way to swap out harsh words for softer ones to blunt the blow—you know, sugarcoating things). There is precious little that is more useless in the 21st century than sitting through some long-winded philosophical lecture. The whole pursuit of wisdom is really just an attempt to reclaim that innate sense we had as kids—though, granted, wisdom supposedly crystallizes in some people as they age. Or maybe it doesn't. Kids possess a certain kind of wisdom, and you can actually learn from them just how much we’ve mangled our own mental machinery by growing up, or which fundamental truths we failed to grasp that even a toddler understands perfectly well. You don't need grand philosophy for those lessons. It’s either clear to you, or it isn't. I remember once—at a local park I won't name—watching a child playing with total, carefree abandon while the adults stood around like frozen mummies, lost in some sort of trance. It hit me immediately that this state of being isn't necessary for people; that sort of mindless trance is entirely superfluous. That child, left to their own devices, could eventually turn into one of those pathetic caricatures—those zombies who stare blankly at gadgets and worship abstract ideas that only serve to restrict their freedom. But right now? That child can play without being forced into a mold. In other words, they can follow their own path and live a full life without needing a mountain of philosophy, letting the essence of that play stay within them while only its outward shape changes.

Hegel actually had a response to this back in 1812.

Hegel said:Just as it would be bizarre for a nation to lose its utility—say, its constitutional law, its core convictions, its moral habits, and its virtues—it is just as strange when a people loses its metaphysics, when that spirit which grapples with pure essence truly ceases to exist within them.
The surface-level takeaway from Kant's philosophy—that reason shouldn't overstep the bounds of experience, lest our knowledge turn into mere theoretical dreaming that produces nothing but empty fantasies—provided a scientific excuse to abandon speculative thought. This idea played right into the hands of modern pedagogy's greatest flaw: the constant urge to focus only on immediate needs. It suggests that since experience is the foundation of knowledge, then purely theoretical study is actually detrimental to navigating public and private life, leaving only practical training as something useful. Since science and common sense teamed up to kill off metaphysics, we ended up with a surreal sight: an educated society without metaphysics, looking like a beautifully decorated temple that’s missing its most sacred centerpiece.

steelridge58 said:Whether things look a certain way regardless of our presence or entirely without us, we simply can't know for sure, because without a human mind there to perceive it, everything just remains a mystery.

Quincy:

If we start peeling back the layers—moving from the colors we see to the shapes we recognize, and finally down to the actual density and hardness of an object—we have to ask ourselves: what exactly constitutes matter? To put it in layman's terms—and I’m definitely not an expert here, so bear with me—I guess you could call it collective subjectivism, though I'm honestly not sure if there's a better way to frame it, when you consider something as simple and fundamental as the fact that grass is green.

According to Kant, everything we know as humans basically grows from two different roots: our raw senses and our reason.

Our senses basically hand us objects that have already been filtered through those prior frameworks of space and time, and then our intellect steps in to wrap all of that up under its own pure concepts, or what we call categories.
It’s funny how we think of them as separate things, but really, our raw sensitivity and our logical reasoning work hand in hand to build everything we actually experience.
Source
And what exactly would fit that thing you’re calling by that name, I guess?
It’s honestly kind of overwhelming when you stop to think about how we are essentially out here crafting the very dimension we call existence.

So, basically, both our sensory perception and our actual reasoning provide those built-in, a priori building blocks that make it possible for us to actually grasp anything at all—it’s like everything we experience has to pass through these internal filters first. When Kant talks about these fundamental, pre-set elements, he uses the term "form" to describe them.
Same source.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it would imply that the subject is actually what makes the object exist in the first place.
What exactly is it that explains why we can't ever truly grasp what reality looks like when we aren't looking at it? It’s that frustrating realization that we can’t step outside our own heads to see the world independent of our own perception.

The thing is, "reality independent of the subject" doesn't look like anything—because if it did, it would be looking like something to a subject. Hegel touches on this in the preface to his logic science: "When critical philosophy [Kant] views the relationship between these three terms [us, thought, and things] such that we place thought between ourselves and things—treating it as a sort of middle ground that actually separates us from things rather than connecting us to them—then we have to counter that thought with this simple observation: those very things that are supposed to exist outside of us, viewed through the lens of our thoughts, end up being nothing more than ideas themselves. And as completely undefined, they're just a single idea—so-called thing-in-itself—which are nothing but empty abstractions."

steelridge58 said:When I talk about substitution,
I’m referring back to the sentence in your example where, instead of using terms like 'rational' or 'current,' I swapped them out for 'true' and 'logical.' That gave us two different versions where one analogy basically becomes the other.

Now, depending on how you look at it, it might not matter whether we use the word truth or the adjective true.

But it definitely matters when you're looking at how they fit into a specific sentence structure, because once you factor in the actual logical sense—you know, the underlying meaning—that's really the heart of what I was trying to point out.

Anyway, since this is drifting pretty heavily into the territory of philosophy of language, I probably shouldn't get too carried away with it here.

Too bad. I was actually about to hit you with a question.

Eric Newman75 said:"We set out on the road. It was a hell of a long trek.
Then we realized, way too late, that the road was just one big circle."

Logic works the exact same way.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What’s the actual distinction here?

It all comes down to the mental heavy lifting involved. If I just start with "truth is true," I'm stuck—it's a dead end, an empty claim that goes nowhere. But if I argue that "truth is logical, and logic holds because truth exists," then I've actually built a path to conclude that "truth is true." In that second scenario, the tautology isn't just a circle—it actually carries the weight of the reasoning process within it.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aren't those kinds of "definitions" just a fancy way of describing a tautology?
🤔

Sure, but there's a massive difference between a tautology being your starting point versus being your final conclusion.

steelridge58 said:I really don't think the context is the same here.

A closer analogy would be if someone said

Whatever is true is also logical, and whatever is logical is also true.

But even then, that isn't quite the right comparison, because what you're saying—that your example isn't nonsense—might actually just be a case of circular reasoning, or *idem per idem*, where you're essentially trying to prove a point by using the exact same point as your proof.

At the end of the day, though, an "absolute truth" is just a nonsense phrase.

That "grouping" you're bringing up only works if you assume "truth" and "true" are identical. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if we call something a truth or say it's true.

Truth and logic have to line up eventually. If they don't—well, you're left with a choice between believing logic is broken or that truth itself is just plain irrational.

steelridge58 said:Saying truth is logical just because it happens to be true feels like a circular argument to me, almost like saying
truth is inherently truthful
which honestly sounds like total nonsense:
A truthful truth.

Either way, you seem to be focusing strictly on formal logic, but if we look at things through the lens of epistemology, formal logic is really just one tiny piece of the puzzle since that field tries to account for the entire scope of how we actually perceive reality.

So, following that line of thought—and regardless of whether you agree with my logic or not—I have to disagree with that final sentence in the quote.

Think about it: how do we actually learn things? If truth is the "highest criterion" for knowledge, what does that even tell us about the actual paths we take to get there?
Not a single thing.

There are so many different ways to reach understanding,
including those deeply human routes like our own personal stories, our emotions, or even intense passion... and I could go on forever about this,
but it really encompasses everything,
from the very breath in our lungs and our pulse to the way we hear, see, and truly experience life itself.

Reminds me of that famous Hegelian line: "Whatever is rational is actual, and whatever is actual is rational." If you follow that thread, you get: "Whatever is rational is rational." Is that nonsense? Not in my book.

Harold Doyle3 said:Look, rational people have a better shot at survival. Pure and simple. Reason is an evolutionary edge.

Whatever. We aren't debating what counts as an evolutionary advantage here; we're talking about the meaning of life. I’d frame the relationship between the two like this: life breathes soul into meaning, and meaning gives life its structure.

Let's try looking at it this way. When does life start feeling meaningless?

Harold Doyle3 said:Is anyone else actually seeing this besides you?

Sure. Every single sane person out there.

Harold Doyle3 said:Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.

Of course I do.

Joseph Bailey41 said:People try to spin these "values" so high up in the clouds that it actually becomes ridiculous. Every time I stumble upon someone trying to lecture me using terms like "will to power" or "evolutionary psychology," I find myself reaching for a drink just to deal with the pretentiousness. Look, I get it—alcoholism isn't a joke, it’s a serious struggle... but honestly, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do to get through it.

Exactly.

Eric Newman75 said:How, for heaven's sake? Look, I didn't just pick the Bible out of thin air. I quoted it specifically because parts of it are at least a thousand years older than Jesus Christ and Christianity itself. So, first off, it’s not just some "Western civilization" thing; you see similar views popping up in the Persian and Arab worlds too, which makes it pretty reasonable to assume they exist elsewhere. And we all know from history that both Persians and Arabs were massive conquerors.

The era of capitalism is winding down; it’s the final step in a centuries-old dialectic. So, what does universality even mean then? Something shared by the whole world could be a choice, it could be forced upon us, or it could just be something absorbed spontaneously. But that doesn't mean it isn't universal.

If a value is truly universal, we should all be able to embrace it and live by it. It makes zero sense to claim that everyone should be out there trying to dominate one another.

Eric Newman75 said:Ah, okay, I see where we're looking now. I don't really grasp that concept when applied specifically to technology. Look, Heidegger called technology a way of "concealing the battle"—it's just this failed human attempt to actually deal with the truth of the world. That's one of his more accurate insights. The essence of technology isn't actually about machines or gadgets. I use the term "indoctrination" to describe a whole system of values—this century-old "culture" that results in man trying to dominate the country. Whether it stems from religion or philosophy, whether people call it civilization, progress, or even the will to power, it's all driven by an anthropological mechanism that just repeats itself over and over. Only the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

The tech itself? I don't see anything wrong with it. It only becomes an issue if we treat it as a tool for subjugating the planet.

I use the word "subjugation" to describe a value system—a century-old "culture" that results in humans dominating the Earth. Whether its roots lie in religion or philosophy, whether you call it civilization, growth, progress, or the will to power—it's just an anthropological mechanism that repeats itself over and over, even if the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

As far as I'm concerned, any "values" built on subjugating the Earth or exercising a "will to power" aren't universal—and they certainly aren't the true essence of civilization or progress. In the era of capitalism—especially now, in this neoliberal age—that mindset has been pushed to the absolute extreme. Worse yet, we're being sold this idea that this is some eternal characteristic of the human race, something all human action can be reduced to. That's just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of human behavior that have nothing to do with domination or the thirst for power.

I’m dropping a few quotes here from Lešek Kolakovski’s book, "presence of myth." They touch on this modern-day attempt to crush the world's supposed indifference through sheer manipulation—an effort that, frankly, always ends in failure.

We try to beat back the indifference of the world by using technology to seize control—making everything bend to our will.

But look—even when we succeed in dominating things, that nagging sense of dissatisfaction keeps creeping back in. A technological culture that lets us strip the world like plunder doesn't actually fix its indifference; taming things is just an illusion. That feeling of being "at one" with nature? It's a lie—it's more like a necrophiliac's version of love. Nature isn't cooperative; it's indifferent. Once the world is completely covered in the scars of our technological meddling—once it's "humanized" in every detail by our constant interference—it starts looking less like home and more like a nightmare.

At its core, any attempt to use technological force to strip the physical world of its indifference is doomed. It’s not because total mastery over infinite nature is impossible—it's because at every level of technological success, we aren't gaining a partner; we're just taking prey. We subjugate things knowing they only obey us because they mean nothing to us—because they have no inherent meaning outside of our own agendas.

I can't even finish that thought—not without getting into a whole debate about how things actually work around here. ruggedraven36 says:
That’s one of those tragic glitches in the analytical mind—this idea that you can "conquer the world" as if you’re some detached observer standing outside the fray. You convince yourself you can manipulate everything around you without actually getting your own hands dirty in the process. It’s a total delusion.

This fake dichotomy is a double tragedy. First, you’ve got that crushing sense of isolation—that feeling like you're standing all alone against a world that’s supposedly out to get you. And then there's the second part, the real kicker: this delusional idea that we can actually "tame" or control a world that’s fundamentally cold and indifferent. Even if you look at it from a global scale, the notion that humanity can somehow domesticate a chaotic universe is just a losing game.

Just more proof that all this talk about the universe being cold and indifferent is nothing more than a human projection—we’re just mirroring it. People are becoming increasingly detached and numb, inevitably picking up the same hollow traits as the very world they inhabit. We’re molding ourselves into the shape of a landscape that doesn't care about us, and the worst part? Most people aren't even conscious they're doing it.

Look, we’re talking about the man of the West here—and let’s be honest, a West that’s already circling the drain. Most people from this side of the pond don't even bother trying to understand other cultures. Why bother? To most of us, they barely qualify as "civilizations" in the first place. They're just part of this massive, hostile, indifferent world that doesn't get us—a world we feel the need to dominate, to "civilize," and to force into submission until they become just as cold and detached as we are.

👍
Spot on. You nailed this one.

Eric Newman75 said:But this isn't actually about morality. If you look at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, there's a clear explanation provided. Every craft, every inquiry, every action and pursuit, seems to aim at some kind of good. So, it's fair to say that "the good" is whatever that ultimate aim is.

Morality is just one tiny slice of that definition. The goal of human learning, work, and absolutely every single thing we do, is some form of good—a good that we choose for its own sake. It’s both a metaphysical truth and a practical, everyday guide. When I talk about "reward," I’m talking about bliss, that deep sense of happiness and fulfillment. There’s nothing ugly about that. And let's be real, Aristotle wasn't an idiot. Quite the opposite—he was one of the most sincere, noble, and truth-seeking thinkers to ever exist.

I know, I've read the Nicomachean Ethics myself, and I'm with you on this. It's not even debatable that people strive for some kind of good; the real argument is whether you reduce that entire thing to simple cause and effect. If you do that, you lose the concept of free will entirely.

Eric Newman75 said:I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.

Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.

That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.

It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.

I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.

I wanted to know what you *think*, not what you’re certain of. The whole dialectic of certainty and its relationship to truth is a fascinating mess, but let's save that for another time.

Until recently, I believed the world was an orderly place—everything tied together by cause and effect. I thought being honest, hardworking, decent, and educated actually paid off—that those were values the universe rewarded. I believed there was meaning in suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now, I don't.

That's a pretty common pattern—happens to a lot of people.

Personally, I believe the world is an orderly place where everything is connected, just not solely through simple cause and effect—there are plenty of other ways things link up. Calling it an "orderly place" feels a bit imprecise; I’d say the world is conceptually structured. But unlike you, I never bought into the idea that being "honest, hardworking, decent, and educated" earns you rewards from the cosmos. To me, that idea is just ugly. An universe built on the principle of moral causality? Sounds repulsive.

As for suffering—it only has meaning if the person going through it comes out better on the other side. Otherwise, it's just plain evil.

And courage is still a virtue even when it doesn't beat evil. If courage always won, it wouldn't be a virtue—it would just be a guaranteed result.

The world is chaos ruled by randomness.

Now you sound like you're certain about what the world is.

A single moment decides whether you die in agony—like a six-year-old who hasn't even touched a cigarette or a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own ruin.

Those cases happen, sure, but that isn't proof that the entire world is just pure, random chaos.

Human life is indescribably fragile; there is nothing that can soothe the uncertainty of its existence. Everything is wax in the fire, smoke in the wind, snow under the sun, a dream of the dawn.

It's not helpful to lump everything together like that. Not everyone's life is equally fragile or uncertain. For instance, the life of an average American is a hell of a lot more secure than the life of someone living in poverty in a developing nation.

That’s why I stay quiet. Why I just can't bring myself to talk about it. There are things I want to bury forever—and others I want to hold onto for as long as I live.

Sure, but a person can still speak their mind in a general sense.

Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't buy into the big, empty words.

"Struggle" and "strength"—those are pretty big words themselves. Everyone believes in big words; they just don't all mean the same thing.

It’s the small things that get to me—total strangers whose kindness and smiles leave me speechless. Then I find myself paying it forward to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this driving need to settle the score. It doesn't matter that I've endured unimaginable horror and misery. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, connection, happiness... a genuine respect for another living soul and life as a whole.

Those are standard human emotions we all have—we just don't let ourselves express them for a hundred different reasons.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been to the very end. To someone who hasn't stood at the edge of the abyss. Someone who hasn't let that void stare deep inside them. But it's cathartic—intense. And it sets you free.

It isn't hard to explain at all. Everything you said about yourself is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with some of your philosophical conclusions.

I won't go any further on that. I've said what needed to be said.

Whatever you say. I get that some people don't want to talk about the world, but I honestly don't get how anyone can be interested in philosophy if they refuse to actually discuss it.