Posts by ruggedraven36

steeleagle77 said:I maintain that we subconsciously seek gratification, making it an indirect motivator.
Back at university, I actually learned from sociology professors (!) — a field of social deductive pseudoscience that misleads more than it clarifies — that human motives, goals, and values are inherently driven and shaped by a form of self-interest. Usually, it isn't even conscious. At the time, I viewed sociology through a quasi-religious lens, so I was surprised when the discipline shifted toward accepting evolutionary psychology and reductionist frameworks.

I’m curious what you would even say to them then?

Of course, they eventually ruined that too with concepts like "altruistic suicide" and other outdated nonsense that I knew was just a bunch of bullshit from the start. That was ages ago... maybe things have changed since then.

I'd tell them that biology has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. First off, I’d suggest they learn the difference between autonomy and heteronomy of the will. Ethics isn't about dissecting human nature; it’s about determining what is good. Besides, what sets humans apart from animals is that we aren't forced to be slaves to our nature—whatever that may be. We don't have to be prisoners to our instincts because we can actually think, allowing us to make free choices that fly in the face of any subconscious motivation.

steeleagle77 said:Interesting. While that isn't how I operate, one could more or less agree with this...
For me, every goal I pursue is driven by a desire for satisfaction. It’s fascinating how little people realize their own pursuit of personal gratification when they're fighting for some "sacred" cause. ruggedbadger2 already pointed out an example involving those nuns...

Sure, people have all kinds of motivations, and even more kinds of people. You only have to look at history to see how priorities shift—what people were willing to die for a century ago doesn't carry much weight today, and vice versa. At the end of the day, seeking satisfaction is a universal driver, but it's entirely relative. Just stating that humans generally chase gratification isn't some deep ethical revelation; it's just a fact of life.

steeleagle77 said:Are you implying there's a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction?

Look, there are plenty of different goals. Half the time we don't even know if they’ll actually make us feel good—if we even bother to think about it. Satisfaction is usually just a side effect—it's rarely the main event itself.

ruggedbadger2 said:The folks over at that monastery definitely believe in an afterlife. Because of that, they dedicate their lives on Earth to religion just to boost their odds of making it into heaven and hitting that ultimate bliss. So, at the end of the day, it’s still just a pursuit of pleasure, even if it has nothing to do with individual or species survival. As for those people with their hands in the air—honestly, I'm not sure who you mean—they probably don't actually want enlightenment. If they did, it would be a negative thing for them. Enlightenment means eliminating desire, and since they see their current state of craving or dukkha as something negative, trying to get rid of it becomes a positive, maybe even hedonistic, goal for them.

I mean, I'm sure the reality is way more complicated than my summary here, but this is the only way I can make sense of these behaviors through the lens of seeking satisfaction. It's a good question, though.

You got any other goals worth chasing besides just pure pleasure?

I'm into the idea. But why stop at 550 or 560?

Paul Bailey95 said:Hey @ parsifal—

3.

Look, you’re out here hunting for giants in that list you just put together, but honestly? You aren't going to find them there. You're basically slapping the "legend" label on them yourself—and hey, nobody's stopping you from doing that—but you really need to figure out what actually makes someone a giant before you start throwing that word around. If you don't have a clear grip on reality—and I mean *really* clear, like someone struggling with a serious break from it—then this whole conversation is pretty much useless. It's like trying to catch falling leaves or... well, something equally futile. We see plenty of people out in the world every day who are just as disconnected from the truth, and their arguments fall apart just as fast. On the flip side, maybe giants are redundant anyway. We don't even need them anymore. Why not just be that greatness yourself? And yeah, I am being dead serious about what I said regarding the cheese thing.

Regarding Hegel’s brilliant insight into the essence of everything transcendental—you know, that stuff in Chapter Three, including all that empty wisdom, whether it's this version or that one—I’m honestly stumped. There's no way around it: we have brains, so we might as well use them and think for ourselves. I see people getting worked up over their morning coffee just like I do, but they really ought to be getting fired up over Hegel. Through him, we get to hear—get this—the Absolute itself speaking. And who was it that said that? Vanja Sutlić. Honestly, it doesn't matter whose name is attached to it or how much authority they carry; what matters is the thought itself. Speech reveals the truth behind the person. We saw this back in the day with Aristotle in his work on interpretation, too. It’s all about *who* is speaking and *what* they’re actually saying. If you stay silent, you're a fool—though, granted, that's not always true—but if you just spout nonsense, you're definitely a fool. And man, how many people are doing that today? It’s so common that even the word "terrible" feels like an understatement. With someone like Sutlić, the core is the idea. Since the guy behind the idea is Vanja Sutlić, I have to mention the name so people actually know who’s putting in the mental work. An opinion is something you examine, and something that examines you. So, where does that leave us? Do we wallow in the gutter, or do we dive into the ocean? Personally, I’m just sitting here thinking, "Good grief, why would you choose the sewer?" Maybe I'd throw in a "you lunatics" for good measure, but I wouldn't mean it maliciously.

It feels like you’ve got some kind of official job description here—like you’re a paid spokesperson tasked with defending the "honor" of the establishment against any little critique from someone like Danijel Bukvašević. And who exactly are you, Parsifal? Do you even have a real name? You don't have to hide behind a handle if you don't want to. Personally, I don't bother with pseudonyms; I just put my name out there. I think it’s a matter of basic accountability—it shouldn't matter if you're a prince, the Pope, a convict, or a guy sleeping on a park bench—you should stand by what you say. I’ve been around the block enough to see the top tier of the social ladder, having worked for all sorts of bosses over the years, and let me tell you—that view from the top is so incredibly shallow that I decided long ago to just be my own man. But honestly, it doesn't even matter to you, does it? Whether someone has status or not is irrelevant—wisdom doesn't care about your title once the truth has already been spoken.

Hundreds of books, fame, or even the legendary status of Chesterton—what does any of that actually mean? Honestly, nobody needs to say a word about you for you to be someone. You can just be yourself, whether you’re a titan of industry or just a straight-A student. We’re living in a total nihilistic era, yet here you are obsessing over "great men." Wouldn't the truly wise realize how hollow that is? I doubt you see it, but hey, fair enough. What’s the actual difference between Hegelian thought and... well, whatever nonsense we're dealing with here? Look, I haven't written hundreds of books myself—only two people actually know who I am, I have zero influence, and nobody is out there quoting my lines like you suggested—but frankly, I don't care. I’m perfectly fine drowning in the ocean or walking through a door; I'm not losing my mind. Right now, I've got Aristotle on my left and Hegel on my right. I'm sitting there contemplating their ideas, and honestly, it's pretty good company. We kicked the other guy out of the circle—he doesn't belong here. He’s stuck somewhere on a lower rung, trying to act big and important, but he just can't pull it off. It’s almost like watching Nietzsche laugh at him and kick him back down the stairs—purely Nietzschean, really. Okay, I'm joking—as the Joker would say when I was binge-watching movies on TV: "Why so serious?" But seriously, being in this kind of company is better than believing the delusions of those crazies who think they're headed for some paradise in the afterlife. What do I need heaven for when I've got Aristotle and Hegel? Besides, I've never been much for those idealized types anyway; too inexperienced. As for the respect you're demanding—which, let's be real, is bordering on rude—don't worry about me. Just worry about finding some actual wisdom.

Look, just because someone hasn't churned out a hundred books, isn't some household name, or doesn't weigh a solid two hundred pounds—none of which actually matters—doesn't mean they can't hold their own against the giants, or even be one themselves. For me, being enough on my own is plenty—I’m good with myself, or if we're looking at it through a non-Stirnerian lens, I *am* myself. So, I don't bother measuring myself against anyone else. Now, comparing myself to heroes or absolute geniuses? That's a different story, a different context entirely, but even then, it's not really a "measurement." Plus, I’ve never been big on metrics; there's too much pseudo-science in it all. Everything gets quantified these days, yet nobody actually thinks. Take me, for instance—nobody knows me, I don't have any flashy material possessions, I don't go out socializing for the sake of it, and my day is probably incredibly boring to most people—just like I find their days incredibly boring. Just my room, my library, Hegel and Aristotle... I spend my time listening to a lecture or digging up an article online during my breaks from reading Hegel and Aristotle, or popping onto this forum to post something like this. Or maybe someone calls me to check on what some kid is up to, since, as you can see from the intro to this thread, I've "cut myself off from social contact."

With all due respect to the modern crowd, I find my own room far more interesting than their hollow hangouts and endless chatter. My writing here won't be anything permanent—let's face it, posting on a forum is ultimately a futile exercise. That means my commentary on the *Phenomenology* won't be presented in one neat, finished package here; obviously, it will be completed in the end, even if the final commentary ends up being 3,500 pages long. I've already mentioned that once I hit a certain point in a text, I leave this digital space behind. This whole cyber realm feels mostly empty to me. I'm more about the town square—walking around, philosophizing, or at least having a conversation. But if neither of those is an option, then I'll just stay in my room and hold a dialogue in my head with whatever I'm reading—or rather, thinking. It's mostly for hygienic reasons, honestly; if you tried to start a deep debate with someone in the middle of a crowded park, people would just assume the guy has bad breath. What could they possibly hear besides the stench of his mouth? They wouldn't hear anything, because he isn't thinking anything.

As for Chesterton—returning to him—you can spend forever analyzing him, reading him, mimicking his style, or just being awestruck. I guess I'm a bit "crazy," so I see it this way: in just one single category of Aristotle's substance, there's more raw material for thought than in all hundred-odd books that Chesterton ever wrote. Just one category! And what am I supposed to do with that? Read Chesterton? Good grief, I'm not insane—well, I used to be, but I'm not anymore.
As a self-sufficient man—someone who doesn't look up to anyone or blindly accept anyone as a "great," since there are no true greats anyway, and I'm perfectly happy "entertaining" myself with Aristotle and Hegel by commenting on them primarily to myself to truly grasp them—I enter their thoughts to follow the path where "wonders become everyday occurrences." In other words, it's all a bit dull, and I don't need icons. And despite all that, believe me, I know more about them than you do. It's funny how a "non-great"—just an ordinary Joe, really—can so boldly strike out at another ordinary guy. And I'm a bit on the heavier side, too; I wear glasses, and I doubt I'd even recognize Chesterton on the street, though I'd spot him even without them. Actually, I'm not attacking him, even though if he were alive today, I'd probably pelt him with eggs or whack him over the head with a cane. You might instinctively think, "Well, that's an attack," but I can't give you a coherent answer to that because you don't understand anything, with all due respect. I'm simply putting him in his place; it's hardly an attack.

Anyone who actually *wants* knowledge doesn't read Chesterton unless they're looking for a bit of entertainment or a way to look important. The same goes for everything else. I'm not interested in authors like that anymore; I wouldn't even read them at a backyard BBQ—not that I'd go to a BBQ in the first place. Why would I? I have my room. Or, as Voltaire might put it, I have my garden to tend. I think that's pretty clear. Will people in the future read Chesterton the way they read Hegel (since this is his subject)? Of course not. I don't just think it, I know it. They'll read him, sure, but I think you're missing my point. To me, all wisdom is empty once you reach the point suggested by the Bloch quote attributed to Chesterton—and you can be damn sure it's empty for Bloch, too.

I watched Bergman's movies back when I was younger, but calling him a "giant" of cinema feels like you're confusing greatness with just being someone who contributed to the field. It’s more accurate to say he made an impact. Real giants? You find those in Plutarch. What you're listing here aren't giants—not yet. They only become giants if some genius down the road writes about them with the same depth Plutarch used. And honestly, that’s probably not happening because we don't have giants anymore. If we did, I’d happily lock myself in my room for a year—only coming out for the essentials—just to write something worthy of them. But that's the issue: there are no giants left. So, what am I supposed to write about? Chesterton? Bergman? Bloch? I could always write about myself, but I'd need other giants to pair with, and where am I going to find them? The people you mentioned aren't giants, and if you said that to me in person, I’d probably give you a light smack on the head for thinking you were being profound.

If you want to actually learn about true greatness or excellence, I suggest—to everyone, really—picking up 'Parallel Lives.' Read one biography every night and maybe you'll actually learn something. Forget this list of yours and just read Plutarch. If you don't believe me, you'll certainly believe him. For heaven's sake, Bergman? Bloch? Who on earth are you talking about? Have you no shame? All you pseudo-intellectuals need to just pipe down for once.
I'll leave the rest for you to judge.
Fine.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm heading off to comment on Hegel again.

I'm with danijeel on this one. Plutarch is top-tier. It isn't just about the big names, either—he dives into all these "side characters" that make history interesting. One of the best books out there.

Paul Thompson3 said:Actually, it’s just the truth—and your post really drives that point home. Those playing dumb are even worse. We’re all fundamentally flawed. You’re completely insignificant—just like me, and just like everyone else on this board. Without some famous names or family ties, you wouldn't even exist. Your existence is totally irrelevant, and you're just jerking off on this forum. Calling what I wrote "unfair"? Lol. What's actually unfair is that we as a species still exist at all. If there were democracy on Earth, every other species would have voted us out long ago. You want to know the real injustice? Dragging a new generation into this little hellscape and pretending we're doing them a favor.

If I had typed something like: "Everyone is absolutely wonderful. We all write beautiful, truthful posts. We're all like brothers who love one another. Every animal on Earth is thrilled we exist. Life is a paradise," the mod would probably (rightfully) delete it. It would be just as idiotic as the nonsense you just wrote.

Paul Thompson3 said:Honestly, isn't that way more realistic than the usual bullshit about "preserving the species"? As if we’re all some noble collective, obsessed with procreation just to keep the human race ticking along. You want kids to ensure survival? Please—nobody actually thinks like that. We all know deep down we earned being wiped off the face of the Earth by some massive meteor ages ago. And us losers hanging out on this forum—we're the lucky ones who didn't deserve anything good to begin with, yet somehow, no matter how you slice it, things still suck.

Gerald Hill—you should really put "Dr. of Thanatology" right under your avatar; it’s hilarious. Do you ever actually laugh, or do you find any humor at all in the world around you?

Since when did you become the spokesperson for everyone else? You don't get to decide what "everyone knows." Most people posting here aren't just "moping"—they're actually engaging. What you wrote is pretty unfair and, frankly, a bit rude.

Laura Castillo6 said:Exactly. You push yourself to make things better, even if that very effort ends up making things feel worse for a while. My main takeaway here is that choosing to end it all isn't a rational move.

I was just reacting to how you kicked things off—that "life has no meaning" bit. But honestly, whether life has a purpose or not, taking your own life is never a rational choice. So yeah, I'm totally with you on that.

Laura Castillo6 said:It matters because we were wired with survival instincts. I don't see what part of that is confusing.

Are you asking why any of this matters to us personally? Is it just to grasp the nature of everything?

Nothing is clear. Let me sum this up—life is meaningless. It’s not inherently significant; it’s just that *we* make it significant. We care because we have that hardwired survival instinct. But if that's the case, why bother doing anything at all besides just staying alive? Why even bother with evolution when even basic microbes have a drive to survive? You’ll probably hit me with some "Who says anything *needs* to happen? Things just are, period" nonsense. Well, things don't have to stay the way they are—they could be better. Isn't the whole point of life, and everything else for that matter, to actually make things better than they currently are?

Why does any of this matter to you? To understand the nature of everything.

I think it matters to anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy.

Laura Castillo6 said:I didn't actually mention that anywhere.

Quincy:

Then I guess even the individual doesn't really matter anymore.

Honestly, when you really sit back and think about the sheer scale of things—like the existence of the Sun, the Moon, or even a Leo—we humans are pretty much irrelevant. It’s kind of humbling, isn't it? I was out walking my dog near downtown Seattle the other day, looking up at that massive sky, and it just hit me how much the universe keeps spinning regardless of what we're doing down here. We spend so much time worrying about our daily grind, but the cosmos doesn't care one bit.

Quincy:

Honestly, when you really sit back and think about it, life probably could have just carried on without us ever showing up. It’s one of those heavy thoughts that hits you when you're staring out a window or just having a quiet moment. We tend to act like we're the main characters of this whole planet, but nature has its own rhythm that doesn't really need our interference to keep spinning. If humans had never walked this earth, I like to imagine the forests would be thicker, the oceans much cleaner, and everything would just be moving along in this perfect, undisturbed balance. We’re just a tiny blip in a very long story.

I mean, it’s pretty much a given, isn't it? It’s been around for billions of years.

Quincy:

You know, you could also argue that life itself doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The universe could have easily spun into existence without any biological life at all. In fact, it could just as easily have stayed a whole lot emptier. It makes you wonder—why does it even matter if anything exists in the first place? If there isn't some inherent meaning to it all, then... well, what are we even doing here? Nothing much to say on my end. Just hanging out. It doesn't really matter. What you wrote there... It’s pretty much the same thing as what Gerald Hill was saying earlier.

I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but bear with me: just because there isn't some grand, preordained purpose to everything doesn't mean life itself isn't real. It's a bit of a brain teaser, I know, but try to wrap your head around that for a second. It’s like being at a beautiful park in Seattle—you don't need a written manual explaining why the trees are growing or why the grass is green to appreciate that the park is actually there. Existence doesn't require a mission statement to be valid.

I'm actually on the same page as that user Omen here—it feels like nihilism is more of a byproduct of a depressive mindset rather than anything truly rational. It’s like when you're having one of those heavy weeks where everything just feels gray; suddenly, the idea that nothing matters starts to sound profound, but in reality, it's probably just the gloom talking. To me, true logic shouldn't be rooted in feeling stuck in a rut.

You know, I’ve been thinking lately that trying to pin down the "meaning of life" feels a bit like trying to describe what color a scent has. It’s one of those things that sounds deep when you say it out loud, but once you actually sit with it, it just sort of slips through your fingers. It’s like asking someone to tell you if a melody tastes like blue—it’s a beautiful thought, sure, but there isn't really a logical way to grasp it. We spend so much time searching for this grand, singular purpose, but maybe it’s more about just existing and enjoying the small stuff along the way.

I get it. Obviously, we exist. But what's the point of existing if there's no underlying reason for it all?

Laura Castillo6 said:The issue here is that life lacks inherent meaning, and you’re using efilism to argue that death is actually the only thing that could provide purpose to existence, right?

People only started hunting for "meaning" once humans evolved, which makes it totally irrelevant to the actual survival of a species. Life keeps going regardless of whether some individual mind starts questioning why it's all happening. Death is fundamentally the opposite of living, and over billions of years of evolution, creatures have developed this rock-solid instinct to stay alive. It’s baked into us, just like hunger, sex, or sleep—this deep-seated drive that says you have to survive at any cost.

What efilists are basically calling for is the total abandonment of that survival instinct and the extinction of every living thing on Earth. I don't know how that lands with everyone else, but to me, it sounds way more extreme than even the worst kind of totalitarian regime. You can't even put it in the same category. Honestly, trying to fight against basic biological drives feels as futile as trying to argue with gravity.

So why assume everything that isn't strictly necessary for survival is worthless? By that logic, humans aren't important either. Life could have happened without us. You could easily argue that life itself isn't important—the universe could have existed without life popping up, or it could have stayed empty. Why does existence even matter in the first place? If there's no objective meaning, then nothing actually matters. What you're saying here isn't much different from what Joe Biden is putting out.

Larry Moore83 said:But you see, death... it isn't just some unverified rumor anymore, is it?

So many people write about death as if they actually grasp the reality of it, but they don't. They really don't. 😁

Personally, I think the best take on death comes from Mak Dizdar:

"To sow the seeds of death in the land.
But death isn't the end
Because death doesn't even exist.
And there is no end.
Death just illuminates
The path ascending from the nest to the stars."

ruggedraven36 said:You missed my point entirely. When I said "the object's interiority is the same as the subject's," I wasn't claiming every object has an identical inner life—I meant that the object *has* an interiority of its own; that the object is also a subject. It's a matter of perspective: what's internal to the outsider is external to the insider. If I am a subject to myself but an object to you, then what am I really? Not "what I am to myself" or "what I am to you"—that's just relativity. I mean what am I, fundamentally? Truth has to be something that transcends the subject-object divide without simply collapsing the subject into the object or vice versa.
That last bit you wrote about "everything being one" is something I can get behind, but that doesn't mean everything is equal.

Let me break this down. If we look behind the Appearance of an object—that "external" thing—to find its inner core, then that core is just what the object is to itself. And since that object is a subject to itself (like another person), they become an "object" to us. To my perspective, their entire inner world—their subjectivity—is just more external data. Basically, someone only truly exists as a subject through what they express outwardly—through their Appearance. A subject is only "real" when viewed as an object. At the same time, an object is only "real" insofar as it functions as a subject, otherwise, we wouldn't have any internal way to process another consciousness.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What are you, truly? 🙂 I don't think philosophy can offer you a definitive answer to that, certainly not through some final, airtight definition. However, if I may point out, the very fact that you function as an object to everyone else while remaining a subject to yourself aligns perfectly with the idea that everything exists only in relation to something else. Nothing stands "in itself" or exists in total isolation from the rest of the universe. In this context, I view "subject" and "object" as purely relational concepts rather than fixed states.

I'm with you on that, even if we aren't hunting for some "ultimate definition." I am essentially a relational concept.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Are you suggesting that if I am the subject and you are the object—something external to me—and I am conscious of my own inner workings (the source of these sentences), there is no need to question your interiority because it is fundamentally the same as mine? And that the fact different sentences emerge from those different interiors is all just relative and deceptive? Are you implying that my interiority, yours, and everyone else's—our thoughts, feelings, memories, our entire psyche—is essentially identical?

And does this extend to animals and plants as well? That their interiority is identical to ours, that we all share the same psyche, the same internal experiences, and the same conclusions, making any perceived difference purely relative (and perhaps any similarity isn't coincidental at all 😉)?
Is it also relative that my sensation of pain isn't the same as yours, or a dog's, or a chicken's? Is it relative that we won't react to the same stimulus in the exact same way, because ultimately everything is the same since it is established that "all is One"?

danieel —I have to tell you, reading about all this "emptiness" and "nothingness," I felt less like I was reading an interpretation of Hegel and more like I was reading a post from David Miller, who seems to be some kind of "efilist" (whatever that implies) rather than a philosopher 😉
Furthermore, it felt like reading an outdated critique of a religion or theology that has moved on significantly since the very positions mentioned here were first held. Not to mention that it's practically common knowledge now that animals "see" things we can't—that they perceive "spirits" and such... In short, it feels like a collection of many obsolete official doctrines.

(I think I finally understand why some users argued that Hegel might have written his theses and conclusions differently had he lived today. As we see here, most of these conclusions are heavily supported by, derived from, and reliant upon the official religious stances of his era, likely influenced by the scientific reach of that time, the socio-political climate, and so on. Essentially, Hegelian philosophy is tethered to a specific era; to the extent that the period shapes the thought, the thought cannot be considered "eternal.")

You missed my point entirely. When I said "the object's interiority is the same as the subject's," I wasn't claiming every object has an identical inner life—I meant that the object *has* an interiority of its own; that the object is also a subject. It's a matter of perspective: what's internal to the outsider is external to the insider. If I am a subject to myself but an object to you, then what am I really? Not "what I am to myself" or "what I am to you"—that's just relativity. I mean what am I, fundamentally? Truth has to be something that transcends the subject-object divide without simply collapsing the subject into the object or vice versa.
That last bit you wrote about "everything being one" is something I can get behind, but that doesn't mean everything is equal.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I think I’m slightly misinterpreting this, so let me write it out immediately to make sure I haven't "missed the mark" 😁
The issue arises when the "thing-in-itself"—that internal essence within a concept or object—is severed from the object's actual appearance (its external look, or how it presents itself to us). If we follow the Kantian insistence that an object's "inner nature" is unknowable to the subject, then that "interiority" isn't just being separated from the subject; it becomes detached from the object itself. If it’s divorced from the object's appearance (what it seems to be to us as subjects), then it exists independently of its own manifestation. In other words, it becomes unreachable not just to the observer, but to the object's own presence?

In short, the logic would be:
The object's appearance is intelligible to the subject.
The object's interiority is unintelligible to the subject.
Therefore, the appearance and the interiority of the object are two distinct things.
If appearance and interiority are separate—given that one can be grasped while the other cannot—how, and by what mechanism, does the object encompass both these distinct aspects? Is there some third value at play... perhaps emergence? 🙂
If emergence is what contains both the appearance and the interiority of the object, to what extent is that emergence itself accessible to the subject?

Essentially, whatever is hidden in a way that defies mediation or division remains forever "torn away" from the shared field. Even if that hidden part possesses some form of potential existence, it is utterly irrelevant to everything else within that field. It lacks any point of contact or influence over the elements of the field. After all, if something cannot be mediated—if it cannot be made clear, accessible, useful, or functional—then it is effectively meaningless. What is the point of its potential truth if it serves no purpose? 😁

(This is the closest I’ve ever come to actually "philosophizing" 😉 ) .....

Look, if a person is aware of their own inner workings, then an object's "inside" is basically just another subject's "inside"—because, at the end of the day, we're all just objects to someone else. This hints at the idea that splitting reality into subject vs. object, or inner vs. outer, isn't some absolute truth. It's just relative.

Brian Walker16 said:Exactly. That's the issue. They try to make truth relative. But truth isn't subject to being relative—it just is. Everything else is just pure destruction that leads straight to chaos. The trivium is basically the methodology used to find truth through sound reasoning. Truth is tied to reality and logic. Just look at how many different definitions of religion there are out there. Everyone has their own version, but none of them constitute the actual truth, which just leads back to that same destruction and chaos...

What do you even mean by "truth is"? That it exists, or what? A delusion exists too. So, how exactly are we supposed to tell the difference between truth and a lie?

Trivium:

1. What relates to both reality and reason? Answer: Truth.
2. How does truth relate to reality and reason? Answer: ?
3. Why does truth relate to reality and reason? Answer: ?

You answered the first one. Now try answering the second and third using this "trivium" method you’re so fond of.