Posts by ruggedraven36

Eric Newman75 said:And did it ever cross your mind that kids just aren't mature enough to decide whether they actually need school or not?

Doesn't change the bottom line. Coercion isn't a right—period. Doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not.

wearyharbor41 said:I fail to see how the existence of a right relates to the concept of coercion. Having a right to work is one thing, but forcing someone into agricultural labor when their talents lie elsewhere—or worse, conscripting them into mining operations under the guise of exercising a "right to work"—is quite another matter entirely. We are discussing unnecessary compulsion here, rather than the merits of educational rights; if I am being repetitive, I suggest revisiting my previous posts on other subforums regarding this specific topic.

It is frankly astonishing that these concepts are being conflated, particularly within a philosophy forum, and even more so when coming from a moderator.

P.S. I remain hopeful that a philosopher with a functioning conscience—someone who genuinely wishes no harm upon others, especially vulnerable children who cannot defend themselves—might join this discussion, provided they approach it with intellectual honesty and arguments that actually hold weight.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. There’s a massive difference between having the option to do something and being forced into it.

Robert Reyes4 said:Fine, I get it: everything could theoretically be reduced to physics.
But what good does that do us when our brains can't actually break down all these complex phenomena surrounding us into the movements of elementary particles?
It doesn't help us decide whether to go with the flow or change things bit by bit, or if change is even possible.

The problem isn't just that you can't reduce everything to physics—it's that physics can't even reduce itself. It can't explain its own damn existence, let alone serve as some grand "theory of everything."

We’ve already gone down the rabbit hole on reductionism enough times across a dozen different threads, so I’m not going to beat a dead horse here. Besides, there’s already a dedicated thread titled "reductionism is antihumanism" if you want to dive into that specific mess.

copperhound12 said:It feels like I’m picking up on a hint of irony from you (?)—but honestly, that isn't even your actual point. Ignorance itself can never serve as a valid argument, and I suspect you might be leaning on some rather flawed and privileged tools to make your case (?)—though I won't say for certain. And of course, I am not presenting my own argument just yet. It isn't some finished, polished product; it is simply the best version of it that exists right now. ☕

If you ask me, any form of reductionism is logically indefensible. It just doesn't hold water. Not only is the sheer, overwhelming complexity of reality impossible to boil down into some neat little package, but I honestly suspect that nothing can ever be fully reduced to something else. It’s just fundamentally flawed.

"There’s just so much to take in from a vantage point like that." — unknown

I’ve already pointed out that we are operating within entirely different paradigms here. For you, everything essentially begins with... What on earth is this world actually made of? I mean, really think about it for a second. Is it all just matter and motion, or is there something deeper beneath the surface that we're all missing? I guess it's one of those questions that keeps you up at night if you dwell on it too long. Maybe it's physics, maybe it's something more metaphysical... I don't know, but I've been wondering lately. Philosophical concepts? Honestly, that’s just not how I see things. To me, a concept is something entirely different. It’s much deeper, far more comprehensive, and infinitely broader than some narrow little definition. It should be expansive, vast... not at all confined or small-minded. For me, it is... Physics. Honestly, where do we even begin with this? I mean, if you really sit down and think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time doing that—it feels like we’re constantly dancing around the edges of something much larger than ourselves. It's all just layers upon layers of complexity, isn't it? Sometimes I feel like we get so caught up in the math and the formulas that we lose sight of the actual soul of the universe. We try to squeeze everything into neat little equations, but I guess that might just be our own limitation. Maybe we aren't meant to grasp the whole thing at once. It’s easy to fall into that trap where you think a single formula explains existence, but that kind of narrow thinking... well, I've always felt that reductionism is antihumanism. You can't just strip away the wonder and leave us with nothing but cold numbers. It’s a bit overwhelming, I suppose. One minute you're looking at the stars, thinking about the vastness of space, and the next you're staring at a chalkboard wondering if any of it actually makes sense in a way that matters to a real person. It’s a lot to process. Just a thought..

Because once you reach that vantage point, you realize there are entire, unexplored worlds stretching out just beyond the horizon.

Here’s my actual argument. If you reduce one thing down to another, then that second thing has to provide a total explanation for the first. In that case, nothing unique remains of the original object—it’s basically been erased, we just didn't realize it yet. If you were right and everything in existence could just be boiled down to quantum fields, then any truthful statement becomes complete nonsense. For instance, you wouldn't be allowed to say "that's a flower"—you'd have to say "those are quantum fields," unless you're looking to lie. Every single answer would eventually just default to "it's all quantum fields." To me, that isn't profound; it's shallow. A flower is still a flower. No matter how much you try to reduce it to quantum fields, there has to be something irreducible about it for it to even function as a flower. That's why Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was spot on when he wrote in one of his letters: "The greatest joke is that things are what they are."

copperhound12 said:It’s better to face a catastrophic end than to endure a life defined by pure horror. Timing is everything.

Truth lies deep within (Democritus).

If you aren't grappling with concepts, then honestly, what are you even doing in philosophy? You might as well just pack up and head home. There is absolutely nothing to seek if you aren't willing to dive deep into the actual building blocks of thought.I think... I guess it was somewhere around Immanuel Kant—or maybe it was Johann Gottlieb Fichte?—who was deep in thought, really wrestling with those ideas in...I suppose one could argue that we’re looking at some kind of classic German idealism here, though I don't know if that's quite the right way to frame it. Maybe. It feels like we're drifting back toward those old-school philosophical frameworks, but I can't help but wonder if we're just circling the drain of outdated thought. I suppose I have to say it—this is easily the most comprehensive and complete era in the entire history of philosophy. Of course, I’m right along with you regarding the definitions and the terminology we're using here, but as far as my own perspective goes... It’s just not even remotely enough. Honestly, it doesn't even come close. (A different paradigm) — Look, I’m looking for something much broader, more comprehensive, even redundant if necessary. I want deep, holistic, and purposeful reasoning—something on par with Democritus. So, frankly, you’re just not right here. The answer is actually quite simple, albeit unconventional: it all stems from quantum fields—those soft, floating networks... I suppose I should probably start by saying that if anyone actually believes the nonsense being peddled about spinfoam, they’ve clearly missed the point entirely. I mean, honestly, where does this obsession even come from? It feels like we’re just circling the drain of intellectual laziness at this point. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I really can't help it when I see people jumping to conclusions without any real substance to back them up. It’s all just... noise. Just endless, repetitive noise. You look at the way certain theorists try to force these complex structures into such tiny, rigid boxes, and it’s just frustrating. It’s almost as if they think they can just bypass the actual complexity of the universe by using these simplified models. I guess some people find comfort in that, but for me, it’s just maddening. It feels like a massive step backward.).

No, let’s actually get back to the heart of the matter here. We are discussing philosophy, after all, and you can't have true philosophy without acknowledging the role of emotion—specifically LOVE. I suppose I should probably start by saying that if we’re going to have any kind of serious discussion about philosophy, we really need to stop treating it like some sort of playground game. It’s exhausting, honestly. I feel like I’m constantly shouting into a void where people just want to pick apart everything until there’s nothing left but dust. It’s that constant, nagging tendency toward what I can only describe as reductionism being antihumanism. People think they're being clever by stripping away the soul of an argument, but all they're doing is killing the very thing that makes thought worth having. You can't just reduce the entire human experience to a set of equations or cold, hard data points and expect to find truth. That's just... it's fundamentally flawed. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't see it any other way. And don't even get me started on how people misinterpret the heavy hitters. You see people tossing around names like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel as if they actually understand the dialectic, when in reality, they're just using him as a decorative ornament for their own shallow ideas. It’s infuriating! It’s like watching someone try to play a concerto on a toy piano and claiming they’ve mastered Mozart. There’s this desperate need for simplicity that I just can't wrap my head around. Everyone wants a quick answer, a neat little package they can digest between bites of a burger. But real thought—true, deep, transformative thought—is messy. It's difficult. It requires grit. If you aren't willing to sit with the discomfort of a complex idea, then why even bother calling yourself a thinker? I guess some people just prefer the easy path, but that's not philosophy; that's just intellectual laziness....toward wisdom.
A fresh start is entirely possible within the macroscopic, primitive world. However, in the physical—the quantum realm—it’s simply impossible. I’ll go on record saying that if we actually want to grasp the truth, this is it: I suppose one could argue that having a valid perspective is everything, though I'm never quite sure if we can ever truly claim to possess one. It’s all so subjective, isn't it? Maybe we think we see the world clearly, but I suspect most of us are just squinting through a fog of our own making. I mean, what does it even mean to have a "right" view on anything? Is it based on logic, or is it just how we feel in the moment? I guess it's complicated. There might be some merit to looking at things from a different angle, but honestly, I find myself doubting whether any single viewpoint can actually hold water in this chaotic mess we call reality. Perhaps, just perhaps, true clarity is something we're all just chasing without ever actually catching.This is my final word on the matter because, frankly, at this point in time, it’s the best answer I can give.

I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m honestly not sure if anyone is even listening anymore. It feels like we’re just shouting into a void at this point. I guess maybe I can try to lay it out, but I have my doubts about whether the nuance will actually land. It seems like there's this pervasive, almost aggressive trend toward what I can only describe as a complete abandonment of the individual. Honestly, it’s exhausting. I truly believe that reductionism is antihumanism—there, I said it. If you strip away the complexity of the human experience to fit into some neat little mathematical or sociological box, you aren't being "scientific," you're just being destructive. You're erasing the very essence of what makes us people. Maybe I'm being too intense, or maybe I'm just tired of seeing everything flattened out by people who think they have all the answers. It’s all so incredibly reductive. I don't know. Perhaps I'm just overthinking it, but it feels like we're losing the forest for the trees, quite literally. Anyway, that's just my two cents. Don't mind me. kaže:
I guess I’ve just never felt that level of certainty about what constitutes something false. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say I'm ever quite that sure when it comes to spotting a lie.
I suppose I’m always prone to seeing things through multiple perspectives at once. It's just how I am, I guess.

And we ought to question everything—every single thing—until we finally stumble upon the ultimate answer, and until we’ve actually managed to secure some useful tools for ourselves. ☕

Let there be light! (meaning "may there be light") – honestly, we should probably change that to: Let’s turn the lights back on! Because—who…

Who could possibly count the grains of sand upon the shore,
The falling raindrops, or the endless days of eternity?
Who can fathom the heights of the heavens,
Or measure the earth's breadth and the depths of the abyss?
(Ecclesiasticus 1, Collection of Sayings)

Your answer is certainly simple and weird—concepts aren't enough for you, but quantum fields are. So, everything in existence boils down to these soft, floating networks (spinfoam). That is one hell of a "deep" answer.

As far as I'm concerned, any form of reductionism is logically indefensible. It's not just that the vastness of reality can't be boiled down to something simple; I'd go further—I don't think *anything* can be fully reduced to something else.

Donna Doyle2 said:You know, they say you can never step into the same river twice, because by the time you go back, neither the water nor the person stepping into it is quite the same as before, right? Isn't that just such a beautiful way to look at how much we're all constantly changing!

So now I’m sitting here wondering if I even owe the money back. If the guy I borrowed it from isn't the same guy anymore, and I'm definitely not the same guy who took the loan, does the debt even exist?

copperhound12 said:It feels like we’re operating on two completely different wavelengths here. I mean, seriously—we aren't even talking about the same thing. Humans actually construct their own social reality; that's just how it works. If we didn't actively shape our own nature through social science and structure, then we'd basically be nothing more than animals wandering around without any sense of history at all. We create the framework we live in, and in doing so, we become part of it. Subject and object. It’s the fundamental divide, isn't it? I suppose one could argue that everything boils down to this basic distinction, though I find the whole concept somewhat exhausting to contemplate. You have the subject—the actor, the driver, the force behind the motion—and then you have the object, the thing being acted upon, the passive recipient of all that energy. It seems simple enough on paper, but when you actually start digging into the mechanics of how we perceive reality, it gets messy. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't help but feel there's more at play here than just grammar or basic physics. It's about agency versus existence. One side holds the power, while the other simply exists to be influenced. It’s a heavy thought, I guess. Nature. Of course, he’s part of nature—as in the natural sciences—there's absolutely no debating that point. But that just leads us straight to the real question: why on earth is it like that?

I firmly maintain the thesis that all sciences—and by extension, philosophy itself—can be distilled down to its most rudimentary form into... I suppose I should probably mention physics... though why anyone would even bring that up in this context is beyond me. It’s just one more thing to overcomplicate, isn't it? I mean, maybe there's some deep, fundamental truth there, but most people just use it as an excuse to sound smarter than they actually are. It's all very exhausting.If we actually want to see the world as it truly is—not how we wish it were or how we pretend it is—then we have to respect the most fundamental, non-negotiable law of science: the truth is absolute and final. It just is. I suppose I should probably mention that there's some information out there, if anyone actually cares to listen. Maybe it’s important, maybe it isn't—I honestly can't be certain without looking into it further, but I felt the need to bring it up regardless. It’s just one of those things, I guess.) - u I suppose if we look at this from a macroscopic perspective... maybe? It’s just my take, but looking at the big picture, everything seems to shift. i microscopic Quantum mechanics, the fabric of spacetime, the fluid foam... it all comes down to shape. To truly grasp how these things function, you need the entirety of Nature—which, if you think about it, is really just physics.

Or—if that makes things any clearer for you—what exactly is this world made of? ☕

Concepts. Honestly, I can't imagine it being anything else.

copperhound12 said:Are you seriously not following me again? Honestly. That was nothing more than my own modest, humble (and certainly not vain) bit of mental gymnastics—a sort of somersault or talking-in-circles. In my very last sentence, I explicitly stated that ultimate answers do not exist. What we have are merely reliable, best-guess conclusions (in the realm of science) that we accept as "final" until something newer, fresher, or better proves itself to be more accurate, more reliable, and—naturally—more "final." At least for that specific moment in time.

Look, Eda, of course a human being, as an integral part of nature, seeks some kind of (imagined) new beginning on a macroscopic level—but that is hardly sufficient because, in my view, philosophy and physics are complementary, unified, and rudimentary (in their origins); there is a cohesion between them that must exist. It's the reason an electron orbits its nucleus indefinitely; if it simply collapsed into it, nothing in this world would exist: matter, time, or space (including spacetime). So now, naturally, we ask ourselves: why is it like this? Why does the electron persistently avoid its nucleus? Is it a mystery involving the immutable laws of nature? Is that our ultimate answer in philosophy (or physics)? Of course not—it's futile. ☕

People look for a fresh start because they’re fed up with their current one—they want a life that actually works better. What does that have to do with biology or the physical laws of the universe? Absolutely nothing. If you treat a human being merely as a component of nature, you're treating them like an object, not a subject with the agency to decide how to live.

copperhound12 said:Good is evil, truth is a lie, life is nothing but a joke. ( Jack London)
All this talk about a "new beginning" is utterly futile. It’s nothing more than a fantasy dreamt up by a "Mad Hatter" (who keeps checking his watch) (L. Carroll).

Everything cycles back eternally, because everything is eternally the same. Nietzsche saw that coming like a prophet.
Why bother wallowing in useless depression or manufacturing these fake hopes?
In our one and only Universe, how can you even claim to possess "time" (when time itself doesn't actually exist)?
The beginning is actually the end. The end is actually a new beginning. A loop (quantum) transforms into foam (fluid). Does nature ever actually seek out—anywhere—a "new beginning"? Where does a new wave truly begin? Where does a mountain start? Only science (physics) tries to provide final answers. But final answers don't exist; there are only the ones we decide are acceptable (the best ones) in any given moment. ☕

If they don't exist, why bother acting like they do? You claim "new beginnings are pointless"—but who are you to say they won't work? Then you drop "everything comes back around because everything is eternally the same." That's just another "final answer" masquerading as truth. And this bit about nature not seeking a "new beginning"? Nature isn't the one looking—humans are. If we didn't crave that reset, we wouldn't even be human.

frozengardener7 said:I am simply wondering whether a clean break is necessary or if gradual change is the way to go. If you make a sudden cut, there is an expectation that you have established entirely new rules, and then it becomes your duty to stick to them without fail. On the other hand, gradual change involves working on yourself alongside those aforementioned ghosts of the past, slowly rising above them.

Which approach is superior?

Look, I’m all for the radical, immediate cut from anything fake. If we've finally realized we've been living a lie, how exactly do you "gradually" stop being a fraud? You don't. You just quit.

How do you bridge a fresh start with the ghosts of what came before? Maybe by digging through that past to find the hidden potential for freedom that actually got sidelined—and then demanding we finally live up to it.

lonegardener said:@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

It isn't about some phantom phobia. It's about people trying to make life livable without feeling like society has collectively decided to cast them out.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Look, obviously I get that a man is also just a person. Do you really think I’m that dense?

Yeah. Based on your earlier posts, that was my only logical takeaway. Too bad plenty of people don't catch that.

Quincy:

And sure, he cares about someone else's identity—just not within the scope of the Wolverine experiment.

You wrote: "But men generally don't care about a woman's identity even when she actually is a woman." If you meant "generally," then we aren't just talking about the Wolverine experiment. If I misread you, that's on me.

Quincy:

I think you know exactly what I meant and you're just being provocative. It's insulting.

No, you've got it wrong. I didn't grasp what you "meant" at all, and I wasn't trying to provoke you.

My bad if it came off as an insult.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I was honestly just trying to meet you at your level of conversation, I guess. It all started when I mentioned how men don't typically dwell on other people's identities, which seemed to trigger you to start trolling, so I decided to just play along with the game. Now, if you truly believe I'm being a fool, then maybe you have to conclude that you're being an even bigger one; after all, not only are you engaging with a fool—which is silly enough in itself—but you were actually the one who kicked off all this nonsense. And now you seem genuinely shocked, lashing out with insults, and I really hope there's an appropriate moderation action taken here. Both for the trolling and the personal attacks 🤷

The "trolling" thing? Purely in your head. You clearly missed the basic philosophy lesson here—if you actually understood that a man is a human being first, you’d realize he actually *does* give a damn about identity.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:If we look at it from a linguistic perspective, the term "humanity" was historically used primarily to refer to men 🤷

Dead wrong. The word "man" has always been synonymous with the species—period. If you’re the type of person who gets tripped up trying to argue whether women are actually people just because the word "man" is being used to describe the whole group, then you're just proving how little sense you make.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:From a purely biological standpoint, women are definitely human beings, so I guess there really isn't any room for debate there at all.😁

Where’s the double standard? Since when did women stop being people?

Good God, what kind of nonsense are you spewing?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Actually, I think it’s quite the opposite! The real question, I suppose, is how much women were even considered human in the first place. I guess even Marin touched on this idea in one of his novels—mentioning people, women, and children as if they were separate categories altogether. Historically speaking, the very term "humanity" seemed to almost exclusively refer to men, don't you think?

Debating whether women are people is a question only an idiot would waste time on. Marin obviously wasn't suggesting women aren't human beings. It's the same logic as an Index song like "One Man and One Woman"—it's not implying the woman isn't a person.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Though, I guess most men aren't even particularly concerned with a woman's identity, even when she truly is a woman.😁

That might actually hold water—if men weren't human.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, because I think it's quite possible to be on the internet specifically to spread lies and deceive others 🙂

That’s exactly what I was thinking when I called them an "even bigger idiot."