Posts by ruggedraven36

Harold Doyle3 said:Why on earth aren't you applying Marx right now?
He actually laid out a specific procedure for how to answer that very question.

So, what’s this "procedure"?

Sandra Murphy33 said:"Who am I?" is one of those universal inquiries that remains perpetually relevant, simply because it is, at its core, an actual question. What does it even mean to be human? It’s a question people tend to ask when they're feeling particularly lost or perhaps just a bit too philosophical for their own good. If you're looking for a biological definition, sure, we can talk about DNA and evolutionary biology, but that feels like missing the point entirely. Realistically, being human is less about our physical makeup and more about this constant, messy struggle between instinct and intention. We are creatures driven by primal urges, yet we spend most of our lives trying to pretend those urges don't exist behind a veneer of civility and social etiquette. We build massive cities, complex legal systems, and intricate technologies, all while remaining fundamentally tethered to the same basic fears and desires that drove us thousands of years ago. To me, being human is defined by that specific tension—the capacity to act against our own self-interest for an idea, a belief, or another person. It's that unpredictable friction between what we are and what we attempt to become. It isn't always pretty, and it certainly isn't consistent, but it's the only thing that makes the whole endeavor worth observing. Or perhaps it’s just a question of what I am—what it actually means to be a human being.

If we all sat here offering our own individual perspectives on this philosophical question, we wouldn't actually get any closer to an answer. In fact, we’d likely just drift further away from it.

Ja It’s that one thing we all have in common: the ability to say "I." We all carry this identical perception of ourselves—that singular, internal sense of identity that exists in that fleeting moment right before consciousness fades. The concept of "mindset" is often treated like some magical elixir in self-help circles, but if you look closely, it’s really just a collection of ingrained patterns and mental habits that dictate how we process reality. It isn't about positive thinking or smiling through a crisis; it's about the underlying architecture of your perception. Most people drift through life reacting to external stimuli without ever questioning why they interpret certain events the way they do. They operate on autopilot, driven by subconscious biases and old conditioning that they mistake for objective truth. Realizing that your perspective is essentially a curated filter—one that can be dismantled and rebuilt—is the first step toward any kind of genuine agency. It’s a slow, tedious process of deconstructing your own illusions, and frankly, most people lack the discipline to actually follow through. When you look at this through the lens of Hegelian "fixation of identity," things get complicated. It’s that specific moment where a fluid process gets frozen into a static concept, and we mistake that snapshot for the whole reality. We tend to take a moving target and pretend it's a stationary object just so we can feel like we have a grip on it. In practice, that kind of intellectual rigidity usually leads to more confusion than clarity.

Look, whenever anyone starts talking about "who they are," they’re really just talking about their whole damn self. Why would I be any less me—or not exist at all—if I stripped away the very things that make me unique? The "Who am I?" question is universal, sure, but... It’s more than just that. It’s a universal question, really. I can't tell you if this thing is just me—some deep-seated personal quirk—or if it's something specific that isn't part of my DNA. The truth? It’s both. You can't untangle them. They're fused together.

The line between the individual and the collective is so blurred it’s almost pointless—once you pin down one, you’ve basically grabbed the other by the throat. It's all the same thing. When someone starts baring their soul about their own specific, messy life experiences, anyone listening realizes they're just looking at a mirror of their own universal human experience. And vice versa—you start talking about those big, sweeping "human truths," and suddenly everyone’s seeing their own personal struggles reflected back at them. It's a loop. You can't have one without the other.

And even if someone actually managed to answer the ultimate philosophical question—"Who am I?"—and wrote an entire book about themselves, nobody’s going to be studying it in Ivy League classrooms. Why? Because at the end of the day, it’s just a book about one guy.

planinar said:And out of all that—the most ancient question and yet still the most relevant—is just: who am I?

There’s no way to answer that. Not when there are over eight billion of us breathing right now—and if you factor in everyone who’s already kicked the bucket, the number is astronomical. Every single person is their own "I." So, given the sheer volume of those "I's," finding a single answer is basically impossible.

silentraven6 said:How could it bother me? I don't sense any malice here, and you know me—I'm all for embracing different perspectives.

Glad to hear it.

silentraven6 said:I’ve been reading through all your replies, and honestly, I’m really happy with how everyone is engaging here. It feels incredibly similar to what I used to experience firsthand in the classroom. One student actually echoed exactly what addx was saying, which was interesting because my whole goal during that lesson was to lay down the groundwork for philosophy as a formal science—trying to define its scope and make them realize its history is essentially just one big series of deep, investigative questions.

If those were my students today, some would have probably dismissed him as a mere sophist, and I’m certain at least one of them would have jumped right in to play devil's advocate, tossing out cognitive puzzles just to keep things complicated. I truly miss that kind of teaching. Even though, if I’m being honest, I’m a bit of a failure as a philosopher—I’m more of a relatively well-read naturalist since I never had the time or the headspace to really dive deep into my studies back at university because I was always stuck working these precarious, dead-end jobs. And this topic regarding labor... it’s fascinating. I keep trying to sit down and draft something meaningful about it, but the words just aren't coming, so I think I'll just stay quiet for now.

It really does warm my heart to see these responses and the discussion unfolding on this thread.

Look, I hope you don't mind that I don't see your question as anything particularly philosophical—but honestly, we ended up getting some great philosophical takes out of it anyway, so thanks for asking.

Joseph Murphy10 said:We’ve already got some killer responses first thing in the morning—clearly MMovca set the bait with a pretty provocative question.
I didn't take the prompt as someone stating a hard fact; I saw it more as an invitation to kick off a debate about what the single most important philosophical question is in today's world. So, I'll try to chip in with my own two cents before time runs out, though honestly, Neo, Walnut, and Joseph Murphy10 have pretty much covered everything I would've said anyway—just in their own way.

Look, if the question was "What is the single most important question in ancient philosophy?", would you respond by saying, "I didn't take the question as a fact, but rather as an opening for a debate on what should have been the most important question back then"? Probably not. It’s pretty simple—one refers to modern thought, the other to antiquity. That's the difference.

Just so we’re clear—I’m not saying the question itself sucks. It’s just not really a philosophical one. I'm asking because modern philosophy is a total mystery to me, and I'd rather actually know what's going on than fly blind.

Sandra Murphy33 said:If modern philosophy decides a certain question is the most vital one, that’s where its focus will inevitably land—so isn't it essentially the same thing?

But why on earth would you categorize this as a historical issue?
Because philosophy doesn't just sit around inventing its own homework. Instead, the tasks—the most pressing questions—are handed down by the specific historical moment, the era in which these philosophers actually exist.

And that historical moment is nothing more than "the present."

Let them deal with it—fine. But just because philosophy fixates on a specific question during a certain era doesn't mean that question actually matters. It’s a massive distinction. There's a world of difference between noting what people *are* obsessing over and deciding what they *should* be obsessing over. Those aren't the same thing.

It’s a historical question—pure and simple—because it’s digging into facts from a specific era.

ruggedraven36:

Philosophy can’t just sit there and assign itself homework—it doesn't work like that. It’s more like this: the actual questions, the heavy hitters that matter, are forced upon us by the historical moment. It’s the era we’re stuck living in that sets the agenda for the philosophers.

Sure, she can set her own "goals" if she wants—but if we’re talking about what modern philosophy actually sets for itself, that's not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of being informed. You don't "opine" on whether Quincy is the capital of Ethiopia; you either know it or you don't. Same deal here. To answer which question currently dominates the field, you don't need an opinion—you just need to have actually read the literature.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What do you mean by that? 🙄

I interpreted the question as an inquiry into what the primary focus of contemporary philosophy ought to be.

Me? I read it as her asking what modern philosophy considers its most critical issue.

This isn't even a philosophical debate—it’s a historical one. It’s like asking someone to pick out the single most important idea from British Empiricism.

Let’s clear the air on whether I was joking or not. I wasn't. Honestly, I'm just in a foul mood today—I think I overreacted. My apologies to my fellow hikers and the valley trekkers out there.

One more thing. As things stand, the trekker and I are leading the vote. Since I probably won't be hanging around the forum tomorrow, if it turns out I win, I want to pose a question about aging. I'd love for everyone to share how they envision a good life in their later years—can old age actually be good? Just anything regarding getting older that feels important to you.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aha...

Well, if things have actually reached that point, you can always just drop it in the comments section. 🤷
In fact, you could go ahead and explain exactly why all the responses were so poor; that might actually serve as useful feedback.

Didn't think of that. 😵 You're right.

I’m being dead serious here. I think this is the right answer because it gives us a way to see who actually wants to show up to the polls but just can't find a candidate worth their time. Otherwise, it just looks like they don't give a damn about anything.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Oh, come on, Jack, it was just a joke—nothing personal against you.

Except I wasn't joking. Messing with someone who’s being serious isn't exactly class act. Whatever. I'm done being mad—I just feel a little sorry for you guys, honestly. Didn't expect that from this group.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I am formally requesting that the administration here at the forum acquire a software tool capable of implementing the Single-party proposal.

Poll responses—beyond the standard (multiple) choices of this—that should definitely include:
1. I have no idea, and this is my final word
2. I have no idea, but I might give it some thought...
3. None of the above
4. None of the above except for my own, provided I haven't already stated otherwise
5. Not in a million years
6. Love you all
7. I’m retracting my vote; I want to cast it again

steelridge58 said:Hahahaha

Good

hahaha Good Occam's razor is actually the perfect tool for this situation

Just cut through it, or maybe trim everything down one by one
🙂))

Shame on you for mocking my suggestion. I'm being serious here, and you're just laughing. You remind me way too much of those Nietzschean "last men."
The two of you can stop addressing me—directly or indirectly—and I'll do the same for you. I have zero respect for you.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I am formally requesting that the administration here at the forum acquire a software tool capable of implementing the Single-party proposal.

Poll responses—beyond the standard (multiple) choices of this—that should definitely include:
1. I have no idea, and this is my final word
2. I have no idea, but I might give it some thought...
3. None of the above
4. None of the above except for my own, provided I haven't already stated otherwise
5. Not in a million years
6. Love you all
7. I’m retracting my vote; I want to cast it again

You're overthinking it. You're starting to complicate things. If someone doesn't want to vote, a hundred extra options won't change their mind—and if they *do* want to vote but aren't doing it, there's usually only one reason: they hate every single option provided (except maybe their own).

steelridge58 said:To be honest, my bigger headache—if you can even call it that—is more about the people who hang out in the "Answers" section but just don't bother to vote, that overall lack of engagement, which really makes me wonder
- what the hell is driving that behavior?

The reason might just be that there isn't an option for "None of these are the right answer."

I say we just toss in two more options: "None of these work for me" and "None of these work except my own."

There’s no such thing as a real life—not before death and certainly not after—unless we actually have a decent, humane social order to live in.