Posts by Sam Thomas

mellownomad30 said:hey everyone

first off, just a heads up—this is strictly my own take on things. I’m trying to kick off a discussion from a more philosophical angle, even though most people here just tend to shove their personal biases down everyone's throats. honestly, that's fine by me; your bias is basically what builds your whole philosophy anyway.

I haven't actually sat down and read any books by the "real" heavy-hitter philosophers. I skimmed some stuff on "moral relativism"—can't even remember the author because it was pretty twisted and didn't really click with me.

but man, it's wild how most "philosophical" debates just end up being people recycling quotes or rephrasing a handful of guys who've been dead for centuries.

hardly anyone actually pushes the topic further than just applying some stale, pre-packaged versions of ethics or morality.

having lurked on this forum for a few years now, whenever I drop in, it feels less like a community and more like some weird social experiment that I happen to be watching from the sidelines.

the bottom line I've landed on is this: humans are just animals.

let me break that down and get ahead of the inevitable backlash: people are fundamentally selfish. everything is about "me" first.

I tried testing this out with a little mental exercise:

look at my basic needs—what am I actually looking for? food, drink, sex, warmth, affection (fill in the blanks as you see fit)—it's always easier to grab those things if I use other people to get them. so, I start layering on all these manufactured moral and ethical codes...
I try to squeeze out as much benefit for myself as possible while staying within the lines of that "morality," essentially masking my true self.

it sounds blunt, and look, writing isn't exactly my forte, but I'm convinced everyone operates on this exact same frequency. kindness and solidarity? they're just convenient fictions we made up; they aren't baked into our DNA.

everyone wants to be the alpha in the pack because it serves the individual interest. you can see it in action: anyone jumping into an argument with me is just trying to prove they're superior.
I'm sure someone's gonna chime in saying, "No way, I just want to find myself and be a good person." But seriously, think about the actual motives there. Why would you do that? If you show people your "true" face, you're just lowering your status in the pack.

In my book, almost every decision a person makes starts with one question: how is everyone else going to perceive this?

anyway, those are my thoughts. I got there just by observing myself and how I carry myself around others.

maybe take a harder look at your own motives?

Making such an absolute claim provides nothing more than a hollow framework, a leaky bucket that fails to hold any actual substance. After all, even those individuals who seem to operate primarily on this principle don't strictly adhere to it every single time—there are moments when they don't prioritize themselves, and the nuances of that behavior likely vary as much as people do themselves.

One cannot simply take the life of a single individual, attempting to aggregate all their various "facets"—if one can even aggregate facets—draw a line under them, and conclude that they lived solely for themselves. It is even more impossible to attempt such a reductionist summary for the vast multitude of other people, each possessing their own complex layers, all gathered under the singular label of "humanity."

Life and the human experience are far too intricate and contradictory—to varying degrees, of course—to be subjected to such an exclusionary simplification, or perhaps more accurately, such a distortion of reality.

I believe everyone operates on this principle, and that things like kindness and solidarity are merely invented concepts rather than anything innate to our nature.

It isn't an invented concept so much as a conceptualization—a product derived from observed reality, something that follows the observation itself. The word "solidarity" serves to express and define what has already been witnessed and understood.
Take, for instance, Adams' definition of solidarity: "a spontaneous or agreed-upon form of connection among a group of people based on shared ideas, interests, thoughts, or emotions."
Since it is described as a spontaneous form of connection, I wouldn't separate it from human nature any more than I would any other spontaneous way that humans find themselves interconnected.
Furthermore, people have shown solidarity around axes of evil just as often as they have around axes of good. And it isn't always at the expense of others; often, it ends up being self-destructive as well. When a person acts purely out of self-interest by placing themselves first—such as when a specific class of ruthless corporate profiteers exploits natural resources like our national forests—they are essentially harming themselves, or humanity as a whole, effectively sawing off the very branch they are sitting on.

Andrew Alvarez4 said:If we’re really diving into this discussion, I want to zero in specifically on today’s youth
Hmm.. Why is that??
-Let’s say they’re the ones actually capable of changing... maybe.. But let’s be real—once you’re an adult, it’s a massive uphill battle

Inspiration: Parent-child dynamics, in general
What’s the root cause of all this defiance?

Why doesn’t a person (a normal, healthy one) always have the drive to just do the right thing? Why do they procrastinate on stuff they know they absolutely have to get done?
...- even when they know damn well what the consequences are, and they realize that by choosing the wrong path, they’re basically inviting a blowout down the road.

What do you even do when a punishment isn't enough of a motivator for someone to behave?
... Because they just keep doing it—over and over and over again—regardless of the fact that they’ve already been busted for the exact same thing

It’s your demand for obedience.
A demand for a specific mold of obedience to be filled. A requirement to fit a template. It’s a demand for conformity rather than the actual change you're talking about.

...- even when they fully grasp the consequences, and even knowing that by choosing what they shouldn't, they will inevitably disrupt the balance and trigger a conflict sooner or later.

How does one proceed when punishment fails to motivate someone to act correctly?
... Because they persist, stubbornly and repeatedly, in doing things their own way... despite having already endured the penalty for that exact same action.

So, it's really just about forced adaptation, isn't it?

Since you asked, here is a beautiful poem by Enes Kišević:

BROTHER SISYPHUS

I know I exist, yet all my efforts to hold my place in this world feel utterly futile.
I know I am a lost point, drifting outside the circle of being; I know I will never sing through my lifetime, nor will I ever sleep with an ideal resting beside me.
All my hopes and my searching are consumed by hungry paths of futility, where every dead end leads back to my goal, brother Sisyphus, and once again, my own newborn thoughts deceive me.
You exist.

feralranger said:I follow your logic, but while Descartes' axiom stands independent of sensory input, this "I breathe, therefore I am" concept relies heavily on it, which makes it utterly nonsensical...

I struggle to imagine a scenario where I could think without existing, yet, conversely, I cannot say with any absolute certainty that I even possess lungs capable of breathing.

Ahhhhhh.... (that’s just me exhaling, briefly, not a permanent departure 🙂) .... It’s true that you couldn't think without existing, but perhaps you couldn't exist either if you weren't breathing (whether through gills, lungs, or whatever mechanism you happen to utilize).
If you're genuinely feeling uncertain about whether you have functional lungs, maybe you should check in with the Mayo Clinic or some other medical institution so they can confirm it for you.
Unless, of course, you're a Canadian. "No air flows through a Canadian."

feralranger said:It strikes me as a rather nonsensical sentiment. If one intends to establish existence simply by noting that they are breathing, one first has to rely on sensory perception to make that observation—which stands in stark contrast to the Cartesian formulation that avoids such sensory dependency entirely—and, as we all know, our senses are notoriously prone to deception.

Yes, it certainly can sound like nonsense. But yours definitely don't sound like anything at all. :P

Amanda Jackson5 said:The thing is, self-consciousness isn't the objet petit a; rather, the objet petit a is what happens when the subject splits between self-consciousness and the unconscious. It emerges from that nagging sense that something is missing within the symbolic order. You can think of it simply as that persistent, underlying feeling every person carries—this sense that there’s a void in their life. The objet petit a is simultaneously that emptiness, the split, and whatever temporary fix we chase to fill that gap, even though we know deep down it can never truly be filled (desire).

Well, the truth is, you aren't anywhere specific. Subjectivity is a constant, moving process. According to Lacan, you can't have self-consciousness without an unconscious, nor an unconscious without self-consciousness; they basically build each other. He argues that self-consciousness isn't some byproduct of a person successfully adapting to their environment, but rather a result of "dis-adaptation." Since self-consciousness relies on the symbolic order, and since the unconscious is structured linguistically, it follows that humans are fundamentally alienated by language. That’s just the price you pay for having a self-consciousness.

It always shows up in relation to something else. There is no "I" without the Other, whether that's another person or a secondary "Other" within the subject themselves. Self-consciousness is essentially the awareness of oneself as an object, which means there has to be another entity present who is aware of themselves (and, by extension, aware of you).

🙂 I follow that logic.
However, as I mentioned before, based on my memory of how he understood it at the time, I wrote it down according to my own interpretation—which might have been flawed, but I was hoping to revisit the original text for clarity. I've been hunting through my files for it, though I haven't had any luck so far, and it seems to have vanished from the internet entirely.
Generally speaking, the language used in postmodernism and post-structuralism is quite dense for me (though certainly intriguing given the subject matter), so it’s entirely possible I may have missed the mark a bit.

Kenneth Sullivan2 said:Thanks for the critique of Descartes and Ayer. I'm curious, though—do you actually have a solution to the problem?
What did you mean by "how things are playing out here"? I wasn't criticizing anyone or pushing my own views... I simply offered a possible answer and the title of a work, which is what this topic is about, that's all.🙂

That was just a little joke regarding the idea that "thinking doesn't prove existence" (is the problem of proof resurfacing again, much like the debate over free will?), which is, of course, Ayer's perspective rather than yours. Everything I wrote was in response to what you attributed to Ayer.
It seems clear to me now, however, that when Ayer looks at the Cartesian Cogito, his primary concern is the question of "who" or "what" is doing the thinking, because without that specific definition, he argues the Cogito lacks any real credibility.
It makes me wonder: what would Ayer say to the statement "I breathe, therefore I exist"? Would breathing itself fail to prove existence in his eyes, simply because it fails to define *what* I am, leaving me as nothing more than a thing that breathes?
In that sense, the Cartesian Cogito acts as an additional layer of argument; we are fundamentally distinct from mere objects precisely because we possess thought, even if everything were made of the same substance.
When he suggests that thoughts might exist independently of a thinker, one could perhaps view that through the lens of a pool of the Unconscious—perhaps what some call the Collective Unconscious—but in that context, "independent" would merely be synonymous with "unconscious."

How does this tie back to the question of "who or what am I; you?" We are certainly each a living possibility, an incarnation of potential whose lifespan is woven into all times and into the thoughts of other thinkers.
And so, we arrive at the crux of the issue with Descartes: his definition of thought as something absolutely non-extended, whereas thought inherently possesses extension (which aligns quite well with Lacan's concept of thought).

How would I solve this?
I wouldn't.
I don't see any inherent problem with the fact that I exist (myself, whatever that may be).
I am not you, and therefore, I exist (as myself). 🙂

Amanda Jackson5 said:Lacan touched on something pretty similar when he suggested, "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think," referring to that fundamental split within the subject. Basically, the unconscious is doing the thinking in the places where the ego isn't present. Or, looking at it from the other side, the "I"—that conscious, linguistic ego—exists exactly where the "it," the unconscious subject, isn't thinking.

From what I’ve gathered through various interpretations—rather than reading Lacan directly—for him, this represents the very locus of self-awareness. It goes so far as to suggest that self-awareness itself is marked as an external object, or perhaps the *objet petit a* (that elusive object of human desire, the phantasmatic goal we can never quite grasp).
To that extent, this "point cast out from the center"—self-awareness—serves to mark and represent the existence of distance; after all, if there were no distance (which self-awareness itself produces), how could one "think where they are not, yet be where they do not think"? If it were possible to come to a standstill, to finally reach that point and collapse the distance, we would exist precisely where we think, but aren't we always positioned as being against, towards, or in opposition to the reality and the world we perceive?
Is it possible that this distance is dissolved during sleep?

Regardless, I am not entirely sure how all of this correlates with the philosopher's claim in the opening post—the idea that he does not exist?
He wouldn't exist if he were one with the world (though one has to wonder if the world as we see it exists without the relationship established by that distance) or, more simply, if self-awareness did not exist.
And so, Descartes is everywhere: "I think, therefore I am."
I intentionally avoided saying "I think, therefore I *am*" because of that peculiar Copernican shift suggested by Lacan above.

What conclusions can we draw by weighing Descartes against Lacan?
One cannot really derive from Lacan's claim that "being" and "existing" are identical, though existence remains a necessary and unquestionable condition. The question is merely where one is, or is not. It is much like sitting in a social circle and "listening" absentmindedly to someone speaking while your mind is drifting somewhere else entirely. Then, noticing your distraction, the person asks, "Hey, where did you go just now?"

So, the argued claim by that certain philosopher mentioned earlier might, as I see it, relate to what Jonathan Brooks8 suggested: that there is no single answer to the question "who am I?" Or perhaps that the "I" is indeterminate (emerging instead as a defining element within a relation or interaction), which, if I recall correctly, traces back to Jung.

Kenneth Sullivan2 said:Language, Truth, and Logic
Alfred Jules Ayer criticized Descartes' Cogito... though I wouldn't say he proves I don't exist, since he isn't really proving *what* I am, right? Just the things that are thinking...
The flaw lies in the fact that the argument doesn't even align with a standard skeptical approach...
Instead, he suggests that rather than saying I think, we should say there are thoughts, because perhaps thoughts can exist independently of a thinker.
The error is in the very structure of our language—the way I could be functionally identical to it, where that "it" carries no actual meaning, much like I think / it is raining.
🤷

It’s hardly surprising that Sisyphus was giving me a hard time in another thread with all those proofs regarding free will, given the state of things here.
First off, saying "I think, therefore I am" is really an observation about self-awareness—that specific awareness a human has of their own existence, unlike, say, a houseplant which exists but isn't consciously aware of its own being (at least, not in the way a human is, though I can't know for sure).
To claim that thinking doesn't prove existence—arguing, rather, that one can only think if one already exists—is just another way of looking at the same problem. It's as circular as saying that the mere existence of a creature doesn't prove its essence; those are two entirely different concepts.
Then we have Ayer essentially contradicting himself when he proposes replacing "I think" with "there are thoughts," under the assumption that thoughts might exist independently of a thinker.
Might?!!
Where is the actual PROOF in that? How does one go about proving the mere possibility of such a thing? And yet, Ayer treats this possibility as a more credible path toward proving—what, exactly?—absolutely nothing. At least not within the context of his critique of Descartes.
And the logic doesn't stop there. Even if we grant that thoughts could exist without a thinker, how does that ever answer the question of what *I* am? Because that is precisely the gap where he challenges the validity of Descartes' reasoning.

There are thoughts, therefore I exist?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Since there isn't one single, definitive answer to the question "who am I?", the very nature of our existence—or whether we even truly *exist* at all—hinges entirely on how one chooses to answer that query.

Take mereological nihilism, for instance—a rather extreme flavor of atomism... it essentially denies the reality of anything that can be broken down into more fundamental components. Under this view, "I" don't actually exist; there are merely the most basic subatomic particles that happen to make up my structure.

Then there is eliminativism, which suggests that things like consciousness, beliefs, and desires should be stripped away from any serious discussion of existence—viewing them as nothing more than mental constructs we use to obscure the blunt fact that everything is just purely physical processes occurring within the brain.

Or, we could look at existential monism, which posits that there is only one indivisible, absolute reality... implying that anything more granular or elementary than that single entity simply does not exist.

I tend to read things through a meteorological lens... 🙂

It seems clear enough that we are discussing the very nature of existence itself.
But suppose he views Existence as something indestructible and permanent—something that simply cannot vanish or fade away—and then, if he perceives his own existence as merely fleeting, he might conclude that he doesn't truly exist at all. In a practical sense, one could argue he essentially doesn't exist if, for instance, he were viewing himself from the perspective of the distant future when he will eventually be gone.

What are your thoughts?
Is it not a bit strange why he would view his own existence as nonexistent? (It’s much like how the mere arrangement of words in a sentence can expose its futility: when concepts mutually exclude one another and contradict themselves, the sentence becomes illogical, which is really the core struggle of philosophy—unless, of course, the entire discipline is just designed to condition the masses).

For instance, this might be quite useful for you:

An Instagram photo depicting a young boy caught in the crosshairs of an American soldier has sparked a massive wave of backlash.

The twenty-year-old sniper, Mor Ostrovkki, ended up deleting the image from his profile following an intense global outcry.

If you read through these articles, you can easily spot the kind of controversial material that would make for a strong addition to your portfolio.

I’ll just leave a few thoughts here for you to consider:
1. Is the photograph itself the actual scandal?
2. Will the critics feel satisfied now that it's been taken down?
3. Was posting the image morally justifiable in the first place? (Take, for example, the comment from a group of American military veterans: "This is what occupation looks like. This is what military control over a civilian population looks like.")
4. If the answer to that third point is yes, how then should we interpret the statement from the Palestinian activist in the first link, who claims: "The photo is simply tasteless and shows dehumanization. It embodies the idea that Palestinian children are targets."
😕

So, we have American veterans attempting to raise public awareness about the reality on the ground, while a Palestinian activist argues the photo is distasteful and treats children as mere targets?!!

Perhaps this is a case of journalistic meddling or amateurism—where one must verify everything through multiple sources, scouring various sites where news breaks to compare facts—or perhaps it's just poor translation, but the core issue remains. The theme itself, viewed as a moral dilemma regarding the decision to post such a provocative image and the ethical questions that arise when reading the coverage, could serve as a fascinating area of research for whatever you are looking to write.

Mark Torres14 said:

says:
Look, if you sue someone just because they started some fake story about you, you’re just going to look guilty.
On the flip side, if you just ignore it and keep doing your thing, you won't trigger that domino effect caused by some tabloid journalist looking for a cheap headline.

That guy was just an example. I'm talking about values.
I want to know if an individual—or a whole group—can use free speech to broadcast a public opinion (whether through the media or otherwise) regarding someone else's core values (like family, religion, or privacy), even if the person being targeted sees it as an insult or a lie. And obviously, it works both ways.
I get that there isn't one simple answer here since every situation is different.
But how do we draw the line between actual free speech and deliberate provocation, insults, smear campaigns, cynicism, or irony... things designed specifically to tear down and discredit someone just because they hold a different worldview or disagree with us?
Doesn't free speech actually require the freedom for dialogue?

I think you realize that words possess a certain efficacy, don't you? They carry weight. They have the power to build up or tear down.
A word remains heavy with responsibility even when an irresponsible person is the one wielding it.
Perhaps freedom of speech isn't really about measuring how much we are permitted to say, but rather how much we are held accountable for what we choose to utter.
Quite a thought, wouldn't you agree?

Andrew Hayes8 said:So, let me see if I have this straight,
some group, nation, or religion can act however they please, regardless of how much your own sanity tells you it’s wrong
and you're just expected to respect that and stay silent, simply because that's "their way"
It has been known since ancient times that the truth hurts most
but that doesn't mean it should go unsaid
In any case, I stand for freedom of speech; someone who has nothing to hide
has absolutely no reason to fear what others might say
The truth should always prevail
Human relationships would be far more transparent and straightforward if people actually said what they truly thought

Are you equating freedom of speech with the truth?
And you honestly believe what someone "actually thinks" is synonymous with the truth?

That's a mistake.

Does the truth hurt?
And does a lie feel any better?

In a philosophy department, one would hope to move past these kinds of tired platitudes.