Here’s another example of what I see as nihilism absolutely wrecking the West. If the ultimate "good life" is just driving a Mercedes and chasing models, why even bother having kids? It honestly feels like it just lowers my chances of hitting that peak lifestyle. I want to go out and have some fun, not get stuck being responsible for little humans who end up draining me—not just in my twenties, but through my thirties, forties, fifties, sixties... it doesn't matter. The definition of "making it" stays the same: luxury cars and hot women. And now look at the West—birth rates are tanking, which is going to lead to massive pension fund collapses, political chaos, you name it. What I'm trying to say is that humans are fundamentally driven by purpose. Any kind of purpose. If we don't find something meaningful to reflect on, we’ll just settle for something shallow and mindless. Like the whole Mercedes and models thing. You don't even have to realize that a lack of real meaning is what's actually shaping your entire existence, but it's happening anyway.
I'm totally with you on this. There's honestly zero reason why Brazil shouldn't just clear out all those forests. That's exactly where the issue lies.
And yeah, the whole "girls & cars" thing is a total joke, but if you try to dig deeper, you'll find absolutely nothing substantial behind it. I’m serious—there is NOTHING there. It's pure nihilism. Like, forget the Amazon rainforest; we might as well just say it's all being replaced by genetically modified kids shaped like Barbie.
So if we’re all agreeing that life is just about "girls and cars," how am I supposed to talk some guy out of clear-cutting the entire Amazon rainforest? Sure, he makes a killing doing it, and hey, that profit buys him the "girls and cars" lifestyle, right? You try telling him it’s a threat to human survival, but he’ll just look at you and ask, "When, though?" You say, "In maybe twenty years." And he’s just like, "Whatever, honestly, by then I won't even be able to get it up anyway." Look, there have always been people who couldn't care less about the greater good, but the real nightmare now is that nobody can even see what the "greater good" is anymore—not even to agree that it exists. People act like the common good is some total scam, like there's nothing in this world besides "girls and cars." Even the philosophers are basically saying it's nothing but "girls and cars." So yeah, go ahead, chop down every single tree and go grab yourself a supermodel and a Mercedes. Since that's supposedly the ultimate goal, it's clearly the best move you can make.
Tufir II said:Alright, I'll give it a shot. I'm gonna try to summarize your first post—basically just how I see your whole argument going—and then I'll hit back point by point. I know Kosmarac hates that, but honestly? It's just how my brain works. I can't really do it any other way. 🙄
Science just won't work without some kind of teleological worldview. It's basically a necessity. Breaking down that whole teleological assumption. Just... tearing it all apart. Attempt number three. Time to take the reins. Everything's just... floating. No foundation, no core values, nothing to actually hold onto. It’s like there's zero stability left. The West is going down the drain. Seriously. The postmodernist take on this.
I honestly don't get why people think science *has* to assume the world has some grand purpose, or—even more specifically—that a Creator designed everything. Like, really? To make science work, all you actually need to assume is that there’s some kind of external consciousness out there. Sure, you can't prove it, but hey, a little healthy pragmatism goes a long way, right? It works as a starting point. You just have to assume the universe isn't total chaos—meaning laws exist—and that our brains are actually capable of figuring those laws out. Look, I know those are shaky assumptions, but my whole point is this: whether the world has a "purpose" or a Creator behind it doesn't change the math. Science doesn't need either to function. I mean, most of this hits the mark. But honestly? Losing sight of a "purpose" isn't the same thing as falling into total chaos. Just because there isn't some massive, cosmic Goal or grand Meaning out there in Space doesn't mean the universe itself just turned into a giant mess. The laws of nature don't care what you believe in—they work the exact same way for a Christian as they do for an atheist. So, why wouldn't we both try to figure them out? Trying to take control of things? Honestly, that's not even some modern trend. It’s just how we’re wired. It’s human nature, plain and simple. The only real question is what kind of tools we actually have to work with. I gotta disagree here. If we’re looking at this strictly from a logic standpoint, Ivan Karamazov is totally right when he says, "If God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted." But honestly? That doesn't mean he's actually correct in practice. Think about it—so many core values are recognized as "good" across pretty much every society out there. It's like, sure, we have those destructive impulses, but that sense of doing what's right is just baked into human nature too. You don't necessarily need to believe a Creator made us just to justify being decent people to one another. Everyone’s always yapping about how the West is totally collapsing, but honestly? I’m just not seeing it. Like, yeah, sure, there are plenty of things trying to tear everything down, but I still feel like there’s this "healthy core" holding it all together, no matter what happens. How does being all grumpy and critical actually solve anything? Like, seriously, what's the end goal there? Wouldn't it be way better to just... try doing something instead? I totally get what was being said about how pessimistic Western thinkers can be in that essay over at The Washington Post (that's my third link, by the way).
That’s basically it. But man, my brain is totally fried... I can't even remember the main points anymore. 😠 Maybe some other time...
Look, I’m not saying it’s a requirement. I’m just saying that’s how history actually played out. If you dig into the early scientists, you see this huge pattern—their belief that the universe actually has some kind of order was basically tied to the idea of an intelligent Creator. And it wasn't just the old school guys, either; this mindset carried all the way into the 1900s. Even Albert Einstein, when he was fighting against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics because he couldn't stand the idea of pure randomness, famously argued that "God does not play dice." He basically viewed his whole scientific drive as a quest to figure out exactly how God built the world and whether He could have done it any other way. But man, those ideas about an intelligent Creator leave us stuck with this weird sense of "natural laws," right? But where do they even come from? Like, are these laws just how our brains process the world, or are they actual rules the universe follows? And why does everything seem to run so smoothly instead of just being total chaos? It’s wild because we don't really have "natural moral laws." In that area, we're all about freedom, whereas when it comes to physics, everything feels totally forced. Honestly, I think that truce we struck between science and religion was actually a huge mistake for our era. We basically carved the world up: we handed over the soul, meaning, and goodness to God, while leaving the physical stuff to these rigid, unyielding natural laws. Since God lost his grip on the material side of things, people started assuming He didn't exist at all. And once you go down that road, suddenly there’s no goodness, no purpose, no beauty... none of it. Everything just gets dismissed as some priest's scam. And that's exactly how we end up sliding straight into nihilism. Look, I’m not saying science can’t function without purpose. It’s just that, at its core, it feels fundamentally broken without it. Human consciousness is intentional—it’s always aiming for something. And yeah, obviously I believe we have some level of control over the wheel, which is fine—I mean, who else would we hand it to? But if we toss out the whole idea of having a goal, then it doesn't really matter where we steer that thing. Or if we even get to hold the wheel at all. To me, you just can't get anywhere without that Platonic drive toward the Good. Don't get me wrong, I don't think postmodernism has any real answers here. But I also don't buy this "everything's actually fine, philosophers are just making things complicated" approach. That path leads straight to hell. I wanted to reply to you point-by-point, but honestly, I feel like your breakdown misses the heart of what I was trying to say. So, just a brain dump instead—I can't really untangle these thoughts because they're all so messy and connected.
Tufir II said:Look, there’s nothing to be scared of. This isn't even remotely dramatic. And no, a robot didn't just write this paper out of nowhere—scientists actually published research on how robots can be used for actual research purposes. That robot is a human creation, plain and simple. It’s definitely packed with some massive knowledge base acting as an expert system and a flexible reasoning framework (stuff they're working super hard on right now). And sure, a robot like that works great within its own little bubble. But there's still this massive, unbridgeable gap between the machine and the scientist—just like the huge gap between Deep Blue and a terrible chess player like me. Computers just don't *get* what they're doing.
Food for thought... Why shouldn't automation help advance science? In certain fields (like chess today, or maybe experimental genetics tomorrow, like that thing mentioned in the article), why couldn't they pull better conclusions than humans? And why would that even be a blow to positivist philosophy? If anything, wouldn't it be the exact opposite?
I can't find the exact link online, but back when that debate I linked was happening, M. Radman wrote about it in The Washington Post too. We're talking about the kind of work serious scientists have spent their entire lives training for. This stuff can be published as a formal research paper—basically, it's standard scientific labor, which is exactly what this robot can handle now. I already mentioned in the thread that I think this news is actually awesome, so I'm really not sweating it. But Radman's take was pretty interesting (quoting from memory here): "I hope robots don't actually replace scientists, though I'm not quite sure why I'm hoping that." But I brought it up in terms of Martin Heidegger: science doesn't "think," science "calculates." Even if that sounds like an exaggeration, a huge chunk of what scientists do boils down to that. It's calculation, not deep thought. Science usually only does any real thinking when it hits a crisis, and even then, it's just the tiny handful of people at the top of the pyramid. To wrap this one up: it feels to me like ignoring science through a philosophical lens in this era of tech is basically just burying your head in the sand. But honestly, that kind of blind optimism—thinking science will just fix everything—is just shallow positivism. Treating philosophy like it's just a handmaid to science (our current dominant worldview) is no different than treating it like a handmaid to theology back in the Middle Ages.
crimsonjackal8 said:Yeah, I definitely think a lot of the points you made in your first post are pretty shaky, even if they are super interesting to dive into.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if you pointed out where my logic is falling apart—maybe some light can leak through the cracks (as Amanda Fowler2 would say).
crimsonjackal8 said:All that doom and gloom about technology hasn't really played out the way people said it would.
I mean, what's even left to fear...? Like, should we wait for a nuke to drop, or for parents to start ordering custom-made genetically modified babies that look like their favorite superheroes, or for us to finally chop down the last tree in the Amazon rainforest...
The Sokal affair is honestly just hilarious. I actually stumbled upon that paper online before I even knew what the deal was or why it was written—I was just searching for stuff on Bohm, and Google served it up. Honestly? At first, I thought the guy had just completely lost the plot. You see it all the time online, people trying to mash Taoism together with genetics, or throwing Lacan in with quantum physics. So yeah, I realized he was talking nonsense, but I had zero clue the whole thing was a massive prank. When I found out later it actually got published in a legit academic journal, I was floored. So, I guess that must be pretty awkward for the postmodernists. But still, if you look at it from a slightly less cynical angle, it doesn't really say anything about the heavy hitters of postmodern thought. Like, it’s not fair to blame Plato for Platonists, or Marx for Marxists, or Heidegger for those who follow Heidegger, or even the big-name postmodernists for some random rambling. Just saying, totally speaking theoretically here, since I haven't actually read much of those Frenchmen.
And I don't know how much noise this made, but it feels to me like scientific positivist philosophy just took a massive hit recently. Basically, a research paper was published in a scientific journal that was entirely produced by a computer. Like, the machine itself posed the problem and ran the whole "study." What am I even supposed to say about that? If I bring up Heidegger saying "science does not think, science calculates," you'll probably just roll your eyes at me. But seriously, though—what do we say when a computer actually *does* think? Maybe it's even doing philosophy?
Caught your signature. And honestly, those points you tagged as 2, 3, and 4? They're basically just the same idea repackaged. I was actually trying to get my thoughts out about the end of philosophy and how cybernetics fits into all that in my first post.
crimsonjackal8 said:But honestly, looking at this whole debate, I feel like there’s actually a way out of this postmodern crisis we're stuck in. 😕
Basically, I really think science and non-postmodern philosophy are gonna step up and provide actual answers to a lot of things. 👋
My earlier take on this was pretty much inspired by Heideggerian thought: the idea that philosophy is basically reaching its end, and cybernetics is what's gonna take over. Looks like crimsonjackal8 is on board with that. But he doesn't seem nearly as worried as I am about where this steering wheel of science and tech is actually taking us. He’s such a product of his era. What’s even the ideal for our time? How do we deal with all this evolution that led us here—the evolution where we’re supposedly the peak? One guy today managed to sum up everything we crave right now into one single motto: DRIVE A MERCEDES AND FIRE MISSILES. And hey, crimsonjackal8 is totally down with that too. Heidegger didn't mean it like that: 'Only a God can save us now.' Stay tuned for my next post on this—I've got a Nietzschean quote from Zarathustra about the "last humans" coming up.
John Carter21 said:WISDOM ISN'T THE SAME AS INTELLIGENCE!!!
For crying out loud, does nobody here play D&D?
I honestly can't tell if it's a lack of brains or just zero wisdom, but I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. And I don't even know what D&D is.
I kind of hesitated to jump into this chat because I haven't really dug into those postmodernist texts. But it looks like besides Nightmare, there isn't anyone else here, so I guess I can throw in some amateur thoughts. From my super limited run-ins with postmodernism, it feels like it’s just a continuation of those ideas about the "end of the West" from the early 1900s. Here’s how I see it. The West basically took shape through Aristotle. By "took shape," I mean it found its form—that central way of thinking that molds the world and acts as a sort of conscious compass for how we think and act. It’s an Aristotelian world of craftsmen—just like a craftsman works with intention to shape something, the world itself is shaped by intellect. And "intellect" implies purpose; that purpose was set by the creator/craftsman. Thanks to Christianity, that center dictated the lives of Americans for two millennia. Science was able to succeed because the world makes sense. It makes sense because it was shaped by an intelligent being. So, we can use science to grasp it. If the world wasn't made by an intelligent being, what would be the point of looking for logic in it? Science wouldn't even make sense. You can't have science about chaos. You can't have science about randomness. You only get science when there’s an underlying order, something rational, something intellectual. And "intellectual" means someone intelligent created it. They create with purpose. Everything is done for a reason—just like a carpenter. This tool is for this, that thing is for that. When Nietzsche played around with that boy from the Andersenian fairy tale and shouted "God is dead," that fact was already undeniable. That whole Aristotelian idea of a purposeful world was totally tossed aside. The world is meaningless. Life is just random chance. Good and evil are illusions. The world isn't intellectual and has no purpose (since no intelligent being made it). In the meantime, science managed to harness this massive power through technology, but now that power is left without anyone to steer it. It’s just drifting across Earth, wrecking every other form of life. The West is crashing down, not because someone stronger showed up, but because it lost its mind. It's like Polyphemus after his eye was gouged out, just screaming wildly, "Who blinded me?" (Secundus will probably find an answer: atheists, communists, etc... but I think the answer is the same as in the Odyssey: nobody.) All that's left is this giant technological body that refuses to just go away. People are looking for salvation in cybernetics—basically, let's grab the reins ourselves. Let's become our own lawmakers; we don't need a center outside of us. The world is just a will to power and nothing more. So, we steer our own ship. But where to? If there's no good or evil, what direction is actually "good" or "bad"? How do you decide, or even use a criterion, when criteria don't exist? We'll just make them up as we go. But what does that even mean? By what standard will we set the standards? For the sake of our own survival. But what kind of survival? What does "human survival" even mean? What counts as human survival versus something non-human? Or maybe there's no such thing as "non-human"—because what would that even look like if there's no devil to lead us into evil? And being "animalistic" isn't "non-human"—I mean, we're animals anyway. Cybernetics (and by that, I mean the whole spectrum of science/tech in all its "knowledge is power" glory) hands us the steering wheel. But where are we going if there's nowhere to go? Since everything is the same and nothing matters anyway. Postmodernism tries to find something positive in all this—finding meaning in the concept of "play" (which is "purposeful" without having an external goal). It sees the breakdown of unity and the rejection of the "whole" as a way to escape those fascist-leaning tendencies that haunted philosophy for centuries. The disappearance of the "center" is seen as an opportunity for the "periphery." Basically, the distinction between the center and the edge loses its meaning. But honestly, that's not even surprising: since everything is losing its meaning anyway. There is no meaning to begin with. So, if you ask me, postmodernism is just one big exercise in meaninglessness. Where is this all heading? Sure, I've got some theories, but I'm worried I'm already drifting too far from Nightmare's topic. And hey, I'm saving some stuff for whenever people start reacting to this.
northernscout said:I’ve been totally stuck on this idea of "who is a student?" at first, I just assumed a student is anyone who gets the chance to learn. But then I got tripped up on what "chance" actually means. You only get that shot when there's someone or something around you that knows way more than you do. And honestly? A student only really grabs that opportunity when they're "ready." But how does someone even become ready? It’s gotta be a mix of stuff going on inside them and stuff happening outside, right? So, external factors definitely matter. It isn't just up to the student to decide when they're ready. Like, take a kid growing up in a rough house where a parent is struggling with alcoholism and things get violent—that kid is dealing with so much trauma, it makes it almost impossible for them to be "ready" to actually soak up whatever they're being taught in school. That made the whole saying feel kind of fake to me, because it basically implies the responsibility is entirely on the student to be prepared. Then I started wondering: wait, isn't every single person a student? Being human pretty much means being a learner, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there's always someone or something out there that knows more than you. But then I thought about where everyone in the world actually lives, and it hit me—there are people who physically *can't* be students because they don't even have their basic needs met. If you're starving or dying of thirst, you can't exactly focus on self-actualization or searching for some deep sense of meaning, even if that meaning is realizing nothing matters. Again, the learning is blocked by these outside forces I didn't even consider when I first heard the saying. It felt super hypocritical. So, is my rambling actually "philosophy"? (And I mean that in the real, serious sense, not the way people use it as an insult!) The intro to my high school philosophy textbook said there’s no magic formula for doing philosophy. So, how do you even tell the difference between just thinking and actually philosophizing? Maybe it's just what you're thinking about? I guess I should probably dive into the literature, find the heavy hitters who have debated this, analyze them, wrap my head around it, and then build on or re-interpret their ideas. Is that the moment when it finally counts as philosophy?
This is absolutely philosophy. Philosophy starts with wonder—that's what Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger taught us. Or maybe "wonder" is better described as the source of philosophy. You've gotta hold onto that spark if you want to keep doing this. And hey, "philosophy only lives where it finds words"—where it can actually be expressed. And you did that pretty skillfully. Thirdly, philosophy is naturally a dialogue. You can jump into a conversation with us—which you're already doing—or with the great thinkers from the past (those representative texts). Those wise figures might know more, but they don't react to you; a written text will always give you the same answer no matter what questions you throw at it. Regarding those "external and internal factors": if you shut yourself off from either one, the learning stops. Because if you close yourself off to change, you stay exactly the same, and if you stay the same, you aren't learning. Being ready to learn means being ready to change who you are. It's not like a person exists in a vacuum separate from their knowledge. Who a person is includes everything they know.
northernscout said:But what if you just heard that proverb for the first time, totally fresh, without ever having read a single book on the subject? How would your brain even process it? Would you catch onto the hypocrisy right away, or would it fly under your radar? Like, just you and your own thoughts—purely philosophical. 😉
Honestly, that’s just not how it works. There's no such thing as a "pure" opinion that hasn't been influenced by someone else. It’s super rare—like, almost impossible—for anyone to actually stumble upon a completely original thought in their lifetime. Thinking you have your own unique take on something is a total illusion. It’s probably the most common delusion out there, but still, a delusion. You hear one person say something, then you read a post online, then you listen to a friend talk about it... and then, through some weird, mysterious mental filter, it all settles in your head and you're like, "Yeah, this is my opinion." But let's be real: there's no opinion that exists independently of everything you've ever heard, read, or discussed.
northernscout said:I’m just looking at this from a practical standpoint: who actually counts as a "student" in your eyes?
In the whole Western philosophical tradition, it’s kind of like the philosopher is always the student, and nobody is ever really the teacher. Socrates was constantly insisting he wasn't some "sophos"—you know, a wise guy who knows everything and lectures others. He was more like the guy searching, just hungry for wisdom—which makes sense, because if he actually had it, he wouldn't be hunting for it, right? At the same time, his big rivals were the "Sophists," basically these experts who charged huge fees to teach young people. They definitely had students, and they played up this whole image of being the ones with all the answers. Socrates' favorite pastime was basically proving that he didn't know anything. And in his mind, he was actually wiser than them just because he was honest enough to admit he was clueless. Honestly, there are plenty of people out there way smarter than me, and I learn from them. I'm their student. But obviously, that only works when I'm actually ready to listen. If I'm walking around thinking I already have it all figured out, I don't feel like I need to learn anything, so I won't see a teacher anywhere. It's only when I realize I'm lost that I can actually start learning. And yeah, there are also people who aren't nearly as smart as I am. They could learn from me. I'm here! But they’re only going to see me as a teacher once they're actually ready for that.
But it sounds like you might be dealing with a specific situation here? I don't think it's even a problem. If someone is trying to play teacher to you, but you just don't see them that way, then you're simply not ready to be their student. It doesn't matter if it's a "mistake" on your end or theirs. There's no mistake. You two just don't click.
Check out this bit from Stanka Andrić in the 'encyclopedia of nothingness'. The most interesting people I know are usually the ones who’ve had at least one massive nervous breakdown, or they're drowning in heavy, melancholic depression—or honestly, they're just totally lost to society at this point. We all have this thing in common: we actually kind of vibe with madness. Seriously, no one on this planet makes you feel as tenderly cared for as a psychiatrist does; they’re basically this embodiment of pure gentleness, like this huge, androgynous parental figure. There’s a weird kind of bliss in being a patient, just surrendering, letting yourself be guided by that healing hand, admitting you’re broken and leaning on others—on kind others, on Humanity itself. It would be so much better if everyone just treated each other like patients. We really need to ditch this individualism crap; it’s a total dead end, a straight shot to hell, and frankly, I am hell. We have to stop this tragic, messed-up way we were raised; like a prodigal son, we need to run back to the safety of the community, frantically fleeing just to collapse at the doorstep of the father's house, to sit in her shadow, catch our breath, panting from exhaustion, staring wide-eyed at the night we just escaped from.
So, does anyone actually know if the whole thing between Achilles and Patroclus is supposed to be homoerotic or just a really deep friendship? Honestly, even back in ancient Greece after Homer's time, people couldn't seem to agree on it one way or the other.
mistyfox812 said:My site covers bands like this all the time: http://www.littlelighthouse.net/. Honestly, rock'n'roll isn't just hanging on—it's actually kicking more ass now than it has in at least the last decade. Seriously, go check out The White Stripes, The Avett Brothers, The Black Keys, Jack White, The Stooges, The Beach Boys, Audrey Hepburn, The Ramones, The Hold Steady, Fleet Foxes, The Clash, The Smiths, Bon Iver, Kurt Vile... and man, the list goes on forever.
I'll definitely dig through some of those. I'm super curious now. Thanks!🙂
Alright, here’s my shot. So, I haven't touched any R&B or rock for like seven or eight years straight. Please, tell me—was there actually anything worth listening to during that gap? Just... please don't mention any bands I already know from before I quit.