At its core, society only works if we actually trust one another. If that foundation of trust between people crumbles, the whole thing just falls apart. Society basically relies on the assumption that the person standing next to you is a decent human being.
Super basic example: the other day, I accidentally scraped someone else's car. Instead of running away, I just walked up, gave him my full name and cell number, and promised to cover the repair costs. He took me at my word—purely based on trust. He ended up calling me later to say the body shop just buffed out the scratch for free and everything was cool. We had every opportunity to be sketchy or screw each other over, but we didn't. If we’d been paranoid, we would've called the cops, blocked up traffic waiting for them to show up, dragged insurance companies into it, maybe even lawyers... just endless headaches and delays. But because we trusted each other, it was handled instantly with zero drama.
Real trust means believing someone will treat you right even when there’s absolutely nothing in it for them.
And for us to trust society as a whole, we have to believe it’ll look out for us even when we have nothing left to offer.
Look, anyone can become vulnerable or disabled overnight. Having that gut feeling that people will still treat us with dignity in those moments makes living with that terrifying possibility a lot easier. (It's pretty well known how much having reliable medical aid on hand boosts soldier morale during wartime.) So, yeah, any society that ignores its most vulnerable members is just a society built on fear and suspicion—and honestly, that kind of society is totally broken and inefficient.
It’s called ''...the word zen is actually just a variation of some old Greek term for life...''
Zen-on says: look, you gotta get through half the distance before you can finish the whole trip. But wait—before you even tackle that first half, you have to cover half of *that* (the first quarter). And before you do that, you’ve got to hit half of that first quarter. It just keeps going and going forever. Basically, before you could ever travel any actual distance, you'd already be stuck trying to cross an infinite number of tiny little segments. Diogenes just gets up and walks out.
Douglas Brown4 said:I have to admit, I haven't met a single Zen practitioner yet whose vibe I could truly "get," so I'm not sure if Zen is just sophisticated nonsense or if there's some deeper meaning behind it. Still, your explanation resonates with me most (though I won't call it logical, because I know all those spirituality enthusiasts will jump down my throat if they hear I think Zen is meant to confuse people or weaken the mind).
Douglas Brown4 said:Reality. I've seen people obsessed with Buddha. Just like I've seen people following Gurdjieff and all that fourth way crap.
Well, not everyone in America drives a Ford either. Only certain people.😁
True. But I guess every amateur gets into Buddha and Gurdjieff, only to act all "spiritual" later and hold a grudge against me for years just because I don't do anything yet I have everything.
vividbear5 said:reply from lara35zg: "No man ever steps in the same river twice... because it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
You are essentially a collection of your currentphysical (tangible—perceived via the five senses) and mental (intangible—thoughts, knowledge, neural synapses) attributes and experiences within time and space.
Incorrect premises: Premise 1: You are a copy of DNA material. Premise 2: You are the sum of your experiences. Premise 3: You are the sum of your thoughts.
If we look at physical things, you include genetics inherited from parents at birth. However, DNA changes under the influence of the environment and aging, meaning the set of current attributes is always shifting. Therefore, creating a 1:1 DNA clone of your organism at noon today wouldn't actually result in *you*. Premise 1 debunked.
Regarding mental matters (if there's a better term)—this includes everything you've learned throughout your life. If you learn French or karate and then someone clones your DNA 1:1, that new organism won't know a word of French or how to throw a punch. Thus, it isn't you. You've simply created "a human shell" with an empty brain.
Even copying synapses doesn't guarantee you've copied the person. For example, if you know karate (or how to ski, etc.) and those skills are hardwired into your brain via synapses, but your DNA clone lacks the necessary muscle development (try building a physique like Jean-Claude van Damme if you don't believe me) to perform that skill, it still isn't you. Premise 2 debunked.
Most skills are developed through thought and training—neither Bruce Lee, nor Jean-Claude van Damme, nor Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor Napoleon, nor Janica ... were born knowing them. Thinking relies on previously acquired experiences and knowledge. If your mind and body aren't capable of new experiences, it's difficult to generate new thoughts. Premise 3 debunked.
It’s a temporal perspective; the organism evolves over time, which inevitably alters mental capabilities. Take losing an arm, for instance—suddenly, everything is done with the other hand. Consequently, your original DNA-based organism is no longer "you." Your experiences become new (writing, eating, drawing, or just scrolling through your phone...) using that other hand.
You are also a footprint in the memories of other "yous" (or "selves") within your immediate circle (direct interaction) and your broader social sphere (celebrities, public figures, hearsay).
If you were to make a 1:1 copy of yourself right now (not just DNA), and you went to a movie theater and then to a bar where you ended up getting into a fight, while your copy stayed home watching TV, opened a beer, and stubbed their toe on the fridge because they fell in love with Sopekic, you are no longer the same.
And when you meet the next day, that "copy" is no longer you.
Your copy has become a distinct human being with its own rights and obligations, its own body, its own knowledge, its own thoughts, its own experiences, its own ego, its own pride, and its own emotions—just without the biological parents.
I won't get into the concept of the soul. That's the domain of religion.
The second you make a copy, that thing isn't you. Period. Even without all those crazy different life experiences. Basically, you're looking at two separate individuals. They might be identical, but they're still two distinct things—kind of like how two cars coming off the same assembly line are two totally separate vehicles, even if they're exactly the same model. So, going back to the main question, maybe we should really think about why that clone, even if it's an exact match, just isn't *me*.
...let me try to break this down (assuming I’m actually following you here)... 😁
If someone thinks atheism works like Adriatica's version of non-confessional neutrality—instead of seeing it as this kind of anti-theism—then they're stuck in that classic trap all anti-isms fall into. See, that whole mindset is basically just defined by whatever it's pushing back against. Like, take anti-fascism. It's defined by fascism. Where one says "yes," the other says "no," right? One's black, the other's white. But the actual line in the sand, and what that shape even looks like, isn't set by the "anti-" part. It's set by the original ideology they're fighting. So, every anti-ism is essentially shaped by its enemy. All those anti-ists are always stuck in a position where they can only re-act, they never truly act on their own; they aren't driving the car, they're just reacting to someone else's moves. (There's actually this killer Borges short story in Aleph called The Theologians.) So, an anti-theist just takes the ready-made concept of God from the people they're fighting against and then just denies it. They don't have a concept of God that's actually their own. But honestly, they probably feel like they don't even need one.
swiftcobra15 said:To me, atheists were just people who didn't buy into those "state gods" like... Spinoza, Einstein, and all that—basically the greatest minds ever. And obviously, they wouldn't have called themselves atheists (totally makes sense, right? Even John Locke thought tolerance shouldn't extend to them), but they basically were.
Look, you can feel however you want about Spinoza (I mean, even someone like Keith Lee2 might have thoughts there), but his Ethics is pretty straightforward. The idea that Spinoza would intentionally misuse the word "God" is just wild, especially when you look at his life. When he says God, he means God. And I don't mean some "state God"—he's super clear on that, and he saw the Bible as just a human book. He’s talking about "God" in the context of the whole philosophical tradition. Pascal, being both a Christian and a philosopher, felt forced to reject that kind of God, basically saying something like, "The God of philosophers isn't the God Abraham and Isaac knew..."
As for Einstein, I don't think his era was one where he would've been afraid to just come out and say he was an atheist. But he wasn't.
Personally, when it comes to Kathryn Bigelow: mentioning An Angel at my Table hits harder for me than The Piano, and honestly, even that controversial Holy Smoke really grabbed me. I won't lie, In the Cut is easily one of my favorite thrillers from recent years—since that whole genre totally burnt itself out during the early nineties boom, having that female perspective felt like such a breath of fresh air. The only one that didn't click was The Portrait of a Lady. Just too slow for me. As for the rest... Leni Riefenstahl, Francis Ford Coppola 🙏 ...even The Weight of Water by Kathryn Bigelow wasn't bad, plus Lost in Translation was great too. Oh, and Grbavica? Definitely. Still, though, I feel like we’re still waiting for a major female director to truly blow up.
inglorion said:👍 respect... I’d just add that for me, being an atheist basically means not being some brainwashed sheep. Like, if it hadn't been in someone's interest to declare a random rock as God back in the day, we wouldn't even be talking about Yahweh, Allah, or whatever else today—just some dude's divine pebble...
Man, you seriously have to be out of your mind to think all atheists are just mindless sheep. Seriously, go read some biographies of great people from any field or era. Just do it.
Apemant said:Success is all about how you stack up against everyone else. For someone to actually be considered successful, there’s gotta be a whole bunch of people who aren't.
Man, I don't buy that at all. You don't measure success by comparing yourself to others. It's more about that rush you get when you finally nail something you're working on, or that fire in your gut that keeps you going. Honestly? It's that genuine joy you feel seeing someone else crush it too—not looking at their wins just to make my own feel smaller... 😉
So, I played around with some old-school philosophy on this topic once, and here’s how it went down...
What even is a human? Just a living thing, right? But what makes a "human" different from a pig? Is it the physical stuff we're made of? Nah, the molecules in a person's body are pretty much the same as the ones in a pig's. If it's not the matter, then it's gotta be the form.
Old definition: A human is a living being that possesses the human form.
That sounds like a total tautology—just saying the same thing twice. But maybe it isn't. What actually *is* that form? The thing that makes a person a person and a pig a pig. Is it some Platonic deal where there's a "form" floating around in some separate "world of ideas"? Not really. Aristotle clearly says a human gets their form from their father (and let's be real, from their mother too). Form should be the thing that stays the same even when everything else about a being changes. So, where is it? We can actually give a better answer today than Aristotle did: that form is in our genes. People say genes contain "in-form-ation." That info stays constant throughout a whole life—even though most of the molecules (the actual matter) in us get swapped out constantly. That genetic info dictates the human shape (height, color, etc.). In Aristotelian terms, genetic information is the human form. And that info is tucked inside our DNA.
Improved definition: A human is a living being that possesses human DNA.
If we want to use this definition to figure out when human life actually starts, we have to pinpoint when that DNA is created and when the cells holding that DNA become alive. When does an individual's DNA show up? It happens when the male and female reproductive cells join together. But what makes that combined DNA the DNA of a living being (instead of just dead DNA)? Well, that zygote has to be in the uterus. What do we call that specific moment when those two cells meet in the uterus? Conception. So, human life begins at conception. Q.E.D. 😉
So, get this... when they were filming Conan, Milius starts trying to explain all these deep, internal character motivations to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arnie’s just like, "Look, I don't get any of that. If you want me to look right, tell me 'look right!' If you want me staring at the floor, just say 'stare at the floor!'" But honestly, who cares? Like, would Jack Nicholson have even worked as Conan? 🙄 Or maybe Al Pacino as The Terminator?
I mean, Arnold Schwarzenegger was just built for those parts. It was perfect.
It’s not really about asking "who's better," it's more about finding where you actually fit. Everyone has their own lane.
mistyfox812 said:🤣 It's honestly wild that this "legend" 🤣 (even if nobody actually heard him) didn't spend 20 minutes singing every single day. Maybe then we'd be watching him perform at Carnegie Hall. Or, I don't know, maybe if he spent 20 minutes a day being as brilliant and sharp as he was—like, just straight up splitting atoms—he’d be holding a Nobel Prize right about now.
Exactly. Except he just didn't care about any of that. My point was actually about something else entirely. 😉 Why was he even obsessed with that specific thing? Was it really his own choice, or just his "will" driving him?
mistyfox812 said:man, that part about him being a "distinguished actor and political leader" totally got me. I can't even deal. 😁
Wait, so you're saying you're more successful in your job than he ever was in acting or politics?
"Spend just 20 minutes a day on whatever you're passionate about, and before you know it, you'll be an expert." The legend behind those words is a powerhouse—an icon of the silver screen and a political leader from the wealthiest nation on Earth, Arnold Schwarzenegger. 🙏 Back when he was just a scrawny kid growing up overseas, I bet nobody could have called any of those massive achievements for him. If I had to tweak one thing though... I'd ditch the word "willpower" and swap it for "passion." You don't need willpower for things you actually love doing. And if you don't love it? Well, why even bother?
deep in the sun said:how do you even say (CaCO2) Sloterdijk?
I'm guessing it's Dutch or something, so I've been saying [slot-er-dike], kinda like how people say [Cruyff]. But honestly, who knows? I'm probably wrong.