Harold Doyle3 said:Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.
And where does that relay race actually end? 🙂
I mean... if you forgive someone... what is the actual point?
Eric Newman75 said:No. You didn't just miss the shot; you missed the entire game, the stadium, and basically everything else you could possibly strike out on. You missed the mark entirely. But hey, maybe a little wisdom from the Smith Bible will help clear things up for you.
"And God created the beasts of the Earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the Earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree which doth contain seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that moveth upon the Earth, that hath life in it, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
There’s no dichotomy here, really. What we’re looking at is just a plain old observation of how things have played out on Earth since the beginning of time. Judaism and Christianity aren't some radical departure; they’re just the natural progression of humans deciding—one way or another—that we deserve the starring role in this big world around us. This isn't some hallmark of modernity, and it sure as hell isn't "alienation." It’s actually the exact opposite. It’s that constant, built-in human hunger to mold reality to fit our own shape. I mean, where exactly are you seeing this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" you keep talking about? Because I don't see it anywhere. There isn't a trace of it. There’s zero fear involved, and our future isn't even remotely in question. In fact, it's secure from every single perspective you could possibly dream up. And that is my whole point: the world isn't indifferent. The world exists to joyfully and passionately serve humanity. It’s been that way for ages, and it’ll stay that way.
Is that kind of picture even any good? That’s the second question. But then again, it's just baked into who we are. Thinking outside the box isn't exactly in our DNA—not as individuals, anyway. An individual can still break away from the herd, sure. They can push back. But humanity as a whole? No way. Not in a million years.
I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛
Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?
There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...
"Simple observation" doesn't exist. That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference... The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉
Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.
Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.
Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.
And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦
And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.
It’s one of those tragic dichotomies inherent to the analytical mind—this idea that a person can "conquer the world" as if they were somehow separate from it, believing they can subdue their surroundings without simultaneously subduing themselves...
In reality, this false dichotomy is doubly tragic. First, there is the sense of detachment, as if an individual stands isolated against a world that is perceived as inherently hostile. Then, there is the fatal illusion that through such conflict, a person—or even humanity at large—can actually "subdue" a world that is supposedly "cold and indifferent."
Further proof that this supposed cosmic indifference is merely a human projection lies in the fact that people are becoming increasingly cold and indifferent themselves. They inevitably adopt the very characteristics of the world they claim to struggle against, becoming part of the very thing they seek to master, all while remaining blissfully unaware of the process....
(Of course, I am referring here to the individual within the West, a civilization in its twilight. A Westerner hardly cares to learn about other cultures; most are viewed as barely deserving the title of "civilization," seen instead as part of that "hostile, indifferent" world that needs to be conquered by any means necessary—to be "civilized" until they become just as cold and detached as the West itself.)
Eric Newman75 said:I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.
That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.
It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.
I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.
And yet... The universe or God doesn't operate on a transactional basis where we trade one thing for another. 😉 It’s because we aren't separate from the universe or the creation; we are part of it, which means our fundamental interests are essentially the same. 🙂
From my perspective, those virtues are an inherent advantage to us, rather than some kind of "sacrifice" we offer up (to the Universe, to God...) in exchange for getting the perfect world we imagine.
Eric Newman75 said:I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.
That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.
It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.
I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.
Disenchantment. 🙂
Forgive me if it seemed presumptuous to comment on parts of your personal confession.
Harold Doyle3 said:Your logic is flawed. I used the example of sacrificing a life for the sake of survival. What is the purpose of that life? Survival! Survival and life aren't identical concepts. Sacrificing a life can affirm survival (take a parent sacrificing themselves for their offspring, for instance), whereas sacrificing survival cannot affirm life (like sacrificing offspring for the sake of a parent).
Consciousness is just an evolutionary byproduct of natural selection. Any form of life—including consciousness—that lacked a drive for survival (failed to adapt) simply went extinct.
You’re talking about Life in a grand, abstract sense here, rather than the life of an individual. Isn't that right? But we are discussing the life of the individual as such, not the overarching meaning of Life in general—specifically, why there is existence at all instead of nothingness.
From that perspective, survival is ultimately meaningless. The individual will die, and the fact that "life continues" through their descendants has zero bearing on them as a person. It might involve their genes, sure, but what actually happens to those genes is anyone's guess. For all we know, they could be spliced with the DNA of a tiger or an elephant, resulting in some humanoid hybrid—whatever. How does that have anything to do with the individual, their own survival, or the meaning of life? Please, enlighten me.
(I don't know what we did to deserve having to listen to these narratives from the series survival in the theme of man and world relationship....)
To Camus, those stars in the sky might have felt cold during his moments of "internal" burning, but that’s hardly enough evidence to draw a universal conclusion about the coldness of the universe. Did those same stars provide Kant with proof of God's existence? For me, the stars represent the joy of freedom. 🙂 What do the stars mean to you?
frozengardener7 said:Why lost?
It is my view that there is something within us—something that drives us day after day and pushes back against the coldness of the universe. Or rather, the fact remains that we construct the cosmos based on the reality that we possess a drive to assign meaning to both things and people, rather than harboring indifference.
That does not mean the external world isn't indifferent toward us. This brings me back to Camus, who lay under the stars and simply surrendered to the absurd, recognizing the friction between a cold reality and an internal fire.
Let me clarify further why the phenomenon indifference world can be both sweet and bitter, as noted. Why can we not accept the fact that "bad luck" isn't obligated to guide our lives? Why can we not forget how deeply our own nature is intertwined with this indifference? Why is it so difficult to grasp that the very act of us creating meaning—even while the coldness is present—is enough to keep us moving forward on our path.
Because I find the world cold and indifferent only when I can no longer "recognize myself" within it.
frozengardener7 said:Why lost?
It is my view that there is something within us—something that drives us day after day and pushes back against the coldness of the universe. Or rather, the fact remains that we construct the cosmos based on the reality that we possess a drive to assign meaning to both things and people, rather than harboring indifference.
That does not mean the external world isn't indifferent toward us. This brings me back to Camus, who lay under the stars and simply surrendered to the absurd, recognizing the friction between a cold reality and an internal fire.
Let me clarify further why the phenomenon indifference world can be both sweet and bitter, as noted. Why can we not accept the fact that "bad luck" isn't obligated to guide our lives? Why can we not forget how deeply our own nature is intertwined with this indifference? Why is it so difficult to grasp that the very act of us creating meaning—even while the coldness is present—is enough to keep us moving forward on our path.
When I lose sight of that "intertwining" between indifference and my own self, it means that, for me, indifference effectively ceases to exist. 😉
The notion that "I alone assign meaning" to the phenomenon indifference world doesn't drive me along some self-appointed path of manufactured purpose; instead, it mocks me and pushes me toward depression, right to the edge of self-destruction. Maybe I'm a coward, or perhaps I'm just too suggestible, too unstable, whatever 😢 ... but I belong to those people who need to fit into and accept a Meaning greater than themselves, rather than inventing it and constantly altering it on a whim... And unfortunately, that "higher meaning" isn't Christian or any other god, since I don't consciously participate in the existence, love, or other omni-attributes of such an imaginary being. It’s all just something in my head—a construct that needs to be nurtured and maintained—which feels like nothing more than a waste of energy and time.
Melissa Stewart6 said:If you look at *The Science of Logic*, it’s easy enough to categorize it as philosophy—much like how anyone would label the Bible as a religious text. But when you get into works like Boehm's Aurora, the Tao, the Ching, or Nietzsche's Zarathustra... things get blurry. It’s much harder to decide if those belong in the realm of art, philosophy, or religion, since they really seem to blend all three together.
That kind of separation isn't necessary, nor is it particularly controversial, when we are discussing the texts themselves. The distinction only matters when you look at "social action"—specifically, how organized religions or the arts influence society as a whole. When it comes to "unification"—that process of transcending ideological conflicts and individual disagreements to forge something entirely new—organized religions generally fail to help; if anything, they hinder the process. Art can bring incredibly diverse people together, but it lacks the power to drive the social consensus required to achieve actual Change. It seems everyone on this planet is staring at the same problem: revolutions have become obsolete, limited by their tendency to merely swap out the actors without ever addressing the underlying social structures.
Philosophy, however, which never tires of interpreting and explaining—and whose primary tool is the Word, where the Word is Thought, and Thought is Creative (possessing the power to destroy, alter, and create anew)—holds the potential to be understood and applied by anyone aiming for global transformation. By philosophy, I am referring to the concept itself. It must contain both a concentrated core of inspiration and a rich tapestry of imagery—be it mythical, religious, or folkloric.
To me, philosophy feels like the only true force capable of bridging the gap between people, fostering genuine understanding through a shared pursuit of objective truth—regardless of their background, identity, gender, race, or creed. Its strength and necessity lie in its universality, even in its perceived "coldness"—which is one of those common criticisms leveled against Hegel, for instance. Logical reasoning is an inherent capacity within every human being; even if someone hasn't quite tapped into it yet, it’s a skill that can always be cultivated.
Philosophy has the potential to unite us in a collective, creative thought process in the very places where religion tends to drive us apart. For this reason, at least from my perspective, philosophy represents a more perfect expression of the so-called absolute spirit than religion (which can often, and frequently is, manipulative) or even art (which remains open to endless, subjective interpretations).
So, if you aren't actually planning to go out there and live it, why just sit here playing philosopher? You're basically using your own half-baked logic to cloud the Truth from everyone else.
There aren't any "clans" here at minimalism. It’s just people with different political views and leanings, which is true of any other online forum.
Are moderators on other message boards being "monitored" just because of their political stances, similar to how this troll suggests Volver should be handled if she ever becomes a moderator?
Isn't it obvious he's only suggesting this because Volver is a woman—which clearly bothers him, based on his recent posts here—and because she isn't an American citizen?
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I couldn't say. Someone moderate and low-maintenance. They don't even strictly need to be on the right; they could be neutral or even lean left, as long as they aren't as deeply entrenched as steelridge58. The goal is just to keep things somewhat under control. 🤷
It might also be worth noting that steelridge58 doesn't live in the US, so they aren't directly feeling the pulse of the society and the times we’re currently living through in America. It wouldn't hurt to have someone local involved. I mean that without any malice toward steelridge58 🤷
And what kind of grad student are you in the Philosophy department for you to care about all this anyway? I've been there for three years now and I still haven't run into you (aside from seeing you pop up occasionally as a troll).
It can't be a matter of personal animosity, considering we haven't actually met.
See how you just ramble nonsense?
It’s obvious you need to be removed from any serious discussions because you constantly Spam threads with the same repetitive, worthless, and tedious posts—you drop seven or eight comments in a row, peppered with large, bolded fonts, completely deviating from the topic. Either you're too dense to realize you've derailed the conversation into territory where it doesn't belong, or you simply don't care; you just mark your territory like a dog, desperate to link every single thought in your head back to your trivialities, your delusions, and communist crimes.
You manage to offend both the angels and the devils, yet you casually brush off every critique from other users—whether they are being well-meaning or blunt—defending yourself with endless follow-up posts as if you were the most important person in the world, or as if everyone is just waiting for you to show up and talk about yourself or "benevolently" gossip about others. 80% of your contributions are nothing more than mindless, sycophantic babbling; it isn't even functioning as a chat anymore.
You act like a CHILD—as the user Bema correctly pointed out—just running wild because there are no consequences, which is why I suggest the following:
A SPECIAL SUB-FORUM CORNER JUST FOR hiddenpuma75 where you can run wild with your hysterical, consecutive posts, and where you get to own every single thread. 😎 Your little friends could come by and bring you (emotional) sustenance like a stray dog on a leash—but you wouldn't be allowed anywhere else, since you clearly don't care whether you're a nuisance or not, and you refuse to listen to anyone, whether due to sheer stupidity or a blatant lack of respect for other users and your insistence on forcing your agenda.
You’re the type who polishes your language just to hide your pathological hatred and clinical diagnoses under a thin veil of irony and blatant provocation—all presented with such polished, deceptive sophistication. You’re like most of you idiots who pollute Philosophy with religion. In reality, you are far MORE DANGEROUS and MORE MALICIOUS than people like Adis, who simply shout, mock, and call things as they see them. People can never find a counterargument to his bluntness, so out of sheer impotence, all you can do is try to ban him from the Forum.
The whole lot of you is pathetic.
And what can those pathetic moderators actually do? Much like the police, they lack the capacity for deep assessment or genuine analysis; they only have the time to skim the surface of things—and people.
I’m not sure if any of the moderators are actually going to see this—but I certainly hope they do.
Finally, a decent philosophy topic has opened up here, but unfortunately, it’s already being trashed by posts from hiddenpuma75. While we’re all trying to have a serious discussion about 19th-century critiques of religion, this guy keeps trolling by pivoting to US politics and some random assassinations.😢
I am asking the management to please delete every single one of hiddenpuma75's posts from this thread—and honestly, from any other threads involving me—and issue him a PERMANENT BAN from Philosophy. Please, I’m asking you. 🙏 hiddenpuma75’s presence on the Philosophy board isn't just an annoyance, like an elephant in a glass shop; it’s far more sinister... it’s more like finding pornography in a kindergarten classroom.😢
(And this isn't just my personal grievance; several other philosophy buffs have complained about him too. We have three regular trolls on this subforum, but he is by far the loudest, most intrusive, and most dishonest of the lot. If you can just get rid of him, we can manage the others ourselves.)
PS Thanks for giving us the freedom to speak our minds! May God reward you for it.😎 😛
PS2 PS2 Sigmund mentioned he might be interested in moderating; if the management insists on appointing someone, I think he would be the right man for the job.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I remember reading in this book about warfare and its underlying causes (I can't recall the title or author off the top of my head, though I could probably look it up later!), that everything might actually boil down to chemistry—specifically oxytocin. It supposedly has this dual effect where it reinforces your own convictions while simultaneously ramping up your aversion to opposing views. I guess the more you love one thing, the more you end up hating anything different; it’s almost like one cannot exist without the other. So, if that's the case, maybe the only real solution would be total indifference. But then again, if we were all truly indifferent, I suppose even hatred wouldn't really be a big deal anymore.
I find this theory unacceptable. I don't know who the author is, but oxytocin is primarily linked to maternal love—fine, and yes, to building trust—but its main function is released in high amounts when a mother nurses her infant, making mothers hyper-protective toward their babies, which is necessary, ... Perhaps mothers with newborns exhibit intense hostility or intolerance toward anything threatening their offspring, but that is an instinctive, hormonal reaction. I wouldn't link that to a "dislike of differing viewpoints." That is a massive leap in logic. Attempting to connect oxytocin, a hormone with purely biological purposes, to a social flaw like intolerance toward different perspectives seems like a highly strained analogy to me. Chemistry is one thing and psychology is another. While they are related, one cannot be explained solely by the other because they operate on two different levels, each governed by its own set of rules. It is reductive to isolate a single influence from a lower level and present it as some kind of "ultimate cause."
"Elevating personal anxieties to the level of philosophical problems carries the grave risk of devolving into a sort of parochial metaphysics... something quite dangerous if it interferes with the true mission of philosophy, which is to understand being in relation to itself, rather than in relation to me" - Levi Strauss, Melancholy Tropes It’s difficult to grasp this concept, especially when dealing with those obsessions that feel universal—those thoughts that seem like they ought to consume anyone possessing even a shred of self-awareness.