Posts by Thomas Booth5

Every single philosophy shares one fundamental trait common to all systems of human thought—some people will agree with it, and some won't. 😁 I honestly think that topic had so much potential, way beyond just the linguistic breakdown part.
Evolution doesn't just provide a foundation for one specific philosophy; it lays the groundwork for what might be the ultimate philosophy. I'm not talking about its strict scientific implications, but rather the broader stuff, http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Dawkins.htm, so if anyone’s interested in looking at things from a different angle, why not give it a shot?

Scientific humanism—which is built on the concept of biological altruism—is really the only universal perspective for philosophical, social, and basically any other type of future thought or practice. Everything else has just kind of fizzled out and become too weak for actual application, consciousness (ignore my New Jersey attitude on that one, if you can), or unifying humanity. There's no reason to go back, and there's no need to. Evolutionary philosophy is a philosophy of knowledge, direction, and purpose. Personally, I find it beautiful and freeing; everything feels affirmed in it. That said, you shouldn't try to play games by flatly denying any sort of intelligent designer (that's a bit of a cliché, anyway, and pretty much played out thanks to the Matrix). I don't think science has much to say about that, nor does anything else that tries to establish itself with more than just one follower, or more than just one person standing up for it.

redstag said:That "certainty" relies on the idea that you can understand the whole set just by looking at a partial piece of it. That's a logical assumption right there. When you say "assumption," you mean you're guessing. The real issue is how we label things as "science." If you want to use the term "science" in the broadest sense possible, fine, I won't argue with you. But seriously, Neanderthals knew that if they threw a rock, it would hit the floor or potentially hurt someone. We don't call them scientists or anything higher than that.

That’s definitely a thing too. It's its own whole question, really... that spot where science and philosophy just kind of bleed into each other.

Nah, I don't think that's really what science is all about at its core. It’s more like... maybe there's this certainty found within a specific subset, but only after you actually recognize what that subset is first. I guess.

Logical assumption? I mean, you're basically just guessing at that point.

Nah, again. It's just playing games, and honestly, most of the time it isn't even accurate formal logic.
It’s just... I don't know, using those terms like they're synonyms? It feels pretty wrong. Maybe it's just me, but that logic seems totally off.

When you say the outcome of an action that follows a set rule is "expected" or "assumed," I think the wording is a little off. You're basically saying it’s just going to happen that way—every single time. There isn't really any room for anything else to occur.

Acid-base reactions... man, science can be such a trip. I guess it’s just all about that chemical dance, right? One side reacts, the other responds, and suddenly everything changes. It's pretty wild when you think about it. It’ll happen. I guess. You could say...I guess... I mean, I suppose... maybe? "A reaction between an acid and a base will produce a salt." Like, how else would you say it? It’s just gonna happen. The end result is always going to be the same, I guess.

The issue is really just about how we use the word "science." If we're talking about science in a super broad sense, then I guess I don't have any problem with it at all.

I'm with you on that. I've been having some trouble with certain definitions myself, too. 😵Especially when I run into something that feels super rigid or just plain wrong. It’s like, if it's blind and inflexible, it might be totally incomplete, you know? And that can really lead you down the wrong path. I guess it doesn't mean everything is like that, but it definitely messes with your perspective.

So, imagine you think every single thing in science is wrong just because the word "science" itself is a bit fuzzy or poorly defined. Logic might tell you that's how it works, but honestly? It’s just bad logic. Even if the big, overarching concept is a little shaky, it doesn't mean the specific parts aren't totally accurate. Just because the umbrella term is imperfect doesn't invalidate everything underneath it. That’s just flawed reasoning, I guess.
If it really bothers you, I guess you just have to admit when those subclauses work, and then just look at the rest of it for what it is.

I mean, honestly... if you drop a rock on the floor, it hits the ground. If you drop it on your foot, it hurts. Even Neanderthals knew that. So I guess we shouldn't exactly be calling them scientists—or anything much bigger than that, for goodness' sake.

What does that even have to do with anything? I mean, we’re talking about the scientific method here, and I was just using that as an example of a certain kind of insight.
Look, if you really want to stick to those broad definitions, fine. But why wouldn't we just consider them beings that actually follow the scientific method? I guess it makes sense. Maybe. 😍

Science is basically just everything systematic that leads to actual understanding and then puts that knowledge to work. If Neanderthals were studying—and I'm pretty sure they were—the world around them, gathering data and then using it later? That’s definitely the scientific method right there. I mean, their grasp on things was obviously way more limited, but it still existed. They could learn, know, and apply simple facts, like knowing exactly how a rock is going to fall to the ground.

redstag said:Exactly. Just assumptions. So, by that logic, scientific statements are basically just metaphysical claims dressed up in lab coats.

Nah, I don't think so. Metaphysical assumptions are built on speculation—where the whole theoretical base is just more speculation and it's all a priori. But scientific ones? They're based on certainty, predictions, or speculation that actually has an empirical measurement or definition behind it.

Maybe except for quantum mechanics, which has its own brand of metaphysics (someone's probably gonna come after me for saying 🤣). But honestly, it's true. You've gotta start with what's known and measurable.

There are different kinds of assumptions. And I guess, maybe because of how open-minded people can be, they feel allowed to play around with formal logic and build all these wild constructs. 😁

But look, if a rock always falls to the ground (here in the States, under the same atmospheric conditions, etc.), it isn't really an "assumption" to say that if you drop it right now, it'll hit the ground again. That’s just a certainty, not an assumption.

redstag said:If we're playing by those rules, then science itself can't prove anything either, since it's all just making predictions—basically using observations to guess what happens next.
What I'm really calling out here is that positivist approach to science where they take a handful of isolated cases and act like they've discovered "universal laws" as if those things even exist.

But that’s just how science is defined. I don't see the issue here. Like, how do you even "prove" it? If things happen exactly as predicted, then it's proven, over and over again.
Is there even another way to have concrete proof besides stuff being true through constant reproducibility?

I mean, you could always assume there might be some theoretical exceptions.
That's just a byproduct of how the human mind works, I guess. And more importantly, those aren't actual proofs—they're just assumptions based on what we already know or have proven.

@ vamvam

Spot on. Really well put. I might add a few things though.

Science isn't just a bunch of random illusions. There are actually rules in science used to classify those illusions.

Basically, science is a collection of persistent—well, reproducible—illusions.
And its laws? They’re just the best approximations we have. They let us predict stuff so we can actually make cause-and-effect work in the real world.

Why even use the word illusion? (It's just a fun way to say we don't know things, I guess). Is it because reductionism demands absolute truth? I mean, to truly know something, you'd need to grasp its very foundation. And that’s what quantum mechanics deals with, which... honestly, we haven't even fully figured out yet.
There are theories out there that are good, and possible, but just unproven.
So, the fundamental nature of matter (and whatever else, depending on how you define it) only exists for us as a possibility.
It isn't cognitively fixed, so in a way, it is an illusion.

But then again, maybe it isn't, because what we *do* know works. That kind of truth is what we actually act upon. It doesn't make it any less true; it's just a different kind of truth, I guess.
And agnosticism is probably the broadest, most complete mental practice. Knowing what you know, knowing what you don't, and framing everything in between as a possibility... that feels like the most complete way to look at things.

The poetic way of saying it is that today's universe is the result of endless interactions between particles, fields, and who knows what else. Even high schoolers get that, even if they don't say it quite so grandly.

Yeah, plus that old question you see in so many threads—would there even be a universe if there were no one there to experience it? 😍 Just some self-aware human consciousness nonsense.

Would there be a universe at all? Or would it exist under different conditions, or maybe just for aliens? Then, is the universe somehow conscious of itself through these interactions and the way they're preserved in particles? If consciousness is just interaction, and the universe is interaction, then wouldn't the universe indirectly perceive itself by creating consciousness? 🤣 Pretty wild thoughts. 😍

wearyhawk83 said:Let’s be real: forgiveness is basically an illusion. You can't change what happened—the past is set in stone, period. To me, forgiveness is just a word we use to describe how well we handle life's curveballs. It’s all about acceptance. At its core, it’s driven by our desire to actually live out our potential, and if things line up, the byproduct is showing some grace to the person who messed up. Honestly, being able to forgive is just a massive indicator of how much we've actually grown up and learned to deal with life's messiness.

I feel like you're right on one hand, but maybe you haven't said everything.
Forgiveness isn't some passive thing where you just roll over and accept fate; it's actually an active move that changes things. Some really tough moments of forgiveness can totally transform both people—the one forgiving and the one being forgiven—making them both better, more mature, and more whole.
And it changes the nature of the hurt itself. It doesn't just sit there as something purely malicious; it becomes... I don't know, humanized. And the people involved change too.

Everyone messes up, including you. You might do it one way, or another. Or maybe you won't do it much, or you'll do it a little, etc.
And I, just to be fair about everything 😍, tried to measure how much emotional reciprocity there should be. I realized you just can't measure it. You are who you are, and the other person is who they are. If you care about them, and if there's something good between you, I guess you shouldn't sweat the small stuff.
You just have to accept people for who they are, in places where it doesn't really matter.
But where it does bother you, you should point it out, and let that person deal with it.

Over time, through hanging out and just... I guess, practicing human interaction 😛, you develop this intuition for all sorts of things. You learn how you need to act. You shouldn't forgive everything, though—that's not good for anyone. Some things just shouldn't be forgiven. But most things? Yeah, from the heart 😍... it's just part of being human, and you just learn for next time.

Brenda Cook4 said:In a strange sort of way, that’s actually a perfect way to put it... being specialized for nothing, just drifting along until you occasionally stumble into that wretched abyss 😬... though there are other abysses out there, too. Take Boehme's abyss, the *ungrund*—that primal void where the eternal divine will is first conceived... an abyss that serves as the undifferentiated Father...

To put it simply, humans are evolutionarily—and ultimately humanistically—built to be generalists.

Brenda Cook4 said:

I guess I’m just thinking about servantes. Maybe it's nothing, but they've been on my mind lately. Just sort of... there. Anyway. [User] says: Almost everything alive out there seems to have some kind of niche specialty. An elephant’s got its trunk, eagles have that killer eyesight, storks have their beaks... you get the idea. But humans? We aren't really specialized for anything specific. So, I guess you have to wonder—is this whole specialization thing just a way of circling back to those basic animal instincts? Maybe.🤷

Good point. I’ve actually been thinking about specialization lately myself, and I keep landing on the same conclusion. I was looking at it from a bit more of a big-picture angle, I guess, but at its core, human specialization is really just about focusing on one specific task. That part isn't even the issue, it's more like... Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like people try to claim they can do everything when they're really just leaning on one specific skill they happen to be good at. Like, you're calling yourself a jack-of-all-trades, but you're actually just specialized in one niche area of your work. I guess that's how it works, though.
It’s like when you tie yourself down to something so narrow and specific... I don't know, maybe it just ends up stifling everything else you're actually capable of. It kind of stunts all your other skills, I guess.

The world today feels like one massive, non-stop demand for specialization. And honestly? That trend isn't slowing down anytime soon. I guess it makes sense for work and everything else, really. But maybe we should apply that same kind of depth to our own lives too—to how we actually connect with ourselves and the world around us. It just feels right.

Honestly, it’s tough for me. It’s even harder trying to interpret one man’s life work on a forum like this—especially someone who actually cared about humanity.
It just makes me sad when something original, something born from a spirit and an ideal that both you and I value as human beings, gets dragged down into meaningless nitpicking, random personal tangents, or just pointless attacks.

I suppose it really comes down to style and taste—how people choose to criticize or how they choose to defend.
Any opinion, as long as it's thought out and fits someone's own knowledge or perspective, is welcome here. It's invited.

History has its own take on F. Nietzsche, just like different philosophical schools and various individuals do...
Whether I personally agreed with those views or not, I respect anything done with the right purpose, the right method, and above all, with respect—both to the work itself and to oneself.

My own experience with his work has changed so much. It depended on what I knew at the time, my own mental framework, and mostly, just my own human experiences.
I'll admit, I used to resent him for no real reason. I’d close my eyes to his ideas, get angry, or argue with some critical sentence he wrote. Then, eventually, I grew to love him—the way you love someone who is so vastly different from you that you can't find common ground on almost anything, except for one crucial point: Defense of Man. And, I guess, his poetry too.

I truly love and value his spirit, his love for humanity, for Life, and for philosophy.
Even if I don't quote his exact words, I read them for their meaning, leaning into the insight they provide.

Anthony Perez9 said:Here’s the full snippet:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Whatever you sink your teeth into eventually changes who you are. Everything shifts.

The sky over Washington, D.C.
I guess if you have an angelic nature, but wander into places meant for something else, you might end up becoming just... human.

And if you’re human—if you have solid morals, but haven't really faced the things that go against everything you stand for—you might look at them from your own side, and then suddenly find yourself facing them so closely it feels like you lived through it all yourself. You might actually start to understand things from that opposite perspective.
If you truly understand something human, that understanding becomes part of being human. It becomes part of you.
And I mean, the stronger your morals are, the more naive or idealistic you might be, the more open you are to new thoughts and how much you live and love those ideas... well, the bigger that shake-up to your understanding is going to be.