Posts by Joseph Bailey41

Anthony Perez9 said:I’ve never quite wrapped my head around how people who lean so heavily on faith for their mental and spiritual stability can still get so easily wounded emotionally.

Where do you guys think that irrational urge to get all emotionally wounded just because someone disagrees with you actually comes from? It feels like such a toxic giveaway.😲

It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.
It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.
It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.
Man, that’s heavy. 😲

I honestly can't imagine what someone has to go through to end up in that kind of headspace. 😢

I’ve got a feeling this was cooked up by American millennials... you know, that pampered crowd that acts like they're going through a massive emotional crisis just because you pointed out their shirt is untucked. 😬

hollowpuma762 said:Those two examples perfectly show how much someone's attitude dictates whether they’ll actually fit in or just stay an outsider.

It’s exactly why candidates for more serious paths always had to pass a character assessment first.
The real gems? They usually got fast-tracked immediately.

🤣 🤣 🤣

Look at you, getting all witty! 👍

hollowpuma762 said:There's a much more useful place for this kind of empty rhetoric and pseudo-intellectualism:

Another brilliant argument, right up there with "if you hate capitalism, just move to North Korea."

( I wonder what the Latin term is for that specific logical fallacy? 🤔 )

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Man, I just love precise definitions. 🎉

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Even > couldn't have phrased that better. ☕

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

That’s a classic believer's spin. When someone doesn't buy into your bedtime story, you just hint that they weren't being "metaphorical" enough. It's basically saying the problem is with them because they're taking things too literally.

Look, I'd much rather be considered simple-minded on my own terms than "smart" by being part of a group this irrational.

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Can you actually point to a single example of a "civilized and stable society"?

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

And why not digital ones? 🤣

Do you actually have anything concrete to say, or are you just trolling?

hollowpuma762 said:I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly? It’s just... it's a lot. I was sitting there, staring at my screen, thinking about how much everything seems to be spiraling lately, and then I saw it. That specific realization that hits you right in the gut when you realize the system isn't just broken—it was designed this way. It’s like we’re all just running on a treadmill that someone else plugged into a wall, expecting us to feel accomplished because our legs are tired. We’re exhausted. I am exhausted. And yet, here we are, pretending that if we just work a little harder or follow the rules a little more closely, the view from the top will actually change. Spoiler alert: it won't. I mean, look at the sheer scale of the absurdity. You see these massive corporations, these titans of industry like Amazon or JPMorgan Chase, just moving pieces around on a board we aren't even allowed to see. They play the game, they win, and we're left picking up the scraps and calling it "progress." It’s cynical, sure. Maybe even a little bleak. But is it wrong? I'm starting to think being cynical is just the only sane response left to us. Anyway, I'm rambling. My coffee is cold, my head hurts, and I've probably spent too much time dwelling on the inevitable decline of everything. But someone had to say it. Someone had to point out that the emperor isn't just naked—he's also incredibly incompetent.

Look, in both scenarios, we aren't talking about some poetic "expression of the inner spirit" or whatever flowery nonsense people use to romanticize it. It’s much uglier than that. What we're actually looking at are psychological deviations—straight-up glitches in the psyche that happen when someone loses the ability to regulate their own internal processes. When you stop being able to steer the ship and just let those impulses run wild like some unchecked element, you end up generating nothing but pure destruction and chaos. And it doesn't stop with the individual, either; it bleeds outward and wreaks havoc on everyone around them too.

Some people have been obsessed with this idea of binary "yes/no" rules for ages. It’s like they set up these rigid frameworks where if you say "yes" but then act on a "don't," you've committed some massive sin. A total error in thought, word, or deed. And we aren't just talking about a little slip-up here. We're talking about a mistake with enough destructive potential to wreck everything from your mental state to your physical reality. It's that moment where—let's be honest—the Divinity steps in to punish some half-wit who keeps sticking their fingers in an electrical outlet even after being told exactly why that's a bad idea. It's what happens when you fail to manifest basic common sense into your actual life. Just pure, predictable chaos.

Look, when people can't even manage to follow a basic moral compass, you end up with some half-wit having to cook up a thousand different laws just to cover every single move they make. It’s nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep the system from completely imploding for five minutes. Just a temporary patch on a sinking ship.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly? It’s just exhausting. Every time I think we've hit rock bottom with how things are run around here, someone pulls a stunt like this and proves me wrong. It's the same old story, isn't it? Just different faces, same tired patterns. I was reading what hollowpuma762 had to say earlier, and man, they aren't wrong. It's all just noise at this point. We're all just circling the drain while the people in charge act like everything is perfectly fine. It’s almost funny if you don't find it incredibly depressing. I mean, really. How many times can we go through this cycle before we realize nothing actually changes? Anyway, I'm probably just rambling. My bad. Just feeling a bit more cynical than usual today. Probably because it's Tuesday. Or maybe it's just life. Who knows?

Look, here’s the thing about having a conscience—it’s basically just this internal moral compass that lets you actually function like a decent human being. It’s what allows you to course-correct on the fly and tweak your own behavior so you aren't constantly crashing headlong into the reality of the world around you. Without it, we'd all just be chaotic messes, right?

Total "freedom"? Please. If you’ve got zero self-control, zero connection to what’s happening around you, and absolutely no sense of how to actually interact with your environment in a balanced way, you aren't free. You're just lost. It's an illusion. Pure and simple. Even on a microscopic level—look at the cells in the human body—if they all started operating on that kind of chaotic principle, we wouldn't last five minutes. Everything would fall apart. Total disaster.

Look, we’re living in this absolute psychotic, self-destructive circus that everyone has the nerve to call "civilization." It all boils down to the same thing: a total lack of accountability and this reckless, shallow way people treat the concept of "freedom." We just toss the word around without a second thought, acting like it's a free pass to be irresponsible, and now we're all just watching the whole thing spiral out of control. It's exhausting.

Yeah. Honestly, in both scenarios, we’re really just talking about individual traits, whether they're considered deviant or not. But it makes me wonder—how would you even go about defining the "inner spirit"?

I honestly don't know what to make of this. I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for a while, trying to wrap my head around everything being said, but it just feels like we're spinning our wheels. It's one of those situations where you want to jump in and offer a perspective, but you realize how much weight these discussions actually carry. I’m probably overthinking it—I have a tendency to do that—but there's something about the way things are unfolding right now that feels heavy. I'd love to hear if anyone else is feeling this same sense of uncertainty, or if it's just me being overly cautious. Asks:
Some people have long argued that life presents us with these fundamental "yes or no" scenarios. If you instinctively say "yes," but then go ahead and do the exact opposite—ignoring a clear warning or a moral boundary—you’ve committed a real error. It isn't just a slip-up; it's a mistake at the level of thought, word, and action. This kind of failure carries a destructive potential that can ripple out from your mental state all the way to physical reality. It’s almost as if divinity steps in to punish someone who acts like a total fool—someone who sticks their finger in an electrical socket even after being told specifically not to. It's what happens when you refuse to let your principles actually manifest in your real-world behavior.

Look, when people can't even stick to a basic moral compass, you end up with a situation where some half-wit has to draft a mountain of regulations just to cover every single move we make. It’s basically a desperate attempt to keep the system from completely collapsing under its own weight, even if it's only a temporary fix.

So, apparently, some half-wit tried to force a binary "yes or no" logic on them a long time ago? Honestly, it’s just a waste of breath. It's like watching someone try to teach a goldfish how to play chess—completely pointless. ☕

I can't quite figure out what you mean by that. Could you clarify? kaže:
At its core, having a moral compass means we can actually align our own actions with the world around us.

Total "freedom" is nothing more than an illusion if it lacks self-control, a connection to its surroundings, and a sense of harmony with the world around it. If the individual cells in the human body started operating on that kind of principle, we wouldn't last very long.

What kind of connection could there actually be between the cells in our bodies and the concepts of freedom and consciousness?

I haven't seen any posts from omen4k lately. Does anyone know if they're still around? kaže:
We’ve let our sense of responsibility slip so far, and we take this idea of "freedom" way too lightly. Honestly, that lack of accountability at a societal level is exactly what's driven us into this psychotic, self-destructive circus that everyone keeps calling civilization.

Lol. That's what happens when you let a half-wit try to write code. 😍

hiddeneagle98 said:How so?

To me, they sound like two ways of saying the exact same thing. Sure, I get that someone can try way too hard to perform their uniqueness, but if you're forcing it, all you're actually expressing is how much you're trying to force it, not some deep-seated sense of self.

If we take this to an extreme: having pedophilic tendencies is technically part of one's individuality. But acting on them is a crime.

Taking a milder approach: greed is also part of someone's individuality. In that case, expressing that "individual spirit" through economic choices can get pretty messy.

In short, I think setting boundaries on our own freedom to protect the integrity of others is the very foundation of a moral conscience. It's the idea that certain values aren't just dropped from the sky; instead, humans develop them systematically through interaction with one another. Or, you could just sign the social contract and call it a day. Either way, it's all pretty subjective. 😍

Ethan Gomez82 said:Oh, so we're playing dominoes now. 🙂

People usually describe her as a passionate reader of Facebook. 🙂

I’m currently taking some time off to recharge, just enjoying a little break from the daily grind. It feels good to step away for a moment and clear my head. Looking forward to catching up with everyone once I'm back! kaže:
Slowly but surely, independent thinkers are being turned into a mindless, irrational crowd—a mass of people who can no longer clearly identify their own best interests. I don't think we should be too hard on them, though. The world has become so incredibly complex that it's genuinely difficult for the average person to grasp how everything works or to predict where any given action might lead. Does anyone actually have a reliable handle on things anymore?

No way, they’re just laying low for now. I really hope they don't end up meeting the same fate as Socrates. 🤔

I honestly feel like everything needs to go completely to hell before anything truly new can actually happen.
Radical democracy.I’m just keeping a close eye on how things unfold. At the end of the day, we can't predict how anything is going to turn out—we never could. I honestly don't know when uncertainty started feeling like this uncomfortable thing that everyone feels the need to avoid at all costs. 😉

Amanda Jackson5 said:Of course they can't, and of course it’s all contradictory. If you didn't catch my drift earlier, I was comparing two different social frameworks—utilitarianism versus the "general will." Neither one actually works, but my point was that utilitarianism is arguably the least functional of the bunch. I was trying to engage with this at a level a bit higher than just throwing around clichés about "suffocating the individual spirit" and things of that nature. If your goal is a society built on absolute freedom, you’d need a perfectly homogeneous population to pull it off, but that’s a fantasy. Every society constantly churns out its own myths, yet Enlightenment-style utilitarianism treats myth-making as something reserved for primitive, ancient tribes rather than modern, rational societies. That alone proves that the utilitarian model is just as much of a utopia as any rival theory based on the "general will." It hasn't been all that long since people argued that citizens stay loyal to their society simply because of the services it provides them, a view that led to claims about the "end of ideology." As it turns out, utilitarianism is just as ideological as everything else—if anything, it's even less plausible than the alternatives.

That said, individuals *do* stay loyal to a society because of what it does for them. It’s like when someone crashes your workspace, spends the whole day making a massive racket with a power tool, and then tries to make amends by offering you a blanket and a cup of artisanal cocoa in the evening. ☕

In those situations, feeling some sense of loyalty is totally normal—especially if you show up to work with a ham sandwich while your coworkers are stuck with moldy bread.

Socrates could afford to joke around with a young democracy or even play fair, mostly because in Greece, you can pretty much walk around naked. Meanwhile, the clauses of the social contract have been multiplying like rodents. No sane person would sign something like that with a clear head. But if they shove it into your hands before you even know your own name, you might just take it.

Under those circumstances, manufacturing consent for just about anything isn't hard. In my humble opinion, we aren't looking at a conscious union of thinking individuals; we're looking at a global hostage crisis. Sure, there's another side to this, but that's still largely experimental and happening under conditions that are nowhere near a controlled lab setting.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Ladies, I’m not looking for a fight, but if things get ugly, I won't hesitate to defend myself.

🙂

I’m only willing to step up if there is a genuine desire on your end, rather than just some superficial need created by the media. With respect,

😈

Ethan Gomez82 said:I don't have anything better to do right now, so I might as well write a little essay. 🧐 😁

The tension between the individual and the collective has never been more convoluted than it is today. We are caught between forces driving homogenization and those fueling social decomposition. Sometimes these forces clash head-on; other times, they operate in separate spheres without ever directly colliding. As a result, the big picture of how they interact is becoming increasingly messy and opaque.

Modern social organization doesn't give a damn about grand philosophical inquiries; it’s purely pragmatic. The goal is simple: maximize efficiency and maintain constant growth, because if that stops, the entire global paradigm collapses. It's a technical requirement. Whether a society is homogeneous or not is irrelevant—what matters is that it functions efficiently. Societies achieve homogeneity through normalization, a process that has become practically global. People everywhere buy the same brands, follow the same regulations (like traffic laws), study the same subjects, watch the same movies, and generally engage in a vast amount of "sameness." Human beings (the subjects) have been turned into objects through intense marketing processing, making it nearly impossible to distinguish genuine individual thought from the mere echo of a marketing matrix. Even they can't tell the difference themselves.

So, where does the decomposition come in? That's also facilitated by technology—specifically, the absolute novelty of information overload. Information is no longer a scarce resource that's hard to come by; it's a flood that people are drowning in. From an seemingly endless supply, an individual can only absorb a tiny fraction, so different people pick and choose different pieces that fit their specific personalities. Communication is no longer a hurdle either; you can find a niche circle of people with identical interests regardless of how rare or obscure those interests might be. And you won't just find them—you can live entirely within that bubble. You could live next door to a neighbor and never understand a single thing about them, and neither of you would care.

Ugh, I'm done. 🥱

When you take a system apart through literary fetishism, focusing only on specific fragments, you end up reconstructing it through sheer citation. Hypertext allows for this Frankenstein-style integration of idealized concepts, much like how a shepherd gathers his flock. This new organism—composed of bonsai cats, the cacophonous howling of a deaf choir, the scent of camphor from car wrecks, and various other scavenged "creative commons" objects—is more than just mere fiction. A distorted image of life replaces an objective, mathematically recognizable reality, yet this newly created simulacrum is uninhabitable because it lacks a functional permit. Squatting temporarily in this post-capitalist ruin gives the author a chance to emerge both alive and dead at once. Like Schrödinger's cat, they become a living witness to actual absurdity and a Barthesian "dead author," replaced by a mob of anonymous users sharing their own takes on Nietzsche or leaving troll comments under unsigned articles in The New York Times. In this transformation, the author becomes someone with nothing left to lose, granting them a kind of absolute literary freedom.

(Since we're all just messing around anyway. 😁 )

hiddeneagle98 said:Customs were once rational decisions too, you know. People exist today because of those very customs. Any "rational decision" you decide to pull right now might not even hold water, and it’s only after it proves itself useful a thousand times over that it might eventually settle into being a custom.🙂

And those rational decisions absolutely have to involve the participation of every single member of society.

That’s exactly how you end up smothering the voice of the individual in favor of some vague collective will.

Rational will cannot accept social institutions that are merely "given"—institutions that just exist without being rationally justified. Rousseau's concept of the "social contract" implies universal and total participation in power by all citizens. Achieving maximum societal homogeneity is desirable.

But here’s the thing: maximum societal homogeneity is also maximum non-individuality. That is precisely what totalitarian societies, like North Korea, strive for.

How on earth do you get citizens to be homogeneous in how they organize their society and institutions?
The only way is if citizens are just mindless copies of one another, like ants, completely unaware of their own identity, their position, or their own will.

Because of this, maximum economic equality among all people is also desirable.

People cannot be individuals and be equal at the same time. I don't care what fancy quote someone uses to try and save that argument; it is a contradiction in terms. You can't even achieve economic equality while maintaining true individuality, because that would mean people aren't allowed to express their unique traits in the economic sphere—and that is nothing more than the strangling of the individual spirit.

I think "individuality" and the "expression of individuality" are two completely different concepts.

hiddeneagle98 said:Grid:

individual collective

real human society

ideal God utopia

😬

Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?

Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?

Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?

In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality.
People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.

I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.

On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...

Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?

P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬

A Hegelian triangle? Is that what you click when someone isn't making any sense? 🤔

Humans can strive for anything, even divinity. There's no law forbidding it (at least nothing published in The New York Times yet). But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. An apotheosis for everyone? A spiritual elite? Those who can afford more? Just for yourself? If you could clarify, it would be easier to see if that actually fits with the idea of a utopia. Besides, what specific attributes or qualities would a person need to acquire to actually become God?

Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

Amanda Jackson5 said:I actually dig this idea—that a utopia for society is just what God represents for a single person. But it raises the question: does God even have a place in a utopia? Or, looking at it from the other side, can there even be a utopia within God? Is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth essentially just a utopia?
Regardless, if we approach this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics—or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit—only really functions, or becomes achievable, within a society; in other words, within the collective. This is precisely what provides actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, almost hollow concept of ethics found in Kantian thought. Not only that, but it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be lived out, effectively closing the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives once nature (which includes "primitive" societies or humans existing in a state of nature) is reorganized to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is exactly where Hegel pivots away from the typical moral leanings of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Because of these factors, trying to draw a hard line between the individual and the collective is pretty much a fool's errand; in reality, that separation rarely holds up under scrutiny.
People naturally tend to view their own personal morality as something far more foundational than social morality (that is, Sittlichkeit), mostly because a decent person is always at risk of having society demand they act against their own conscience (something Taylor notes is especially prevalent in an era defined by nationalism). Interestingly, he also mentions that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, or his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both of them, in their own ways, disrupted or completely severed ties with the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. Yet, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths can't be realized or embodied if that person remains entirely isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are left with two choices: retreat from society entirely or go to war with it, in which case they’ll likely follow the path of Jesus or Socrates.

Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

Amanda Jackson5 said:I actually dig this idea—that a utopia for society is just what God represents for a single person. But it raises the question: does God even have a place in a utopia? Or, looking at it from the other side, can there even be a utopia within God? Is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth essentially just a utopia?
Regardless, if we approach this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics—or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit—only really functions, or becomes achievable, within a society; in other words, within the collective. This is precisely what provides actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, almost hollow concept of ethics found in Kantian thought. Not only that, but it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be lived out, effectively closing the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives once nature (which includes "primitive" societies or humans existing in a state of nature) is reorganized to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is exactly where Hegel pivots away from the typical moral leanings of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Because of these factors, trying to draw a hard line between the individual and the collective is pretty much a fool's errand; in reality, that separation rarely holds up under scrutiny.
People naturally tend to view their own personal morality as something far more foundational than social morality (that is, Sittlichkeit), mostly because a decent person is always at risk of having society demand they act against their own conscience (something Taylor notes is especially prevalent in an era defined by nationalism). Interestingly, he also mentions that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, or his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both of them, in their own ways, disrupted or completely severed ties with the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. Yet, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths can't be realized or embodied if that person remains entirely isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are left with two choices: retreat from society entirely or go to war with it, in which case they’ll likely follow the path of Jesus or Socrates.

At first glance, these two paragraphs seemed to contradict one another to me—I mean, how could a society that actually values reason end up executing Socrates? And honestly, what’s the connection between using logic and having faith in Jesus?
I decided to do a little digging online. The first thing that caught my eye while scrolling through Wikipedia was this:

As British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."

So, there’s definitely a link between Jesus and Socrates (at least the version we get from Plato), but honestly, it feels purely symbolic. From a Catholic theological standpoint, Jesus is God. And if you believe God is all-powerful, then walking around the Earth, dying, and heading back to heaven isn't exactly a massive sacrifice—it's more like a stroll. There's nothing truly "heroic" about it in that sense. It just feels like one of those twisted paradoxes that I can't quite wrap my head around.

So, I ended up diving into some history regarding Socrates, and honestly, from what I can gather, he was a much more complex figure than I originally thought. It’s a more complex personality.

I found a really interesting summary of the book *Why Socrates Died: Dispelling The Myths* over on Quora:

I. F. Ston argues that Socrates himself deliberately put on a bad defense as he was interested in a really good show trial and (if it came to that) a really dramatic death. Honestly, looking back, it seems like Socrates—at seventy years old—was basically a performance artist and a total public attention troll.

To be honest, spending more time with old Socrates just makes me like him even more. But at the same time, it really makes me second-guess that whole idea that when a free thinker tries to push their vision onto society, it almost always ends in tragedy. It feels like there's this recurring pattern where the individual is violently sacrificed just to fuel an idea that’s bigger than they are—an idea that ultimately ends up benefiting the very society that turned its back on them.

I honestly feel like we’re dealing with a kind of mythology baked right into our collective consciousness. It seems designed to stop anyone from actually questioning the social contract we live under today. It’s basically a built-in warning system: "Don't rock the boat, or you'll end up like Socrates or Jesus."

I’ve always had a soft spot for that old socialist mantra: "individual happiness is the collective's success." 😁

analogviper9 said:I understood perfectly well.
Swearing is part of how you express yourself. And nobody is judging you for that—express yourself however you please.
The problem arises when you try to convince yourself, me, and everyone else that this is somehow "normal."
I'm telling you, I don't run away from profanity either; I swear, I'm no saint.
But I am fully aware—completely cognizant—that it isn't a standard way of communicating.

And we can go back and forth like this until tomorrow morning at this rate.

I don't know how old you are, and maybe for you, I am a "brat."
But I find it hilarious that a "mature gentleman" would even bother engaging in an argument with a "brat" if it's truly beneath his dignity.

What makes you so "sure" it isn't normal? Did someone just tell you that? ☕

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Not everyone is just trolling. For instance, this one actually hits home, even if it is pretty depressing:

Yeah. A person can pass away without us even having had a chance to settle our differences. 😢

That's why I'm telling you—you've gotta troll. Trolling is the only way to survive. 🧐

analogviper9 said:Yes, you read that correctly: KILL. If nothing else, they were certainly neutralized.

If you had actually read this with any actual Google, you would have realized that I stated swearing can be avoided through controlled behavior. That is my solution—my proof. It’s been tested in the real world.

So, what is your actual argument? I am still waiting... because so far, all I’ve received is circular reasoning and baseless lecturing.

By the way—if you’re planning on turning this into a personal spat, please, just bypass me entirely.

Honestly, I’m struggling to wrap my head around how you can even attempt to strangle someone without actually killing them. 🤔

You totally killed me there, though—not even a tiny little insult for my ego. 👏

Nicole Rodriguez22 said:We really ought to start including a clause in our wills: donating organs after death, or even the whole body—or just parts of it, lol—so they can be put to infinite use by necrophiles. There are actually some practical benefits to this, too. We’d reduce the demand for caskets, which means less money flowing into state coffers. Plus, think about the environment; we wouldn't be cutting down trees just to make coffins. And plenty of other perks. 🙂

Exactly! And we could donate brains to those crazy scientists. Or to zombies, whoever we run into first. 🙂

Even those people into Necrophilia are still human beings. Honestly, if nobody wants me, then let them just take me. 🧐

There’s been a total flood of troll posts on the forum lately. But honestly, that's not even the half of it! I’m actually planning to turn my Facebook into a gallery of selfies taken out by Orion, near the Tannhauser place, and all those other remote spots out in the middle of nowhere. 🥳