Posts by Joseph Murphy10

Amanda Flores88 said:I’m not sure if we’re totally on the same page—the core elements of gaming are freedom and fun. That ability to just hop in and out whenever you want? That’s exactly what separates a game from a chore or actual life.

The "fun" part is a bit more nuanced, but even when things get pretty brutal, the assumption is that you're having a blast—otherwise, why would you even be playing?

Then there's everything else—psychology, how it's applied, the consequences... but most of the time, we're pretty good at keeping reality and fantasy separate.
And yeah, anything can be misused, I guess.

Yeah, that’s the idea. It should work that way.

But the way we're talking about this—there's a legit fear that those lines aren't as sharp as they used to be. Reality starts looking like a game, and games start feeling like reality.

Obviously, I'm talking about much bigger stuff than just "video games." But maybe that's where the pattern started. Or if not, we can at least use them as a blueprint.

Look at the lockdowns, the "new normal," that weird blend of staying home and working remotely. It’s always a struggle to draw a hard line between where one thing ends and the next begins.

The Matrix. That's how it all starts. Every Matrix has its own seemingly harmless beginning.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

Quote : Weekend Warrior

Gerald Jackson48 said:Man, my college mentor used to think reading books was kind of a joke, too. Whenever we told him we were reading up on a specific topic, he’d tell us to stop wasting our time with books and stick strictly to peer-reviewed journals. His logic was that by the time someone actually compiles and publishes a serious book on a subject, years have passed and half the info is already outdated because of new discoveries.

So, acting like books are "serious" while dismissing other ways of learning feels a bit elitist. Honestly, it might even be the wrong way to look at it.

This is pretty interesting. 👍

I mean, honestly? They might actually be right.

Lucky for me, I’m out here grinding through philosophy books purely out of love and boredom—kind of like how Victorian girls used to sit around knitting tapestries or whatever. It's the only way I can justify wasting my time on this stuff.

I totally get what my mentor is driving at—it’s that constant race against the clock. By the time I finally grind through some massive, brain-melting tome like *critique of pure reason* or spend weeks trying to actually deconstruct a philosopher’s entire life work, the world has already moved on. New articles drop, papers fly out, ideas start popping up everywhere—and before you can even wrap your head around one concept, it’s already slipped through your fingers. It's a hell of a cycle.

Look, let’s be real—to churn out all those papers, you’d assume there’s actually some reading behind them. But who knows? Maybe there isn't even any substance there. It could just be one person getting "inspired" by someone else's article and writing their own piece based on that—a giant chain reaction where nobody has actually cracked open a single book. 🤷

Amanda Flores88 said:What makes these kinds of games non-serious is that you can always just walk away. No matter how realistic the simulation gets, you aren't stuck—you can bail whenever you've had enough.

It’s really not that simple. Just as a thought experiment—let's say we all ditch the digital world for five days, kill our phones, cut the Wi-Fi, and just go work outdoors or read some books.

We're talking about the same stuff here.

Giving up isn't just part of being human.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, I get that—gaming is basically like reading a book or catching a movie. It's a productive way to kill time, for better or worse.

But what actually *is* a game, besides just being an easy way to have fun?

Not quite...

There are some seriously intense, even dangerous, and downright brutal games out there in this world.

I mean, look at reality TV—that’s just a specific type of "game," right? And they can be brutal and zero fun. They directly attack basic human dignity because people, lured by some prize, will jump through whatever hoops they have to. Those rules are often rigged to go against human nature—tapping into those low-level, primal instincts we all hide deep down, basically triggering the "beast" within us toward ourselves and everyone else..

The truth is, the American workforce has changed massively. That shift changed our habits and how we manage our time. Now, people have more free time than ever, which creates this huge problem: what do you actually *do* with it? How do you fill the void? Enter "games." We went from old-school pixelated stuff on the Atari 8 (man, those were the days) to incredibly sophisticated setups...

And most of them are built on blood, sweat, tears, killing, beating people up, and whatnot...

Now, let's take a massive leap forward here...

Picture a relatively young guy—someone who’s been deprived of real reading or actual human connection, raised in a radicalized, violent environment, someone who spent the vast majority of his life playing "games" where he "killed" countless "enemies." Now, try applying that logic to the real world.

Look, not everyone is as smart as those of us sitting here reading and typing. There are plenty of people out there who aren't particularly bright—people who experience some kind of injustice, or maybe just *perceive* it as an injustice, and suddenly decide to "take matters into their own hands." You can probably guess how that ends...

I’m going extreme here—I’m not blaming "games" entirely—but I am factoring them into how a personality is formed, alongside everything else sociology and psychology would look at.

Bottom line: games and video games aren't nearly as harmless as people usually think.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I basically grew up in front of a computer screen. I don't really watch TV, I don't care much for music—it's just been nothing but virtual worlds for me, so I’m genuinely curious to hear what everyone thinks about this.

For anyone here who isn't exactly a gamer, here's a little snippet I wrote on another thread:

Anyway, technology is moving fast, and gaming is shifting toward full-blown VR through specialized headsets. It brings up this deep, almost philosophical concept of "presence"—basically, how deeply a player gets sucked into that artificial world and how hard it becomes to tell the difference from actual reality.

So, in your case, virtual reality has basically become *real* reality. Your actual presence as an entity—including pretty much everything you do—reaches a point where you define yourself through it. You're in that virtual world with your thoughts, your body, and your soul.

That’s exactly why philosophy tackles this stuff; because this is the true reality for you (and millions of other young people—the ones who are actually building the future). If philosophy wants to stay relevant and actually interact with you and everyone else like you, it has to find a way to communicate—basically, it needs to bridge the gap between its own message and your experience.

Common sense tells us that people were "thinking" long before Thales of Miletus ever showed up. And they communicated those thoughts to the people around them. That’s why the invention of visual symbols—what we call writing—was such a massive leap forward compared to everything before it. The flow of thought didn't stop when writing appeared; it just adapted to it. What was "writing" yesterday might be some insane virtual animation tomorrow. Look at what we're doing right now: typing on laptops and communicating by staring at screens. What would the philosophers from back in the day have said if they saw this? They probably would've said the same thing as...

ruggedraven36 said:It’s just a game run through software built into a computer.

What are we actually doing while playing?

We feed input data to the program via physical movement—think controller buttons or mouse clicks—and our senses pick up the output, which lets us manage all those interactive elements that depend on us.

Is there any actual value in playing games?

Video games are worthless. Honestly, they’re pretty bad for kids—they pull them away from real-world play and everything else matters too.

Where does philosophy fit into video games?

Nowhere.

Now, let's just swap out the premises for what I wrote above.
Replace "video games" with "cuneiform" or "information technology."

Hope that clicks.

Therefore,

ruggedraven36 said:To actually talk about your dreams, you first have to wake up. Same goes for this whole obsession with the virtual world—you can play around in there while you still have one foot in reality. But honestly? It’s entirely possible that one day you just won't wake up from the simulation, and you'll simply fade away into nothingness.

This sets up an imperative that is essentially a step backward compared to the speed at which the world is moving forward—even if the author realizes that...

ruggedraven36 said:To actually talk about your dreams, you first have to wake up. Same goes for this whole obsession with the virtual world—you can play around in there while you still have one foot in reality. But honestly? It’s entirely possible that one day you just won't wake up from the simulation, and you'll simply fade away into nothingness.

And then we can go back to whining about it—referencing that thread @volver started based on my post about self-nullification (which some kids called "quasi-philosophy" and told me to be ashamed of). Only now, we aren't just talking about philosophical self-nullification, but a much broader sense of human self-nullification. See, if a person fails to snap out of virtual reality and just disappears, they’re gone—effectively nullified. And since tech and technology are human inventions through and through, you could argue we basically nullified ourselves.

because...

If philosophy claims to have something useful to say about labor, workers, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it possibly have nothing to say about the human being? And I mean addressing the human in every aspect while actually respecting their ontological dignity—(that's another philosophy term I used in a previous post that some people clearly didn't grasp)

So yeah, the topic makes total sense. It might be smart to start by reading an early paper by a then-young PhD student, Maria Selak, who tackled this exact issue by blending the ideas of N. Berdyaev with Martin Heidegger...

Maybe that’ll nudge some of you lovely people to look beyond the prompt and dive into a massive relationship that dictates our entire reality—actually, it already dictates it (has always dictated it)—and that's the philosophical tension between episteme and techne

If you don't find some way to free yourself spiritually, something is always going to be exploiting you. Once you tear down religion, some random, secular object will just step up, pretend to be sacred, and start forcing its own set of rules on you.
The same goes for capitalism—which basically ate itself anyway by morphing into this system where a tiny handful of billionaires control almost everything on the planet. Once you dismantle that, something else is just going to rise up to take its place and make you feel just as used.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy

ruggedraven36 said:Marcuse argues that at the heart of all intellectual pursuits—philosophy included—is the fundamental assumption that human life is actually worth living, and more importantly, that it *can* be made worth living. I’m with him on that one.

Same here.
That’s honestly why I even bother thinking about this stuff—or writing it, anyway. If I hadn't felt that crushing weight in the works of modern authors, I wouldn't even be wasting my time posting about it.

Ethan Gomez82 said:First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

Look, we might actually be on the same page if we just drop all this specific jargon—it's getting in the way. When I say someone is "flirting" with an idea, that’s just my writing style—it's not some deep-seated philosophical attempt to grab the moral high ground. I never said that, so don't go putting words in my mouth. It's just a rhetorical flourish, plain and simple. And yeah, fine—I'll agree that "consulting" is probably the more accurate term here.

Another thing—I never said anything about "settling down." Don't put words in my mouth—that’s just a weird leap from the word "flirting." And even if that were the case, why does flirting always have to lead to marriage? You can just flirt for the hell of it. Honestly, the way you phrased it—"consulting"—is actually a much better way to put it because it doesn't imply some inevitable romantic progression. It's more neutral. Consulting can be smooth or it can be rough. You can use consulting to suck up to scientists, or you can use it to observe them—to "consult" them—from a critical distance while calling out what they missed in my posts. Specifically, the status of a human being as an entity whose dignity we all need to defend as our highest value. By defending humanity, you're ultimately defending yourself. Obviously, that's not at the expense of scientific, material truth—because truth is just truth, and if it's true, it doesn't need protecting. Truth defends itself just by being true.

Look, everyone obsesses over material facts, but they totally sideline metaphysical truth—which is a massive mistake. Why push it aside? Why just give up on it? We need to figure out how the human being—the actual driver behind everything that happens—relates to the rest of existence. Can an algorithm just invent itself? Hell no, it needs a human to kick things off. But here’s the kicker: will an algorithm actually *need* us in the future? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows for sure, but there's plenty of reason to be cautious. That’s why we seriously need to set some ground rules for scientific progress—rules that protect the human being's right to exist as a unique entity on this planet, at least while we're still running the show. Because once we aren't in control anymore, we won't even exist. We'll be erased. If you look at the root of the action, it’s basically self-annihilation. So yeah, we need ethics. And I don't care if people claim philosophy has nothing left to say just because others are already talking about it—I disagree.

I'm with you—if philosophers opt out of tracking the actual avalanche of material truths, they basically just delete themselves. They turn into some obscure cult that *thinks* it’s thinking (if you'll excuse the phrasing), and from what I can see, most of them aren't doing any real work at all. Honestly, they're way too embedded in the scientific community—which is fine, don't get me wrong—but keeping a critical distance isn't the same thing as ignoring reality. It’s about attention. What really got me thinking about this was seeing people lose that critical edge entirely. If I hadn't felt that void in books, articles, and papers, I wouldn't even be bothering to write this.

I’d also add that a lot of societies have this reflex to react super negatively to any kind of criticism aimed at established policies. If that hostility toward healthy critique crosses a line—to the point where the community just silences, suppresses, and sidelines anyone with an independent view (and there are plenty of those people)—then we’re looking at a symptom of a deeper societal issue. And if there's a symptom, there's a disease. That’s also part of the job description for philosophy. Philosophy shouldn't stay silent when a printing press refuses to print a Jordan Peterson book just because they claim the content "offends the workers." It reminds me of those orchestrated "spontaneous" protests by factory workers who "randomly" hit the streets because they were "concerned as workers about the state of the union." That was a symptom. Kristallnacht was a symptom. Being smart after the fact is easy and cheap. Anyone can play philosopher *post festum*. In a way, philosophy should almost be a "prophetic" endeavor—figure of speech, obviously, unless someone wants to call me a prophet and start nitpicking.

ruggedraven36 said:👍 I couldn't agree more. That’s the end of philosophy right there. And since you can't have a civilization without philosophy, we might as well prepare for the end of civilization too.

If we consider this "new normal"—where people are constantly being "intervened" upon—as part of the process, then—look, I respect epidemiology and infectious disease specialists as much as anyone, especially given how much stuff gets pushed under the radar despite the constitutional protections meant to stop it in democratic nations—then yeah, philosophically speaking, we really are talking about the end of civilization as we know it.

Obviously, this is just me reacting to recent headlines. But if you actually step back and look at the world we live in compared to the one people inhabited just one generation ago—maybe even less—this isn't just some random panic; it's reality. I'm not out here pushing some wild conspiracy theory. I'm just trying to make sense of things. The fact is, the world is changing at lightning speed. Just look at how social media has flipped everything upside down. How much blatant manipulation has been slipped into our brains through those sweet little pills on social media feeds? How much has that tanked our collective empathy, our language, our manners, or our basic understanding of morality and decency (the kind of stuff our grandparents learned in Sunday school as "fear of God and shame before man")? Or even just the way people push boundaries now? I saw a segment on ABC about content moderators on Facebook and it honestly creeped me out. Then there's the fact that we have people today with advanced degrees and masters in various fields who can't even put together a grammatically correct sentence, not to mention how their entire cognitive focus is narrowed down to one tiny niche while they know absolutely nothing about anything else... if you factor all that in, it's not a whim—it's a massive civilizational shift. And we haven't even hit the big stuff yet: the latest tech revolutions, biomedical enhancements, and cognitive interventions aimed at the very essence of the human self (you could call it a fight for the soul). We only have to look at what's happening in places like Iceland, where they're moving toward eliminating anyone with Down syndrome, or the practices in the Netherlands, where the right to self-determination has been extended to the point of self-annihilation (read: voluntary euthanasia), including children—there are already cases of 11-year-olds deciding they don't want to live because they see no point in it... and so on and so forth.

I'm just throwing these ideas out there. Some thinkers have touched on this, but philosophy as a whole hasn't really taken a clear stand. When philosophy does get involved, it usually just ends up fighting cultural wars that boil down to clashes of worldview and ideology, while allowing the very definition of "human" to be shifted around to suit whoever's in power. We used to have the UN Convention on Human Rights. We still have it. It didn't give us a perfect definition of a human being, but it set some boundaries. Sure, it's fine to debate revising human rights or adding new ones to the Convention, providing definitions and explanations. But I don't get the feeling that any of this is being done in a meaningful way; it just seems like more fuel for the culture wars.

So, civilization is always ending for someone and beginning for someone else. However, the intellectuals out there should probably feel some responsibility to actively cooperate in this transition as much as possible, *sine ira et studio*—without anger or bias. If the philosophers don't step up, someone else will. Right now, it's cognitive psychologists, IT experts, programmers, and STEM scientists working hand-in-hand with political elites (which sounds pretty Marxist, and I'm definitely not a Marxist, but hey, that's just how it looks).😁)

And honestly, this could lead to the total philosophical meltdown—if philosophers actually have nothing left to say about any of this. (Though I guess even back in the day, Jose Ortega y Gasset basically called it. He argued that this is just the fate philosophers have to swallow: because they’re constantly arguing with themselves, they don't really take the world seriously. They just exist in this bubble of irrelevance to the practical, everyday reality—they're happy if someone finds them useful, but they're way happier when nobody asks for anything at all.)

puzzle said:Thanks, I'm sure it'll help someone. Personally, I don't plan on getting serious about philosophy, nor am I really into philosophical debates. Like Sandra Murphy33 said, I just pick up those little "for beginners" booklets for general knowledge—for instance, I read "Heidegger for beginners" and figured I'd grab one work from each of those three philosophers just out of curiosity and leave it at that.

Look, man, once you're caught in this web of love that's way more intense than any wisdom philosophy offers, there's nothing to fear. Just do your thing—don't worry about my guidelines or advice 👍

Anyway, how does philosophy even start?
Take Guthrie, for example—he thinks we all have these subconscious assumptions lurking inside us that won't let us rest. They tickle the imagination, and then we turn to whatever our rational mind offers: observation (in our case, reading) and thinking about what we've read. Of course, if you actually have the guts to step out with your own opinion (like me, with this idea of philosophical "self-annihilation" caused by the massive tension between philosophy and scientific positivism), you start poking at that idea, hunting for sources and inspiration. Basically, you dive into doxography—studying what honorable predecessors and authorities have said—gathering data and expanding your intellectual horizons. First, it's focused on the specific topic bugging you, and then it widens out until... well, first: you need enough references from established authorities so people actually take you seriously—especially if you're an academic philosopher, since those guys are terrified of being spat on by their colleagues and the scientific community. Or second: until you bravely drop an idea like a punch to the solar plexus, regardless of who's right or wrong—which is way easier to do if you aren't some academic, but just a guy thinking for his own damn satisfaction, you know? 🙂

Modern science—which has basically been elevated to a level of sacrosanct worship—has significantly shrunk the space for authentic personal thought, ideas, assumptions, and intuition that make engaging with philosophy so damn magical. It's pushed out everything its own foundations are built upon (think metaphysics, theology, literary criticism, or even the importance of a solid patient history and clinical presence in medicine, which now relies on technicalities instead of technicalities *plus* "intuition," and so on).

To prove my point, look at the facts: Schopenhauer turned down every professorship offered to him; Nietzsche would rather starve than teach at a university; Spinoza preferred grinding lenses over making money from philosophy; Marx had to flee the country; Dostoevsky spent ten years in Siberia, four of them in literal chains; and Berdyaev, who was kicked out of his university and exiled from his homeland, once said that philosophy departments are incredibly reluctant to actually hire philosophers unless they agree to stop teaching their own original ideas...

So, props to you for the question, the post, and the mindset. You're already halfway there—now you just gotta let yourself get sharpened. 🙂

This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

ruggedraven36 said:Look, they gave him an out—letting him propose his own fine. His friends were ready to bankroll whatever amount they slapped on him, too. But instead of taking the deal, he doubled down just to spite them. He suggested a measly sum—something like twenty cents today—just to mock the whole process. Then, while he was sitting in a cell waiting for his sentence, he had a golden opportunity to bolt. Since the tradition dictated they couldn't carry out the execution until Theseus returned his ship from Crete, the door was basically left wide open for him to escape. He chose not to.
To get back to the motive: the indictment basically boiled down to this—Socrates was guilty because he didn't believe in the state's gods and was supposedly introducing new, demonic entities, all while corrupting the youth. That Socratic "daemon" is really just what we’d call a conscience today. Socrates was pushing his fellow citizens—especially the kids—to actually think for themselves, to judge right from wrong, and to question even the most basic social norms. To a society built on rigid tradition, that kind of thinking is radioactive. It introduced a principle they couldn't tolerate. In the end, Socrates was right, but the Athenians were also right in their own way. You had two fundamental principles crashing into each other head-on.

Bravo... you've got a good memory. That's pretty much how it goes in the Platonic and Aristotelian defenses. We're finally on the same page.

But now, since we've used everyone else here to tear Xanthippe apart, I need you to grasp this:

If Socrates had accepted even the tiniest compromise offered to him, he would have betrayed everything he stood for. He would have been admitting guilt where none existed, because the whole charge was just a construct made by people who—much like Xanthippe—might be smart and practical, but are ultimately just average folks caught up in their own little webs of interest. Those interests pull them away from the pure, uncompromising intellectual clarity of Socratic thought. Protecting his physical self would have meant killing his essential self. That's why there was no middle ground for him.

We see a similar refusal to compromise in more recent American history. Think about someone like Vlad Gotovac—after the fall of the Karađorđević regime, he was sentenced to four years in a hard-labor prison in a place like Joliet. The charges and the conviction were nothing more than a staged performance. At one point, he was offered an out: just ask for a pardon. Vlad refused because asking for mercy would mean accepting the lie of his guilt. He chose to serve the full term instead. A lot of practical, even "smart," people couldn't wrap their heads around that. Even a giant of literature like Krleža wouldn't have understood—or rather, wouldn't have accepted it. But I'm certain Socrates would have gotten it. Sometimes the idea is bigger than the body, the food, or the clothes. That's wisdom, specifically in a discussion about what wisdom actually is.

ruggedraven36 said:First off, Xanthippe wasn't some "wicked" woman—not by a long shot. Second, the Greeks weren't just some group of shallow, cheap, shady idiots. They actually had legitimate reasons to convict him. Honestly, they probably would have let him walk if he hadn't spent half his time mocking them.

Britannica says:
Xanthippe (Greek Ξανϑίππη, Xanthippe), wife of Socrates. According to ancient tradition, she was headstrong and quarrelsome. Her name became synonymous with an evil and argumentative wife; figuratively, a shrew, a nag, or a harpy.

But look, listen, pay attention... I think her issue was just being a regular housewife who had to deal with the actual day-to-day grind of running a household. If Socrates had been out chopping wood or doing whatever practical, decent jobs normal people did back then, she probably wouldn't have been "evil" or jealous—but then again, Socrates wouldn't be the historical figure we know.

(Then she'd just be dealing with different demons. You know, the kind where she's complaining: "Look at Socrates' neighbor Melet, he just added a second floor to his house, and his wife Ligeia bought a brand new designer outfit, while look at us, living like total paupers. Ugh, I should've married Nicomachus, he's a butcher, at least I'd have plenty of poultry to work with. And I haven't even been to the grocery store lately, or since I can remember, blah blah..." just that whole damn female rhetoric..

What "good reason" are you talking about, and what exactly was he supposed to concede? Give me a practical example...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

@Joseph Murphy10
Nice.

Sent from my Galaxy S9 using Reddit

ruggedraven36 said:The Greeks had those seven sages—Thales, Solon... I can't recall the rest of the lineup.

The Greeks put Socrates on trial, and honestly? The guy was such a genius that he basically saw the death penalty as a triple win. First, he finally got away from those shallow, cheap, shady, and straight-up moronic crowds. Second, he finally escaped his loudmouthed, angry, and total nightmare of a wife—Xanthippe. And third—the best part—he didn't have to deal with the misery of getting old. Seriously, smartest guy to ever live.

That’s exactly why Spinoza was so sharp—he skipped the marriage and dodged that whole university grind.

So, smart-ass Abelard wanted to teach at some big-shot university—you know, chase that prestige and glory—and he goes and marries Heloise. Now look at him. He totally blew it and lost his junk in the process.

Just something to think about.

ruggedraven36 said:Seems weird to me too. But honestly—as far as I can tell—no nation around here actually has its own resident sage these days.

If you think it’s weird, then you’re probably on the right track to becoming wise yourself.

National sages... what even is that?
From everything I've picked up—connecting the dots between life experience and book learning—most "sages" were actually just seen as crazy back in their day. Like, dangerously unhinged. They usually only get that "wise" reputation after they're dead.

Even Saint Paul said you basically have to be a fool to be truly wise... or something along those lines.

Edit: found a decent definition of wisdom on Wikipedia.

"Wisdom is a concept denoting deep knowledge, insight, and good judgment. People who pursue wisdom are called philosophers (Greek: philia - love, sophia - wisdom).

Those who seek wisdom make time for spiritual growth, not letting the "demands of practical life swallow them whole."

Based on that definition, I’m pretty much with you—there aren't many actual sages left.

Because...

The modern world is obsessed with a "knowledge economy" hidden behind formal credentials, and honestly, I don't see much wisdom in that.

(Just a side note.)

So, I'm sticking to my guns: you have to be "crazy" (in the eyes of the world) to actually be wise.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

ruggedraven36 said:These days, actual wisdom is a dying breed.

What kind of weird claims are

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Reddit

Jacob Mitchell3 said:Has there ever actually been an aristocracy that wasn't a facade? What defines a "true" aristocracy? Which specific traits are required, who gets to decide those criteria, and by what standard are they selected?

Good question—definitely worth chewing on. According to Max Weber, history is basically just a revolving door for elites. One group rises out of the crowd, kicks the old elite into the trash, and takes their place. Carl Gustav Stroemm—someone who really knows how to read the room in the former states of the old empire—wrote a piece for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung arguing that all these supposed changes on the ground are totally superficial. The system changed, sure, but the people running it didn't. It’s the same players just wearing different jerseys—nothing actually moved the needle. As someone who was right there in the thick of things back then, I can't say there isn't a massive grain of truth to that.

But what actually makes a true aristocracy? I get what Berdjajev meant when he used the term. I don't think in the context of the book being discussed, he was questioning the definition of aristocracy—which doesn't make it a bad question, mind you—but rather he was starting from the fact that one elite, the aristocracy, was replaced by a new one: a gang of thugs from the underworld. They rode the wave of massive Russian ideas on one side (do yourself a favor and read his book *The Russian Idea*) and universal ideas born from the French Revolution on the other. They surfaced during the revolutionary chaos and grabbed power, essentially becoming the new elite in terms of who holds the reins. If you swap the word "aristocracy" for "elite," things become way clearer within the context of the book—though the question still hangs there: does a "true" aristocracy exist independently, and what defines its authority?

Because let's be real—even what becomes a legitimate aristocracy after centuries of existence usually starts out as a dirty, arrogant, stinking band of thieves. No doubt about it.

ruggeddriver21 said:Oh, come on now...
It isn't just whining. The man was running for his life from the Ohran or the NKVD. He was escaping a damp prison cell and the very real threat of death.

Whining...

Maybe they should actually crack open the Gulag Archipelago and then we'll see how much they'd care about holding onto their precious "principles."

The guy didn't just run—he and a bunch of intellectuals who wouldn't bow down to the Red terror were basically kicked out of "paradise."

I’ve been systematically grinding through everything from Berdjajev to whatever else I can find in American translations—just absorbing it all. Haven't touched Self-knowledge yet; intentionally saving that one for last. Haven't read this specific work either. But hey, seeing these quotes sparked something, so I'm hunting down a copy now. Should have it soon.

The fact that he admits to being too blunt? I love that. And look, I dig Nietzsche when he’s being clear, direct, and biting. That’s what a philosopher *should* be—sharp. Independent. If some banal, everyday existence won't let you stay independent, then you gotta do what Nietzsche and Diogenes did: strip your existential needs down to the bare minimum or just quit doing public philosophy altogether. Otherwise, you're just a servant to someone or something. From Xanthippe—who failed to tame Socrates even if it cost her dearly—to political parties, ideologies, universities, and religious groups that have shackled countless people. Some managed to resist and ended up getting trashed for it, but a true free thinker doesn't care. They aren't living for public applause or a tenure track. (Which explains why there are basically zero "free" philosophers left today.) Berdjajev was spat on, banned, censored, and trampled, but he never broke. He took heat from both the government and the church. They threw every insulting label they could at him. Back home, Krleža was leading the charge on that—someone who wasn't truly free despite how massive his work was. Hamvas was a worker; Spinoza was an optician. Spinoza turned down professorships just to stay out of everyone's influence. Even Marx got caught in the crosshairs of ideologically abused lack of freedom—and that was in the Soviet Union, mind you. Read up and see for yourself.

Berdjajev is the philosopher of freedom. But not the kind of freedom @medonaodmoru talks about—that spontaneous, "just because" kind of thing (which is really just that sweet, childish freedom Schopenhauer wrote about). No, we're talking about freedom forged by a conscious human decision—a radical transformation of the person existing within the divine will. It's a freedom that, whether you're looking at Paul or Nietzsche, is born out of existential struggle. Or, as Jesus puts it, becoming like a child. But not some clueless kid—I mean a child grown into full maturity through conscious will.

@mravac8, saying some "guy is outdated" in philosophy is total nonsense. Anything done from Monday to Friday just to push an agenda isn't philosophy—it's just the violation of philosophy used to agitate for some hidden interest disguised as "method."