Posts by steelridge58

🙂))
Joseph Murphy10 and Harold James9, at least that’s how I saw the whole thing

And honestly, I think even Derrida wouldn't have asked for anything more than to keep this conversation going indefinitely...

🙂

Joseph Murphy10



Kierkegaard

Harold James9, even though I’ve only ever seen the movie, I have such a deep love for My Africa, and there's just this incredibly special connection I feel toward the story they told on screen.

The way I see you is more like this



Derrida

In Round 19, the winning answer was submitted by steelridge58,
and here is the fresh question they've thrown our way:

What actually defines beauty? Should we be chasing after it just to make life feel better? Does beauty have a way of masking flaws, or hiding away ugliness, evil, and suffering? Is beauty something you can actually go out and buy? Can beauty grow old? Is there some kind of underlying formula behind what we find beautiful? Is beauty universal? If everyone has different tastes, does that mean there are different kinds of beauty too? Is it strictly a visual thing? How does beauty actually feel? Who are the people who are "blind to beauty"? What makes beauty vulnerable? Does it possess true power and strength, or does it exist in stages, evolving over time? Can something ugly eventually transform into something beautiful? In what ways is it effective—is it liberating, or perhaps even healing? Should we be working to save beauty, or is it beauty that ends up saving us?

The thread is open for entries until Sunday, January 9th, 2022, at 8:00 PM!

Topic for commenting

Every Redditor is allowed only one entry per round, and you can only participate using a single profile.
If you feel like you can't express it any better than a quote from an authority figure you admire, you're welcome to use that as your answer, provided you cite the source.
We'll be opening a separate thread specifically for commenting and discussion.
Once the deadline passes, the topic will close and a poll will launch, which will stay active for three days. We ask that everyone votes in good faith—any dishonest behavior won't be tolerated, and if it happens, the moderator will handle things however they see fit.
The winner gets to set the next question.

voting system:

Multiple choice
You can vote for just one answer or select several.
Voting for yourself is strictly prohibited.

Sigmund Freud and amadeus

I'll try to dig up some pictures for you all, though I need to find a spare moment to actually sit down and do it properly.
When I think about Ze Ze, I picture someone with dark hair and those intense, deep eyes the color of wild chestnuts, paired with a lighter complexion and a really determined look—at least, he should have those features because, let's be honest, Ze Ze can be pretty tough when he needs to be.
The problem is, I just can't seem to find a photo that captures him exactly the way he lives in my head, but if I had to pick someone who looks somewhat similar in certain shots, I’d say Louis Garrel (I'll post something once I've made a choice).
As for Neo, I see Meg Ryan.
😉)
I actually have this one old photo saved specifically for Neo from back when she mentioned she had "read too much," so I'll probably post that one later on.
But for now, I'll move on to something else..

😁

Haha, this is honestly such an interesting little game we're playing here,

😉))

I really appreciate all the comparisons to characters that I feel like I could actually see myself reflected in, almost like looking into a hall of mirrors,
and I’m genuinely flattered by all these different versions of me you guys have conjured up.

🙂)

John, that was actually my very first avatar too, so I think I might just bring it back.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Alright, I’ll throw my two cents in too...

Adam — it’s basically the perfect storm of DJ and Musk... you've got the scientist meets the entrepreneur, all wrapped up in a political agenda.

The Atlantic Ocean, Volver, Anonymous.... just constant traveling, and I don't mean those cheap, cookie-cutter tourist trips. They've clearly got enough freedom to actually do whatever they want with their lives... surrounded by piles of books—if they aren't reading them while on the road, they're definitely doing it the second they get back.

As for the physical side... honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe Aleksandra Musić made a fair point a second ago regarding the women. 😁

That’s true, though I suppose I had to fight tooth and nail to carve out that free time for myself.

Honestly, if I had to be moderated by whoever that guy is at 2:21, I think I’d just lose my mind and end it all right then and there.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:So, I read somewhere that according to Harvard, being and nothingness are basically two sides of the same coin, which might mean they could actually be opposites. Then you’ve got Sartre splitting things up into being-in-itself (that total lack of distinction) and being-for-itself (nothingness, or consciousness). To stay on track with this discussion, I came across Smith arguing that these high-level abstractions are actually just plain false. Honestly, looking at theoretical math, the most abstract concepts—things like classes, collections, sets, or categories—aren't even true or false. They just exist.

I really appreciate you looking out for us here,

I'd honestly suggest everyone else keeps that same mindset in mind too.

It’s all a two-way street, really. I mean, at the end of the day, whatever you happen to be wearing can always be taken off
(and vice versa)

Sandra Murphy33 said:Facts are little more than an illusion. They shift constantly, tethered to specific moments and places; what held true yesterday might be completely obsolete by this afternoon.
In reality, facts sit much closer to mere information than they do to actual truth.
They are nothing more than isolated data points, whereas truth is meant to be universal.

Therefore, truth is really just a moment of accuracy within a piece of information or a fact. There is no such thing as an immutable, eternal truth—unless you count the paradox that everything is in a state of constant flux.

I actually feel quite strongly that it's the other way around, and while I can see how a fact could somehow masquerade as an illusion—making us perceive it as real when it isn't—if something truly is a fact, it simply cannot be an illusion, and if something was a fact yesterday but isn't anymore, that doesn't change the reality of what happened then. For instance, if the fact is that I burnt my dinner last night and it didn't happen today, that doesn't somehow retroactively turn yesterday's disaster into an illusion.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Facts are little more than an illusion. They shift constantly, tethered to specific moments and places; what held true yesterday might be completely obsolete by this afternoon.
In reality, facts sit much closer to mere information than they do to actual truth.
They are nothing more than isolated data points, whereas truth is meant to be universal.

Therefore, truth is really just a moment of accuracy within a piece of information or a fact. There is no such thing as an immutable, eternal truth—unless you count the paradox that everything is in a state of constant flux.

In my view, facts exist to serve the truth, because if I take the time to properly research something being presented as a fact, it helps me judge whether it really is a fact at all, what that fact actually signifies, how to interpret it correctly, and ultimately how all those details might make the broader truth within a specific context clearer, more transparent, and more accessible.

Unlike the vast history of philosophy where you find endless theories about what truth is, when we talk about scientific truth, we're looking at an empirical approach rather than a metaphysical one.

A fact is the very bedrock of science, and as Max Planck once put it, facts are essentially everything we are capable of measuring,
- which I think speaks volumes about the fundamental divide between scientific discourse and philosophical inquiry.

I guess I’ll just leave the question hanging out there—it's hard to pin down all those layers of meaning that, during certain seasons of our lives, act as this raw, driving force for creation, a pulse that truly makes us feel alive. But if I had to boil it all down into one single, unmistakable essence that applies to every one of us, it would be something as distinct as an artist's unique signature left on their various canvases.

The Declaration of Independence, its fingerprint, its lasting mark.

It's the handwriting that defines everything we build, just as much as the things we tear down.

U 13. He was chosen as the winner for the answer she provided. Verdadera
And now he’s throwing another question our way, which is...

Verdadera said:My mind is feeling a little scattered today, so I’ll just throw this out there and let it hang: why is it that we feel this constant, driving need to create things?
And honestly, I think we could really dive deeper into that point—like, why on earth are we just tearing everything down?

To be honest, this feels incredibly similar to a question that’s already been brought up on here before. 🤔

Just a heads-up that this thread will stay open for posts until Friday, October 22nd, at 8:00 PM!

Topic for... I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much energy we all pour into commenting on things, and honestly, I sometimes wonder if we're just shouting into a void, though I suppose that's part of the charm of being online. It feels like every single time I open up a thread, there's someone ready to jump in with a heated opinion or a deep dive into the specifics, and while it can get a little overwhelming for someone like me who tends to overthink everything, there's something genuinely sincere about the way we all try to connect through these digital spaces.

Every forum user gets just one shot at an answer per round, and you can only engage with a single profile at a time.
If you find yourself in a spot where you honestly can’t come up with a better way to put things than some brilliant quote from an authority you deeply respect, then just go ahead and use it—just make sure you give credit to the original source so everyone knows exactly where that wisdom came from.
I’m going to open up a separate thread so we have a dedicated space for all the comments and discussion.
Once the deadline for responses passes, we’ll be closing this thread and launching a poll that will run for three days. We operate on a basis of good faith here, so I really need everyone to play fair—dishonest behavior won't be tolerated, and if things get messy, the moderator will step in and handle the situation however they see fit.
The winner is posing a new question.

The voting system:

It honestly feels like we’re being hit by one election after another lately, and I can't help but feel a little overwhelmed by the sheer frequency of it all. It seems like every time we finally catch our breath and settle into a rhythm, another ballot is dropped in our laps, forcing us to dive right back into the deep end of political debates and civic duties. I know I'm probably just overthinking things—maybe I'm just a bit more sensitive to the constant noise than the average person—but there’s something about this relentless cycle that leaves me feeling a bit drained, even if I truly believe how important it is for all of us to show up and make our voices heard.

You can actually vote for just a single answer if you want, or you can go ahead and pick multiple options if that feels right to you.
You aren't allowed to cast a vote for yourself.

I really want to thank everyone for all the votes you gave me, 😉) so now, out of respect for the community and my new responsibility, I feel obligated to pose a fresh question to you all

My inquiry centers on the very essence of wonder

Because, if we look back at the earliest roots of philosophy, everything began with—Wonder

So, what exactly is this sense of wonder that serves as the spark for all philosophical thought? It’s a beginning that lives within every single one of us, renewing itself every time we are born, which makes me wonder: how exactly is that sense of wonder actually born?

Who is it that experiences this wonder?

What kind of state of mind do we need to inhabit to truly be struck by wonder? And more importantly, what is the true catalyst for it—is it a simple lack of information, or is it an abundance of curiosity? Do those who possess deep knowledge marvel more, or is it the ones who know nothing at all?

To wrap this broader inquiry into a single thought, I find myself wanting to paraphrase a line from Quasimodo

Everyone stands alone at the heart of the earth, pierced by a single ray of wonder

Thanks so much, really appreciate it

🙂

I’m honestly just so glad you enjoyed it, and I have to say, that comment of yours was such a kind gesture to grace me with

🙂)

Thanks, my hiking buddy
😉

Poll Alright, everything is set up and ready to go, so let's get this voting started!

👍

We haven't really touched on that specific angle much while we've been diving into this whole AI and transhumanism debate...

Anyway, I really dig your take on this.

👍

It’s just me said:It’s kind of funny when you really stop to think about it, but one of the most enduring, long-standing traditions within the world of philosophy is actually the constant, relentless drive to reject tradition itself.

👍

ruggedraven36 said:

I've always felt like a bit of a clumsy soul when it comes to navigating the great outdoors, but there’s just something about hitting the trails that makes me feel more alive than anything else. I guess you could call me a hiker, though I usually spend more time tripping over tree roots than actually looking at the view, which is pretty typical for me, really. Still, nothing beats that feeling of finally reaching a summit after a grueling climb, even if my legs are shaking like leaves in a storm by the end of it. kaže: At the end of the day, philosophy still hasn't actually managed to wrap its head around those fundamental questions it started with in the first place—you know, the big ones like who I really am, where I came from, where I'm headed, and what the point of any of this is.

It honestly reminds me of Paris—that whole idea that we’re just tossed into this world without any kind of roadmap or instruction manual.

Weber said:Maybe we should be asking ourselves a different question entirely: just how far can a person actually push things before they hit a wall?

If you ask me, this whole situation just can't be separated from the question of ethics.
And that brings us right back to the whole issue of borders.
It really boils down to a question of ethics, doesn't it?
I guess what we’re really talking about here might just be the sheer breadth of what's actually possible.
Or, what can a man even do about it?

Thanks, 😉) you had some pretty great ones too!

I actually just mentioned you the other day because I was looking for an example to help me wrap my head around something
so I figured; I’ll be like Cervantes and go hunting for a good illustration here

What you just pointed out above is spot on

Quincy:

The old Greek philosophers loved using examples, and I guess I'm just cut from the same cloth.

😉)