Posts by Mark Torres14

A French newspaper drops a caricature of Muhammad, hiding behind "free speech" traditions and their precious little darling: "freedom of expression." A Russian punk band dances in an Orthodox church shouting slogans against Putin, claiming "freedom of speech." Some journalist leaks your private info or a photo of you without your consent, citing "freedom of speech."

Just think about what would happen in the "real world" if every single person used their right to "free speech" to say exactly what they actually think to every other person, group, or community.

What even is free speech, and does it actually have limits?

Adam Martin said:Okay, this makes sense. But I see a potential circular definition problem here. Basically, we're defining truth as a scientific fact right out of the gate, then layering on stuff that isn't scientifically provable but we still call "true." Let's agree that we can't assign value to a scientific fact. The fact that water is H2O doesn't have a "value"—positive or negative. It just is. With philosophy, we start having preferences, but Hegel clearly pushed back against that, trying to make it as unbiased and objective as the laws of nature. The less certain a fact is, the more subject to valuation it becomes. Since we aren't 100% sure if something is true, we try to rank it, which leads us to assign it a positive or negative value.

So, you could flip it and say that what is "true" is what we *can't* value, while anything we *can* value is somehow distanced from the truth, or we're just unsure of its status regarding the principle of truth. Because of that uncertainty, we try to objectify it by assigning it a value. Back in the day, in stable social communities, these values were uniform and unquestioned. But now, with the rise of subcultures and pockets of misinformation or nonsense popping up within the dominant system, the problem becomes unsolvable again. Put simply, we can't separate the wheat from the chaff because we lack reliable criteria. Not to mention that "scientific truth," much like "philosophical truth," has lost its status as an absolute. It can be challenged by any other truth claiming universality—artistic, religious, spiritual, etc. If things were different, "creationists" wouldn't even be allowed to debate "evolutionists." And to make it even wilder, even among scientists, there are people who should theoretically share one single truth, yet they don't.

Didn't Averroes argue that there are two truths that are equally valid ways to describe the world?☕

rustymaker5 said:Hey, Mark Torres14, look who decided to show up! It’s been ages since I saw you typing away here... 😍

See, the thing isn't really about whether you should accept a differing opinion, it's more about acknowledging the mere existence of those different opinions in the first place. There’s a massive distinction there, don't you think... 😉

Bokić arna!
Just killing some time.
You're spot on. There's a huge gap between agreeing with someone else and simply acknowledging that they have a different view than yours.
But let's stick to that first point.
When you're young, people feed you idols and authorities constantly. It's totally natural to want to mimic them and try to get your thoughts even close to their brilliant minds. Obviously, that's just a byproduct of being young, ignorant, and inexperienced. You don't get how the world actually works yet. Back then, accepting someone else's view feels almost "absolute." As you get older, you realize those idols are just human beings, and you start seeing things differently than they do. You actually start thinking for yourself and forming your own perspective. You stop using a carbon copy of someone else's views and start using your own brain. Of course, kids see everything in black and white.
Just look at any debate—so many people hide behind a quote from a scientist or a philosopher just to prove they're right. It gets so absurd that sometimes, instead of admitting something is obviously wrong, people will go to ridiculous lengths to justify why the mistake is actually "revolutionary."

Morgan Chase5 said:The concept of "accepting" differing opinions... I just can't wrap my head around it. It feels fundamentally wrong.

Previously, I used to tell myself: fine, I accept that you hold a different perspective than mine.

We are defined by what we think. If we start accepting views we don't agree with, we're basically erasing ourselves.😁

I don't think we should ever accept a different opinion. There's always some logic behind it that we just haven't summarized yet. What we don't understand irritates us. And once we get irritated, that defense mechanism kicks in—we either flat-out deny that a different view even exists, or we dismiss the person holding it. If they aren't using *our* specific logic, we decide they're mentally ill or, even worse, just pathetic.

ON THE RUG, STARING INTO MYSELF

What a damn ceremony
One by one, they all left me behind
The last ones had it the hardest
They suffered so much because of their own making

Then I was left with nothing but a lightbulb, a sense of order
And eventually, just memory
A humiliated world arrived, driven mad
By the weight of freedom
And me? Too high and mighty to actually rule
Staring into myself on the rug

Slavko Mihalić

Living

If this is the pathetic way one is forced to live,
then maybe I’m being too bold for not hanging my life's lantern
out in the open on a dead pine
in some blind alleyway.

And if this is the honorable way one is meant to live,
then I’ve gone completely wrong by not building an eternal monument
to my own convictions, standing as massive as a mountain,
right here on this shaky ground.

Ahmed Chamle

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I personally know people living like absolute bums despite having decent $1000 Social Security checks. That's just how they choose to live.

A poverty of desire :

Or maybe something more like this:

I’m honestly at a loss for words.🤷
Look, you’re definitely one of my idols.🙏👍🙏
Just like Epicurus said: live an unnoticed life.😍

Well...
Giacomo Leopardi’s "Dialogue and Essays" — an excerpt from "Zibaldon."

Whose lifestyle is actually "natural"? The ignorant fool or the artist? That clueless guy doesn't grasp or feel anything beautiful about art. He misses out on true beauty entirely. Honestly, even the greatest symphonies barely touch him. Musical taste is built through exposure—both direct and indirect. And yet, music feels like one of the most universal forms of beauty there is. Let me be clear: beauty isn't beauty if it doesn't give us pleasure. But here’s the kicker: an unknown truth is still a truth, even if it remains undiscovered. Nature doesn't teach us truth directly, but if absolute beauty exists, we can't perceive it unless nature instructs us first. If a person lives in an unnatural state, they won't be able to comprehend what is truly beautiful. They'll be blind to it.

Michael Anderson2 said:I have to say, I'm inclined to agree with you. That leads me to the conclusion that there are different types of wealth—and different types of poverty, too. Is one kind of poverty better than the others? Personally, I think it is: material poverty is the absolute worst; it’s the kind where people literally starve. So, what am I choosing between here—being short on time or being short on cash?

What does "poverty is a state of mind" actually mean? Go ask the kids in Somalia about spiritual poverty. Or you don't even have to go that far—just look around at the local welfare office... Care to elaborate?

😂
I haven't touched the TV in years. What next—unplug the internet too? How am I supposed to stay informed? Does a person even need information in this day and age? Am I supposed to just retreat into some cave somewhere?

Whose fault is that? Theirs or yours?

To even have this debate, we’d need to define our terms first. What does "equality" actually mean? It’s obvious we aren't all equal in a physical or mental sense, but we ought to be equal under the law, regardless of what those rights look like. Sure, rights have to be bounded by some kind of social contract, but they should apply to everyone—why shouldn't everyone be equal when it comes to their rights?

So, you're stuck with the dilemma: is life predetermined by fate, or is it just a self-contained value that ends at death? I’m still not following. Even if someone believes in destiny, they still view life as a "self-contained" value, so I don't see where the dilemma lies.

Whether life is predestined or just completely random, it ends in death regardless—and after that, there's nothing, just like there was nothing before you were born...

Fear it or don't, you're going to die anyway, so there's no point worrying about the inevitable. Besides, you were dead for billions of years before you were even born. Of course, that's easier said than done. I'm still working on it myself...😁

Look, I don't really buy into the whole soul hype (not that you can, when concepts like "souls" are basically just part of the game)—I lean more toward the idea that everything is ultimately One, playing a game through multiplicity. In reality, "I" don't even exist; I'm just a manifestation of the One playing a game...

Poverty isn't even a real thing.😉
It’s just a poverty of desire.

What does it even mean to say poverty is a "state of mind"? Go ask the kids in Somalia about having a "poverty of spirit." You don't even have to go that far—just look around you at your local welfare office. Explain yourself.

Forget about Somalia.
Look around you and tell me: do I know a single person on this planet who’s actually starving to death right now?
Do you know him?

😂
I haven't touched a TV in years. Maybe I should just pull the plug on the internet too? But then how am I supposed to stay informed? Does anyone even need information in this day and age? What, am I supposed to go live in a cave somewhere?

I can only laugh at this. Honestly. Heh, heh, heh...😍
TV as an info source? Please. It’s basically just entertainment masquerading as news. Most people just turn it on for background noise, not because they actually trust what's being said. Real information comes from digging deeper than whatever flashy graphics a network throws at you.🙏
What’s the point of all this info anyway? How much of the crap you watch on TV every single day actually has anything to do with you?
Open your mind. Whether you’re sitting in a cave or somewhere else doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant.

Whose fault is it anyway? Theirs or yours?

Mine, hands down.
Look, at the end of the day, it's all just out of love for the kids.
Right now, I’m grinding just to make sure my grandkids are set for life. Why should they have to work if I can do it for them? That's the dream. Raising kids who never have to clock in again. Basically, turning them into the next Paris, Texas.

If we’re actually going to talk about this, we need to define our terms first. What does "equality" even mean? Obviously, we aren't all equal when it comes to physical ability or mental capacity, but we have to be equal under the law. Period. Equal rights for everyone. Period.Look, whatever those rights actually are, it doesn't matter. Obviously, rights have to be limited by some kind of social contract, but they need to apply to everyone. Everyone should be equal when it comes to rights. Why on earth wouldn't they be?

Give me one single example where people actually have equal rights. Seriously. Just one.
Take any right. Like freedom of the press.
Should someone be allowed to snap a photo of you walking down the street with your kid and blast it on some, heh heh heh, "news outlet" TV station?
This is how we just push our own imaginary opinions that don't even have to align with reality.

So, you're stuck deciding if life is predestined or just a standalone value that ends when you die? I still don't get it. Even if you believe in fate, you still have a life as a "standalone" value. What's the dilemma?

I don't have a dilemma.😕 Why did you take it that way?
Why should I stress about the end of life if the end is something I can't actually experience? From where I'm standing, death only exists for other people.

Whether life is predetermined or totally random, it ends in death anyway, and then nothing—just like how there was nothing before you were born...

👍

Fear it or not, you're going to die, so there's no point being afraid of the inevitable. Besides, you were dead for billions of years before you were born. Easier said than done, though. I'm still working on it...😁

👍
I'm working on it too, but man, it's tough.☕

Look, I don't really buy into all that talk about "souls" (not that you have much choice when concepts like "souls" are part of the game). I'm more into the idea that everything is actually One, playing out through the many. I don't truly exist; I'm just a play within the One...

Nice. Very Zen school of thought.
If I'm feeling up to it, maybe we can discuss Zeno's "Stadium" paradox.🙂

Jacob Mitchell3 said:On the contrary, death is the only thing that truly exists. It is the ultimate, immutable truth—the Great Equalizer. It stands over everything we have built, every ambition we chased, and every effort we made, only to spit in our faces with a smirk and say, "It was all for nothing."

For who exactly?
Are you telling me there’s zero point in living a meaningful life?
So, working hard and acting right doesn't matter because, per your logic, death is this great equalizer that wipes the slate clean.
But you and I aren't equal. Not even in death.
Death is a strictly individual reality. Concepts like equality, volume, or what people call "fate" don't apply here.🙂

Michael Anderson2 said:😕 So, you want me to just run the other way? Into what? Poverty, asceticism, or some sort of monk-like existence?

She isn't even in college yet—she's still in high school, and her sibling is barely out of preschool...😉

Not quite. Everyone needs rights, or more accurately, everyone deserves equal rights. If everyone were granted every single right (whatever that even implies), then effectively, no one would have any rights at all.

Then what is it? An exclamation point? Is it a choice between believing in fate or viewing life as a self-contained value—or is that just a false dilemma?

What was your actual point? 😁

You’re already broke. And you will be again.
Think about how much time you actually have for yourself every day.
Besides, there are plenty of ways to change course. Poverty is a state of mind.
Here’s a tip.
Stop watching TV.

Not even in college yet, just high school, and the other one is still in daycare...😉

Must be nice. My kids are grown and nobody leaves the house.
I get the feeling they think my wife and I were born specifically to fix their problems until the day we die.

Not at all. Everyone needs rights—or better yet, everyone needs equal rights. If everyone had all rights (whatever that implies), then realistically, nobody would have any rights left.

Margaret Thatcher’s biggest gripe with the French Revolution was that the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" included the word "equality." Equality doesn't exist, so "equal rights" don't exist either.
What's a right to me might be an infringement on your freedom, and vice versa.
Everything needs limits, including rights.

So what's the catch? Is it a question of "either/or"—either we believe in fate, or the idea that life is a "complete and self-contained value" is just a false dilemma.

Look at the phrase "complete and self-contained value." It means a value that only matters while you're alive. Once you're gone, it's worthless. In short, death doesn't exist. So if it doesn't exist, why fear it?

What are you actually trying to ask? 😁

I wasn't asking anything, I was just curious about how people view life.
For instance, I find that Hajjamov idea about being entrusted with a soul interesting.
Why is there a "you" instead of someone else?😁

Michael Anderson2 said:I need enough just to cover the basics—rent, utilities, groceries, water, maybe some decent clothes. That’s the bottom line. Once you start looking at those numbers, all that high-minded philosophy just goes right out the window. I’m not exactly living in poverty, but I’m certainly not pulling in tycoon money either. At the end of the day, you have to put in the work; if you don't, the competition will absolutely crush you.

It’s just the two of us, and as they get older, the expenses keep climbing—it feels like a runaway train. What am I supposed to do at this point? Am I really expected to sit them down and tell them to drop out of school or something?

It’s better for everyone to have rights than for absolutely no one to have them, don't you think?

Growing up, I was always taught that a question mark at the end of a sentence actually meant you were asking a question...☕

Take it from the cat in Kafka's "Little Red Riding Hood."

I've got two kids, and as soon as they grow, the costs skyrocket. So what now? Am I supposed to tell them to drop out of school or something?

Not a bad idea, right?👍
I worked while I was in college. Why can't she?

Isn't it better for everyone to have rights than for nobody to have any? Agree?

If everyone has everything, then nobody actually has anything. You following me?

They taught me that a question mark at the end of a sentence means it's a question...☕

Not every question mark is a question.🙂😉🙂

Michael Anderson2 said:That T. S. Eliot guy was a total dreamer—I can barely find a second to catch my breath, let alone fall into a poetic depression. I spend my days sprinting from Point A to Point B without actually accomplishing anything meaningful, all just to collect those colorful slips of paper that I then trade—in the most basic way possible—for the groceries needed to feed my wife and two kids.

So much for this "speed of modern life." You don't have enough time to actually make a living for yourself and your family, so you end up racing like a maniac from one job to the next. "Agitated idleness," my ass. For some corporate middle manager or a "philosopher" living off a lifetime pension, maybe. For regular people, this hustle is the only way to survive—and frankly, today's grind is probably incomparable to the "grind" back in his day.

Anyway, T. S. Eliot is just rambling. Did he even have kids? 😁

That’s a logical bifurcation right there—it’s an either-or fallacy. You've framed the question pretty poorly...

Oh... Fernando is Fernando. 🙂 I'm sure that wasn't nonsense.
Why are you rushing? Why the hurry? How much of that colored paper do you actually need to earn before it's "enough"? Besides, is the whole point of living really just chasing money?
I have three kids. And I've noticed that the more I give them, the more they demand. When I say I don't have it, they start citing their "rights."
Have you noticed how everyone has "rights" these days? Dogs become heirs to massive fortunes, cartoon characters are protected by law, you can't even yell at your kids anymore, and any unstable person can claim their right to kill even more kids or stand outside your window screaming and protesting.

That’s a logical bifurcation. What do you mean "either-or"? Your question is poorly framed...

Where exactly did you see a question?😕🤷

Chris Williams said:And here we have this prematurely aged depressive, just wallowing in boredom...

Life is just a bowl of cherries

Life is something sweet, fragrant, tasty, light, fleeting, and ultimately devoid of any actual meaning or purpose....

There is a bowl sitting right in front of you,
you enjoy eating those cherries,
and every single time, you spit out a pit....

and so it goes, one by one, until you've eaten and spat them all out.

So... was he depressed? Who knows. But he kept insisting that someone living in the Renaissance had a way better quality of life than we do today.
Anyway, why is everyone living life at such a frantic pace lately?

Life's a peach.

Life is sweet, fragrant, delicious, light, fleeting, and completely devoid of any actual meaning or purpose.

There's that bowl sitting right in front of you.
Savoring those cherries, are we?
You spit out a pit every single time...

One by one. Just keep going until you've swallowed it all and spat out the remains.

👍

I’d just add a little more Hajja to the mix.

I know I’m going to die one day—no doubt about it.
That’s exactly why I don't give a damn about dying.
I feel like I was dropped into this world with a heavy debt on my soul.
Whenever she wants me back, I'm ready and waiting!

Either.

I'm standing here in a dive bar, right next to the wine and the guy playing music.
I’d give anything for those two. They're my everything.
I’ve got zero hope for mercy, and I sure as hell don't fear the punishment.
Wind, earth, fire, water—I'm not afraid of any of it!

Chris Williams said:It seems obvious that Metodore was a Klingon. For him, life isn't some self-sufficient concept, but rather just an opportunity for a decent fight.

Why fight?
The whole ideal of their school was to "live unnoticed."
The truth is, fate exists simply because we’re all mortal and we all have an expiration date. Metrodor just stripped fate of any power over him.
Basically, pure atheism.😉

Walt Whitman hits the nail on the head in his work "Herostratus":

".........The pace of our lives is so sluggish that we don't even feel old by forty. Vehicle speeds have robbed our souls of their momentum. We live such slow lives that boredom becomes inevitable. Life has turned into a sleepy rural zone. We aren't actually doing enough, yet we pretend we're overworked. We just rush from one unproductive point to another and call it the frantic pace of modern life. But it isn't a feverish speed; it’s the speed of a lazy stroll. Modern life is just agitated idleness—an escape from meaningful movement through sheer chaos."

🙂🙂🙂

People say this aphorism belongs to Metrodorus, a close friend of Epicurus:

"Fate, I’ve already prepared for you; I’ve blocked every sneaky way you might try to slip in. We won't surrender like captives to you or any other circumstance. But when necessity forces our hand, we’ll spit on life and everyone who clings to it for nothing, leaving it behind with a noble song of victory, shouting at the very end—We lived a good life."

So, what’s your take? Do you believe in fate, or do you side with Metrodorus and think life is its own complete, self-contained value?

Michael Anderson2 said:It’s true, Dudek is necessary—but I don't really see him as a "measure of stupidity." Quite the opposite, actually. I view him as the quintessential man; a primordial state of spirit, a sense of childlike innocence that we've long since lost. He’s a glimpse of an older, different, more innocent, better world from before we fell into pure materialism...

Sorry, but what you're saying is a fairy tale. There's no such thing as a Hobbesian world of "innocence," and there never was.
All the Dudeks in our world believe in people first, then in some absolute, universal truth, and finally in fate. They're perfectly fine just being part of the world and enjoy the simple fact of belonging.
In a lucky sense, you could say they're happy because they're at peace with themselves and the world.
The Cinnabars and the Most Serene are miserable. They're always missing something and never satisfied. Naturally, that causes friction and conflict, and they try to weaponize those first types to fight their battles. But "Dudekism"—or, better yet, "Švejkism"—is stronger than them simply because they care about people themselves, not just the social dynamics between them.

Michael Anderson2 said:Man, Issss, I’m actually crying laughing here...🤣🤣🤣 Budhek...

Dudek is a lost cause. Honestly, the whole Dudek lineage is doomed. It baffles me how a gene like that even survived this long in the animal kingdom competition. He’s fundamentally out of place in any community—just pure fodder, basically lion food for the pack. He won't ever find a mate. Sure, he can act as a moral compass for others, but if he sticks out too much, he’ll be "shortened"—usually by losing his head.

It reminds me of one particular Dudek who stood out just a little too much; they shortened him alright. Actually, they put him on a cross.

But... think about it. Without the Millers, there wouldn't be any Rockefellers or Kennedys.
Philosophically speaking, you need guys like Miller for humanity to function. Someone has to be the baseline for stupidity so we actually know who the smart ones are.
The real disaster happens when a Miller, through some freak stroke of luck, actually grabs power.🙂

Gregory Garcia said:Is this enough proof for you, or are you gonna keep whining about why I'm commenting instead of participating in the thread? 😉

That’s total nonsense and zero evidence. You just cherry-picked my words out of context from my original post. What did you actually prove? Nothing.😕
I'll be polite and ask you to back off.😠I don't know who you are, what you want, or why you're even doing this.
OK?