Posts by Eric Newman75

Harold Doyle3 said:To me, "survival" is an individual thing, or maybe a small group. Like surviving a heart attack or walking away from a car wreck on the I-95.
But "survival" in the way you mean it? That's collective. It's about maintaining continuity.
It’s pure nonsense to prioritize secondary things over primary ones. Look at nature: a parasite that kills its host too quickly ends up killing itself. That’s fundamentally senseless behavior unless there’s some other evolutionary trick up its sleeve to compensate. Without it, it's just suicide. Extinction.
Now, look at us humans. We’re cranking up the heat on this entire planet... and honestly, whether common sense will be enough to save us remains to be seen.

Nothing is actually going to change here. Aside from the stuff I already touched on, you’ve got our total addiction to tech, the transportation grid, and being completely tethered to financial and info networks. Plus, let's be real—most people couldn't handle stepping back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle if their lives depended on it. Without technology and all these modern luxuries, we can't grow enough food, we can't manufacture medicine, and we basically can't function as a civilization. Laws only exist as long as there's someone left to enforce them. Once everything descends into chaos and anarchy, it won't be the smartest or most capable folks who make it through—it'll just be the strongest.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Pope Francis's interpretation

"While it is true that Christians have sometimes misinterpreted Holy Scripture, we must decisively reject the idea that being created in God's image and having dominion over the Earth justifies absolute dominance over all other creatures. Biblical texts must be read within their proper context, using appropriate hermeneutics, recognizing that they instruct us to 'till and keep' the world's garden (cf. Gen 2:15). 'Tilling' refers to cultivation, plowing, or labor, while 'keeping' implies care, protection, supervision, and preservation. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between humanity and nature."

Look, I know all that. Honestly? I actually agree with that whole reinterpretation. But I have my doubts—serious ones—that a fresh reading is going to just wipe away three thousand years of deep-seated indoctrination. And let's be real, this isn't something that just fell from Mars. This entire framework of ideas, beliefs, philosophy... it lives in the realm of myth and the collective subconscious. It goes much deeper than people realize.

ruggedraven36 said:The tech itself? I don't see anything wrong with it. It only becomes an issue if we treat it as a tool for subjugating the planet.

I use the word "subjugation" to describe a value system—a century-old "culture" that results in humans dominating the Earth. Whether its roots lie in religion or philosophy, whether you call it civilization, growth, progress, or the will to power—it's just an anthropological mechanism that repeats itself over and over, even if the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

As far as I'm concerned, any "values" built on subjugating the Earth or exercising a "will to power" aren't universal—and they certainly aren't the true essence of civilization or progress. In the era of capitalism—especially now, in this neoliberal age—that mindset has been pushed to the absolute extreme. Worse yet, we're being sold this idea that this is some eternal characteristic of the human race, something all human action can be reduced to. That's just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of human behavior that have nothing to do with domination or the thirst for power.

How, for heaven's sake? Look, I didn't just pick the Bible out of thin air. I quoted it specifically because parts of it are at least a thousand years older than Jesus Christ and Christianity itself. So, first off, it’s not just some "Western civilization" thing; you see similar views popping up in the Persian and Arab worlds too, which makes it pretty reasonable to assume they exist elsewhere. And we all know from history that both Persians and Arabs were massive conquerors.

The era of capitalism is winding down; it’s the final step in a centuries-old dialectic. So, what does universality even mean then? Something shared by the whole world could be a choice, it could be forced upon us, or it could just be something absorbed spontaneously. But that doesn't mean it isn't universal.

ruggedraven36 said:I’m dropping a few quotes here from Lešek Kolakovski’s book, "presence of myth." They touch on this modern-day attempt to crush the world's supposed indifference through sheer manipulation—an effort that, frankly, always ends in failure.

We try to beat back the indifference of the world by using technology to seize control—making everything bend to our will.

But look—even when we succeed in dominating things, that nagging sense of dissatisfaction keeps creeping back in. A technological culture that lets us strip the world like plunder doesn't actually fix its indifference; taming things is just an illusion. That feeling of being "at one" with nature? It's a lie—it's more like a necrophiliac's version of love. Nature isn't cooperative; it's indifferent. Once the world is completely covered in the scars of our technological meddling—once it's "humanized" in every detail by our constant interference—it starts looking less like home and more like a nightmare.

At its core, any attempt to use technological force to strip the physical world of its indifference is doomed. It’s not because total mastery over infinite nature is impossible—it's because at every level of technological success, we aren't gaining a partner; we're just taking prey. We subjugate things knowing they only obey us because they mean nothing to us—because they have no inherent meaning outside of our own agendas.

Ah, okay, I see where we're looking now. I don't really grasp that concept when applied specifically to technology. Look, Heidegger called technology a way of "concealing the battle"—it's just this failed human attempt to actually deal with the truth of the world. That's one of his more accurate insights. The essence of technology isn't actually about machines or gadgets. I use the term "indoctrination" to describe a whole system of values—this century-old "culture" that results in man trying to dominate the country. Whether it stems from religion or philosophy, whether people call it civilization, progress, or even the will to power, it's all driven by an anthropological mechanism that just repeats itself over and over. Only the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛

Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?

There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...

"Simple observation" doesn't exist.
That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference...
The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉

Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.

Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.

And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦

And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.

Oh, really? Your entire perspective is purely Western; I don't think you've written a single word that doesn't belong to the West. And that "sweet indifference" toward the world isn't some Eastern theme either, so I'm not sure why you're shifting the goalposts now. Our discourse has been rooted in Western civilization from the very start. But you're making a mistake if you think people in the East are fundamentally different. They aren't. Sure, they generally seek balance, have a better grasp of nature, and maintain a more harmonious relationship with the world around them, but Eastern thought isn't some monolithic, one-dimensional block. There's egoism there too—if we define egoism as placing man at the center of everything. Why did Nietzsche pull Zarathustra out of thin air? Why do Islamic scholars say that insan is God's creation—that we aren't just products of chance, and that Allah created everything on Earth specifically for us? What is "typical" of us there that isn't typical of them? Let's be fair: some Eastern thinkers do think differently, especially practitioners of Hinduism and Buddhism, but that's by no means the whole picture.

And since you want to bring up a "historical moment"—look at the Burigang river in Bangladesh or the Citarum in Indonesia; they are constantly cited as the most polluted rivers on the planet. With the Citarum, you can't even see the surface of the water because it's so choked with trash. You can find examples like that as far as you can reach. It would be lovely if the West were the only boogeyman in town, but things just aren't that simple.

Sandra Murphy33 said:It’s one of those tragic dichotomies inherent to the analytical mind—this idea that a person can "conquer the world" as if they were somehow separate from it, believing they can subdue their surroundings without simultaneously subduing themselves...

In reality, this false dichotomy is doubly tragic. First, there is the sense of detachment, as if an individual stands isolated against a world that is perceived as inherently hostile. Then, there is the fatal illusion that through such conflict, a person—or even humanity at large—can actually "subdue" a world that is supposedly "cold and indifferent."

Further proof that this supposed cosmic indifference is merely a human projection lies in the fact that people are becoming increasingly cold and indifferent themselves. They inevitably adopt the very characteristics of the world they claim to struggle against, becoming part of the very thing they seek to master, all while remaining blissfully unaware of the process....

(Of course, I am referring here to the individual within the West, a civilization in its twilight. A Westerner hardly cares to learn about other cultures; most are viewed as barely deserving the title of "civilization," seen instead as part of that "hostile, indifferent" world that needs to be conquered by any means necessary—to be "civilized" until they become just as cold and detached as the West itself.)

No. You didn't just miss the shot; you missed the entire game, the stadium, and basically everything else you could possibly strike out on. You missed the mark entirely. But hey, maybe a little wisdom from the Smith Bible will help clear things up for you.

"And God created the beasts of the Earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the Earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree which doth contain seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that moveth upon the Earth, that hath life in it, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

There’s no dichotomy here, really. What we’re looking at is just a plain old observation of how things have played out on Earth since the beginning of time. Judaism and Christianity aren't some radical departure; they’re just the natural progression of humans deciding—one way or another—that we deserve the starring role in this big world around us. This isn't some hallmark of modernity, and it sure as hell isn't "alienation." It’s actually the exact opposite. It’s that constant, built-in human hunger to mold reality to fit our own shape. I mean, where exactly are you seeing this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" you keep talking about? Because I don't see it anywhere. There isn't a trace of it. There’s zero fear involved, and our future isn't even remotely in question. In fact, it's secure from every single perspective you could possibly dream up. And that is my whole point: the world isn't indifferent. The world exists to joyfully and passionately serve humanity. It’s been that way for ages, and it’ll stay that way.

Is that kind of picture even any good? That’s the second question. But then again, it's just baked into who we are. Thinking outside the box isn't exactly in our DNA—not as individuals, anyway. An individual can still break away from the herd, sure. They can push back. But humanity as a whole? No way. Not in a million years.

ruggedraven36 said:I know, I've read the Nicomachean Ethics myself, and I'm with you on this. It's not even debatable that people strive for some kind of good; the real argument is whether you reduce that entire thing to simple cause and effect. If you do that, you lose the concept of free will entirely.

See, when I talk about cause and effect, I'm talking about looking at the world through a scientific, critical lens. When I'm describing the universe, I stick to math, physics, and logic. I don't do mysticism. That's why I say the universe is indifferent. Humans aren't—and honestly, we can't be. It's not just because we're emotional, irrational creatures; it's because we've shaped the world to fit us. We molded it to meet our own needs. If you really want to put it that way, we've basically tamed it.

ruggedraven36 said:I wanted to know what you *think*, not what you’re certain of. The whole dialectic of certainty and its relationship to truth is a fascinating mess, but let's save that for another time.

Until recently, I believed the world was an orderly place—everything tied together by cause and effect. I thought being honest, hardworking, decent, and educated actually paid off—that those were values the universe rewarded. I believed there was meaning in suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now, I don't.

That's a pretty common pattern—happens to a lot of people.

Personally, I believe the world is an orderly place where everything is connected, just not solely through simple cause and effect—there are plenty of other ways things link up. Calling it an "orderly place" feels a bit imprecise; I’d say the world is conceptually structured. But unlike you, I never bought into the idea that being "honest, hardworking, decent, and educated" earns you rewards from the cosmos. To me, that idea is just ugly. An universe built on the principle of moral causality? Sounds repulsive.

As for suffering—it only has meaning if the person going through it comes out better on the other side. Otherwise, it's just plain evil.

And courage is still a virtue even when it doesn't beat evil. If courage always won, it wouldn't be a virtue—it would just be a guaranteed result.

The world is chaos ruled by randomness.

Now you sound like you're certain about what the world is.

A single moment decides whether you die in agony—like a six-year-old who hasn't even touched a cigarette or a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own ruin.

Those cases happen, sure, but that isn't proof that the entire world is just pure, random chaos.

Human life is indescribably fragile; there is nothing that can soothe the uncertainty of its existence. Everything is wax in the fire, smoke in the wind, snow under the sun, a dream of the dawn.

It's not helpful to lump everything together like that. Not everyone's life is equally fragile or uncertain. For instance, the life of an average American is a hell of a lot more secure than the life of someone living in poverty in a developing nation.

That’s why I stay quiet. Why I just can't bring myself to talk about it. There are things I want to bury forever—and others I want to hold onto for as long as I live.

Sure, but a person can still speak their mind in a general sense.

Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't buy into the big, empty words.

"Struggle" and "strength"—those are pretty big words themselves. Everyone believes in big words; they just don't all mean the same thing.

It’s the small things that get to me—total strangers whose kindness and smiles leave me speechless. Then I find myself paying it forward to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this driving need to settle the score. It doesn't matter that I've endured unimaginable horror and misery. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, connection, happiness... a genuine respect for another living soul and life as a whole.

Those are standard human emotions we all have—we just don't let ourselves express them for a hundred different reasons.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been to the very end. To someone who hasn't stood at the edge of the abyss. Someone who hasn't let that void stare deep inside them. But it's cathartic—intense. And it sets you free.

It isn't hard to explain at all. Everything you said about yourself is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with some of your philosophical conclusions.

I won't go any further on that. I've said what needed to be said.

Whatever you say. I get that some people don't want to talk about the world, but I honestly don't get how anyone can be interested in philosophy if they refuse to actually discuss it.

But this isn't actually about morality. If you look at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, there's a clear explanation provided. Every craft, every inquiry, every action and pursuit, seems to aim at some kind of good. So, it's fair to say that "the good" is whatever that ultimate aim is.

Morality is just one tiny slice of that definition. The goal of human learning, work, and absolutely every single thing we do, is some form of good—a good that we choose for its own sake. It’s both a metaphysical truth and a practical, everyday guide. When I talk about "reward," I’m talking about bliss, that deep sense of happiness and fulfillment. There’s nothing ugly about that. And let's be real, Aristotle wasn't an idiot. Quite the opposite—he was one of the most sincere, noble, and truth-seeking thinkers to ever exist.

Sandra Murphy33 said:And yet...
The universe or God doesn't operate on a transactional basis where we trade one thing for another. 😉
It’s because we aren't separate from the universe or the creation; we are part of it, which means our fundamental interests are essentially the same. 🙂

From my perspective, those virtues are an inherent advantage to us, rather than some kind of "sacrifice" we offer up (to the Universe, to God...)
in exchange for getting the perfect world we imagine.

Disenchantment.
🙂

Forgive me if it seemed presumptuous to comment on parts of your personal confession.

Don't worry about apologizing to me—just lay it all out there.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The world isn't inherently indifferent or chaotic, but it certainly feels that way to someone who carries that chaos within themselves.

On the other hand, pinpointing the truth is actually quite straightforward. Truth is objective and logical—not because it’s been packaged into some complex philosophical system, but simply because it is true. At the end of the day, truth serves as the ultimate standard for understanding, far surpassing any personal narrative, fleeting sentiment, or raw passion.

But you didn't actually say what the truth is in this context. You can't just leave it at that; unless you define what truth actually looks like here, it’s all just empty demagoguery.

Sam Martinez9 said:I just can't wrap my head around why mortality has to equate to insignificance.

I’m an atheist, so I don’t hold out hope for some eternal afterlife. I made peace with the idea of death—both mine and everyone else's—a long time ago. In fact, I actually think death is a good thing; an eternal life would probably be quite miserable. But that doesn't mean I view my own life, or anyone else's for that matter, as being devoid of meaning.

"Meaningless" isn't the same thing as "pathetic" or "valueless." Heidegger argues that nothingness and battle are intertwined. This sense of nothingness is what actually allows the possibility of understanding the essence of Being. Without it, Being wouldn't even be able to relate to other things, or even to itself. You can't have Being without nothingness.

That said, Being doesn't need to be consciously aware of this nothingness to exist. In fact, most of the time, we spend our lives just coasting through the mundane, everyday grind where nothingness stays hidden from us. It’s obscured. It's tucked away. To actually be jolted out of that average, routine existence, you need anxiety. Nothingness is the very object of that anxiety.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, I value what you know. Really. But it’s tough to have a real conversation with someone who dances around their own take—doesn't matter if it's groundbreaking or recycled. You went on about "the world" as humanity versus "the world" as the cosmos, then pivoted to Heidegger's concept of being-in-the-world... but you still haven't actually told me what *you* think the world is.

I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.

Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.

That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.

It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.

I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.

ruggedraven36 said:Maybe Heidegger does it for you, but he doesn't do it for me. I’ve slogged through his *Being and Time* twice now. Honestly? It's unreadable—even if some of his insights are undeniably sharp. Nothingness isn't what defines my existence, but hey, if someone wants to claim it is, that's their business. I'll just say this: as long as there is hunger, poverty, and injustice in the world, obsessing over your own existential dread and mortality like it’s the center of the universe is just plain immoral. Nihilism is a lie.

"Satisfy" feels like too heavy a word to use here. I respect the influence, sure, but I also just value the sheer linguistic innovation—in that sense, he’s a lot like Hegel. I actually read somewhere that German students hunt down English translations just to see if they can get a better handle on his original German. That kind of thing? Fascinating. 😁

ruggedraven36 said:Look, I'm not saying it's impossible to view the world just as humanity—Earth and all its life included. Nor am I saying you can't view it strictly as the cosmos. There are plenty of ways to frame it. But they're all limited perspectives. To me, the most logical way to talk about the world is to define it as Everything. If you do that, then every single perspective becomes part of that world. Better yet, those perspectives aren't just external views—they are necessarily the world's own ways of perceiving itself.

And then there’s Heidegger, talking about the modes of human existence as being-in-the-world. It isn't some passive act of just "finding" oneself in a setting; it's an active presence within the world. This state of being is uniquely human—it implies a specific relationship with yourself and everyone else. The core assumption of our humanity is that we are inhabitants of this world; that's how we get closest to our true bit. In the search for that bit, we’re pushed by anxiety, death, nothingness, boredom, and the call of conscience. Anxiety, specifically, is that deep concern for one's own bit in light of how finite, historical, and mortal we actually are. It’s a feeling that forces you to understand your own bit, even if it triggers a massive sense of unease that makes most people want to run the other way. But, if a person manages to resist that urge to flee from anxiety, they finally grasp their own mortality and the concept of nothingness, which are both essential to reaching their bit. Anxiety and death are tightly wound together because human existence is inherently finite. Death is the ultimate possibility of absolute impossibility for a person, which is why it’s so inextricably linked to nothingness. Through anxiety and death, a person confronts nothingness as a defining feature of their bit, realizing that the whole project is ultimately rooted in nothingness.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty—they’re all pretty much intertwined, aren't they?

So, we’re looking at an expanded version of Kalokagatia? Honestly, you aren't the first one to try and reshape that concept—from Xenophanes, Plato, and Aristotle right up through the modern era, people have been twisting it for ages. 😁

Talking about the world as if it’s just this vast, indifferent cosmos isn't actually anthropocentric. Now, talking about the world in terms of humanity? That *is* anthropocentric, even if you include the entire planet and every living thing on it. If we assume humans are the center of everything—the literal heart of the universe—then you can't really talk about "indifference" anymore. The human race and our specific perspective become the only yardstick that matters. And how do we perceive this reality? We certainly don't see it as some detached, uncaring void. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, it will be opened." That's what Jesus says in the Gospel according to Matthew. You see similar sentiments echoed all over philosophical literature, too. The Earth exists for us, so it can't just be neutral.

Viewing the universe through a different lens is a massive leap out of our comfort zone. It's a journey into the great unknown.

Jacob Davis322 said:The universe is indifferent to an individual in direct proportion to how low they sit on the social ladder. On the flip side, a person shouldn't just accept this cosmic apathy or stay passive about the world's indifference toward them. They should be trying to change that reality.

So, how are you defining "the world" here? Are we talking about the cosmos or society?

The universe? It couldn't care less about any of us. Honestly, it doesn't care what happens to humanity as a whole, either. If we all vanished this very second, the stars wouldn't skip a beat. Nothing would change.

But society... that’s something we build and shape ourselves. It makes sense to expect that we can actually impact the people around us. It's reasonable to think we’ll be missed, and that people won't be totally indifferent once we're gone. That doesn't mean their lives stop, though. They’ll just keep moving, dealing with their own struggles, goals, and hopes. That’s just how it works. It would be weird if it were any different.

Look, a post on a forum doesn't mean a damn thing—it’s not an official request or a formal complaint. No major corporation in the world actually handles its business through message boards. If you want results, just send an email to the people in charge of enforcing CCPA at Bloomberg and Reddit, since they're the ones legally on the hook.

Susan Watson3 said:My little guy had his surgery today, performed by Prof. Anko Antabak. Basically, they had to open up his chest—they couldn't get the whole thing out, but they managed to shrink the tumor down significantly. Now we're just waiting on the tissue samples for further testing...

I'm crossing my fingers that the next rounds go just as well. 🙂

jadetinker85 said:I don't get why there's so much lying about cancer. Like, isn't it obvious the numbers will go up just because the population is getting older...? Plus, people of all ages get sick, from babies onwards.

Look, we really don't need to turn this into yet another conspiracy theory thread. To "lie," you’d actually have to know the absolute truth and then actively hide it. But the reality? The truth is we barely know anything about cancer. Sure, age is one factor—but so are a million other things, everything from smoking and drinking to genetic predispositions and environmental stuff. That's common knowledge; nobody is out here lying to anyone about that. If anything, it's the opposite—we're constantly seeing new breakthroughs and research coming out regarding oncological diseases. It's heartbreaking that kids get cancer too, but adults still make up the vast majority of those at risk, accounting for roughly 98 percent of all cases.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Sure, you're right. But do you actually have an idea as to why it turned out this way? Or perhaps, why it was always inevitable?

I mean, that might hold water if you're looking at science strictly through the lens of natural science. If you focus solely on what can be measured and quantified, you’re naturally going to end up with this positivist mindset—where everything is built on hard facts and metaphysics just isn't part of the equation. But look, science isn't just one thing; it includes the social sciences and the humanities, too. Questions about humanity, our actions, and our values don't come with neat, exact answers. As long as that remains true, you can't really claim that science rejects philosophy. In fact, it's quite the opposite—you often see people turning to it when you least expect it, like theoretical physicists.