Posts by feralranger

Maria Parker77 said:Look, humility isn't about being a doormat or letting people walk all over you. It’s actually the exact opposite. It’s just your way of admitting, "Hey, I don't have all the answers," and then actually keeping an open mind so you can learn the stuff you didn't know before.

So, how exactly do you demonstrate humility toward others, and in what ways do those around you—perhaps a close friend, if you can think of one—show humility toward you? I am looking for specifics here... and if you could perhaps elaborate with some concrete examples as to why such behavior is beneficial, that would be wonderful...

mistybison said:To be honest, I didn't even notice she used the word "others" in that sentence. I believe my previous posts clearly express my actual stance. 🙂

I suppose I should have only quoted the second part of her post, specifically the part I agree with. I will be more careful next time. 🙂

Ah... well, that certainly explains the source of the misunderstanding within this context, so all is forgiven...

mistybison said:I have already provided an explanation here. 🙂

Spirituality is a deeply personal journey that one walks alone. It is essentially an intimate relationship between an individual and themselves (and/or God—something greater than oneself). While it is always lovely to meet fellow spiritual travelers 🙂, our individual paths can vary significantly. Personally, I don't mind at all whether others share an interest in spirituality or not. 🙂

I actually came across your previous post, but that wasn't really what I was getting at...

You claimed that humility is one thing, and you seemed perfectly content to agree with that notion...

Humility, which by its very definition involves a modest, unobtrusive, almost self-effacing demeanor where one perceives themselves as insignificant compared to others...

Now, if you truly view humility as a virtue, then I suppose—if my logic holds—you would also desire that same quality in your friends, which would inherently imply they should be humble toward you. And why on earth would you want that?

I am merely attempting to interrogate this particular stance of yours, which remains, quite frankly, rather baffling to me.

mistybison said:The discussion here focuses on spiritual, rather than secular humility.

I find myself somewhat perplexed by this notion of 'spiritual' humility—could you perhaps elaborate on what that actually entails? For instance, would you truly desire for your own friends to exhibit this peculiar brand of 'spiritual' humility toward you? I would be most grateful if you could clarify how such a dynamic would even manifest in practice.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Humility—defined as being modest, unobtrusive, and seeing oneself as insignificant compared to others and God—has to come from a deep realization of how reality actually works. Otherwise, it’s just acting. It’s just a programmed behavior.

To me, that insight is captured perfectly by the Sanskrit term *nirmama*. In a loose translation, it means: nothing is mine, I own nothing, nothing belongs to me.

Only someone who truly understands that everything they have—their parents, spouse, children, all their property, everything they’ve built, everything they know, those diplomas hanging on the wall, everything they’ve acquired, including their very body and identity—is a gift, is not truly theirs, is temporary, and will eventually be taken away... only then can they be truly humble.

That realization makes a person non-confrontational and peaceful. They don't feel the need to be at odds with the world, other people, their loved ones, or God. Such a person won't be arrogant, boastful, puffed up, or full of themselves (all traits that are the polar opposite of humility).

But they won't be a pushover who just bends to everyone else either... because beyond seeing that they own nothing, they see that no one else owns anything either.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Since this is hands-down the best description of humility I've ever seen, I just had to share it again.

mistybison said:I agree. 🙂 This is a lovely post. 👍

Hmm... does that mean you actually desire for the people in your own circle to be humble toward you? Or would you perhaps find that you don't wish for them to experience the same thing you do?

I am not entirely certain, but if you ask me, one should always strive for a sense of equilibrium...

One ought to bring the overinflated and the arrogant back down to earth—to humble them, if you will—while elevating those who have been unfairly overlooked... and perhaps then, we might make this world a slightly more balanced place...

Harold Anderson3 said:I actually ended up quoting myself because of this specific thought.
It just occurred to me that this might be the underlying logic behind my relationships with others.
It feels like someone—whether it's a partner, a friend, or just an acquaintance—views me as if I were that car. If I can't be "fixed" to meet their needs, they just swap me out for someone else who fits better.

While I obviously can't just replace my entire existence with a new person, others can certainly replace me with someone who suits them more easily, which is exactly what happens.

And because of that, I struggle to accept myself, which creates this cycle where I end up feeling rejected by everyone else.

I honestly don't even know what I should be using as a foundation for my self-esteem.

Do you all base yours on your career, your profession, a degree, or maybe your family ties?

Personally, I feel like I don't have a single solid thing to hold onto in my life right now.

I realize I'm probably just rambling here, since these kinds of deep-seated issues aren't going to be solved overnight through an internet forum. But I really don't know who to turn to or even where to begin?

You aren't talking nonsense at all. If anything, I would suggest you articulate your predicament with a level of clarity that is quite rare. This speaks highly of your intellect and your perception of reality, though, unfortunately, it does little to alleviate the actual suffering you are experiencing.

Society tends to embrace the dim-witted optimist or the charismatic sociopath much faster than the thoughtful soul...

There is this pervasive, universal mold of values that exists everywhere, and that entire system is fundamentally broken.

I suspect a significant portion of your struggle stems from living in a society governed by such a distorted value system. Because of this, your virtues go entirely unacknowledged, while your struggles remain an insurmountable obstacle for a society that prefers conformity, leaving you isolated and out of sync.

"Life is fair!" — or so one commercial claims, but those advertisements are as mindless as most of them are.

Though I am unsure of the "how" or the "what," I can only offer my sincere hope that you find some kind of turning point for the better...

mistybison said:It seems many psychiatrists would agree that believing in God, an afterlife, or reincarnation is actually beneficial rather than harmful. People generally feel much better when they believe their existence carries purpose.🙂

Human perception is quite limited. We are only capable of understanding what we can sense through our physical senses and process with our logic. That doesn't mean those things represent the entirety of reality.🙂

...and it stands to reason that such a view holds water... when one examines it through various lenses, or rather, considers it from several different perspectives.

Amanda Flores88 said:You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.

Are you suggesting, then, that objective justice is a myth, and that something like the Nazi regime was merely a disagreement with my own personal, subjective values?

Amanda Flores88 said:You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.

Such as?

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

Then, by that absurdly narrow logic, a Nazi regime would be considered one of the most "just" systems ever devised; after all, they followed their own twisted regulations to the letter, even while committing atrocities that were profoundly evil and fundamentally unjust.

one might argue that nature is incredibly just due to its uncompromising strictness.

I fail to see how nature could possibly be described as 'just,' nor can I find any logical link between natural laws and the concept of justice; nature is essentially a brutal domain governed by the law of the jungle, where the predator at the top of the food chain maintains its status simply through the capacity for savage slaughter.

Sam Martinez9 said:

feralranger As I have noted before, there is a certain weight to these discussions that often goes unacknowledged. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while sitting in a quiet corner of a library in Chicago; we were discussing the inherent difficulty of progress, much like the eternal struggle of Sisyphus. One cannot simply expect immediate results when dealing with such complex matters. There is a rhythm to these things, a slow unfolding that requires patience rather than reactionary outbursts. We must look at the broader context if we want to make any sense of the current situation.
It’s just such an incredibly pedantic way to approach things—completely stripping away any sense of context regarding him or his specific body of work.

By attempting to overextend your knowledge, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual misunderstanding. You end up tripping over your own feet at a point that most people find perfectly clear.

It’s like Wand—he goes about things with this almost pedantic, textbook precision, then struts around acting like he's the absolute alpha and omega of the subject. But honestly? There are massive gaps in his grasp of the fundamentals.

As far as I can tell, neither Wand nor I are actually the subject of this discussion. So, if we're looking for someone who's straying off-topic, I’d say you're the one.

No, you aren't, but by failing to grasp the context, missing the nuances that stem from pure academic pedantry, and fundamentally misinterpreting the core content, you are merely increasing the overall level of misunderstanding.

Sam Martinez9 said:I tend to use the term "consciousness" in the sense defined by Antonio Damasio.

You are, naturally, free to use that term—or any other—however you see fit. I won't impose my definitions on you, and you are welcome to try and impose yours on me, though I simply won't be accepting them.

Honestly, invoking such a specific framework is quite absurdly pedantic when it’s completely divorced from a discussion centered on him or his particular research.

In an attempt to sound more knowledgeable, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual confusion, ultimately losing your way in a space where most people find common ground quite easily.

...it reminds me of Wand, who picks up some obscure fact in a similarly studious fashion and then tries to ride it like it's the alpha and the omega, despite having massive gaps in their grasp of the fundamentals...

Trouble arises once again—which is entirely predictable given the context—though one must account for the fact that Sam Martinez9 has a peculiar habit of failing to grasp nuance, inevitably reducing every complex topic down to the number three...

consciousness
1. The capacity for thought and reasoning regarding the objective world through holistic perception; awareness
2. Cognitive clarity and the reliability with which one identifies an object, the entirety of the world, or oneself
3. The standard functional state of the senses and their response to the external environment; a state of wakefulness [to be conscious], opposed to unconsciousness
4. The enduring presence of specific social, political, ethical, or other principles and motives [national consciousness; moral conscience]

Jacob Cooper5 said:What's the actual difference between the day-to-day lives of a believer and a non-believer?

...it all comes down to one's perspective...

...for a person who spends their life behaving more like a common animal, there likely isn't any meaningful difference at all compared to the beast itself... which remains blissfully unaware of its ultimate fate...

Jacob Cooper5 said:But let’s say you actually believe there's something waiting for you on the other side... how much does that change your outlook on life?

...well, I suppose one should consult the theists on that matter... though, frankly, it provides a certain sense of purpose to existence... because from an atheist's standpoint, life is essentially devoid of meaning—unless, of course, you find profound fulfillment in the idea that you, along with everyone you hold dear, are merely destined to become worm food, which serves as the rather grim 'grand finale' for us all.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Point or no point, it's your life—how you choose to live it is entirely up to you.

Regardless of the philosophical implications, the ultimate "point" is that we are all destined to become worm food—ourselves, our loved ones, everyone else under the sun...

Jacob Cooper5 said:I wouldn't go so far as to say atheistic meaning is nothing more than nonsense in the end. Look, as an atheist, I experience emotions just like you and everyone else does. I see people through my own lens, just like you see them through yours—but at the core, we're all cut from the same cloth. We can still pull together and successfully run a project to rescue kids from South Africa...

...all so that we may collectively—you, me, and everyone else—eventually become nothing more than worm food. So, what exactly is the point?

Jacob Cooper5 said:Does believing in an afterlife actually help someone, even if nobody’s ever come forward to claim they saw anything on the other side?

Look, I'm an atheist. But I can't bring myself to agree with those certain types of atheists who insist that Faith is nothing but a useless distraction. I've found myself staring down the barrel of the idea of total, absolute non-existence...
The thought that when I die, everything just gets wiped clean. Like I never even existed in the first place.
I catch myself picturing that moment right before death—all my experiences, my entire life, just sitting there on the edge of this massive, cold void that’s going to erase every single trace of me without a shred of mercy. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Even if that’s the reality, wouldn't it be better to believe there's something waiting for us after we go?
At the very least, it makes me feel better. Being able to find satisfaction in the present moment actually has a positive impact on how I live right now.
In that sense, I don't see why those stubborn, narrow-minded atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the "pointlessness" of religion.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's just that eternal tug-of-war between abstract concepts and our own direct experience...

On this particular point, you are correct; atheistic frameworks are essentially just concepts built upon accepted meaninglessness. Faith serves as a refuge from that vacuum... regardless of whether that sanctuary is a physical reality or merely a mental construct.

...it is undeniably a psychological advantage... though one cannot simply force oneself to believe...

Someone apparently decided to check the box claiming we are 'compositionally balanced,' which would imply that among the moderators overseeing political discussions—and those touching upon broader worldview issues—there exists a diverse mix of voters ranging from third-party enthusiasts to staunch Republican Party supporters and their cohorts.

However, it is patently obvious that such a group of moderators does not exist. The composition is most certainly not balanced, and I find it highly unlikely that even a single individual fitting that description is present here.

Congressional committees possess a specific mechanism designed to ensure some semblance of equilibrium. We lack any such mechanism here, making the bias quite impossible to ignore.

...I invite everyone to share their own observations...

...as for my own perspective...

The moderators here at this forum lack even a shred of objectivity; it is painfully apparent from their conduct which political factions and ideologies they favor. They seem to exhibit a clear bias toward the Democratic Party (and its affiliates), while actively suppressing posts that lean toward the Republican Party (and its cohorts), and showing an especially discriminatory attitude toward third-party movements—specifically those like the Libertarian Party.

It is more than obvious that none of the moderators overseeing politics or social issues represent any kind of third-party interest, nor do they align with the Republican Party (or its allies); instead, we are dealing with individuals who are deeply entrenched within the Democratic Party camp and its various subsidiaries.

Humans are inherently flawed, and as such, achieving true neutrality is a near impossibility, yet the fact remains that our moderation team lacks any semblance of balance, which only serves to amplify this pervasive lack of objectivity.

This poll and discussion are primarily directed at the moderators of our political subreddits, though they certainly extend to anyone overseeing threads involving ideological or worldview-based debates across other sections of the site.

The objective here is to conduct a thorough analysis regarding the general objectivity—or lack thereof—of our moderation teams. Within this thread, I invite everyone to present their arguments, share their lived experiences, and essentially explain the reasoning behind how they chose to vote in this survey.

To account for the fact that the poll itself is limited to a mere 50 characters per option, I have provided expanded descriptions for each choice below:

• the moderators are biased toward the Democratic Party and its affiliated ideologies, resulting in the discrimination of all other viewpoints
• the moderators are biased toward the Republican Party and its affiliated ideologies, resulting in the discrimination of all other viewpoints
• the moderators are biased toward a third-party alternative that refuses to align with either the Republican or Democratic parties, resulting in the discrimination of all other viewpoints
• the moderators are perfectly objective, making it impossible to discern any leaning toward a specific political faction
• while true perfection and total objectivity are likely unattainable, the moderation team is sufficiently balanced, with some leaning toward the Republican Party, others toward the Democratic Party, and some toward a third-party alternative that avoids both major parties