Posts by feralranger

Human perception is fundamentally limited, which means any "truth" we claim to possess is inherently deceptive and subjective. Medina was discussing an objective truth—one stripped of human interpretation, perspective, or lived experience. Ethical "truths," however, don't function that way... our morality is built upon a foundation of human ethics tied to our biological makeup (including things like mirror neurons, for instance), our culture, and a whole host of other variables.

We have no way of knowing what the ethics of hypothetical extraterrestrials might look like, though it seems highly improbable they would mirror our own... seeing as we Americans can't even reach a consensus among ourselves (and that is precisely why human "truths" remain so subjective).

medonaodmoru is discussing truths that exist entirely independently of human perception, perspective, or interpretation.

To one person, the "truth" might be that a thousand dollars is a massive sum of money, whereas to someone else, that same thousand dollars feels like pocket change. However, the actual truth—the kind you could verify with an objective device or a simple counter—is simply that there are exactly one thousand dollars present. That is the kind of absolute truth medonaodmoru is referring to; it isn't a "human truth" that shifts based on individual outlook or subjective bias.

@medonaodmoru
Do you have any objections to my post or my attempt at illustrating your point? Have I managed to strike the right chord?

Sneaky. 😁 If my memory hasn't completely failed me—and if that supposed 'distinction' hasn't simply evaporated into thin air over the years—you clearly just read these kinds of stories 😁
fresh off the press, which would explain why you're so much more informed than I am.

...yes... I feel many people in this thread tend to conflate cunning with wisdom... cunning is ethically (and empathetically) "neutral"; it can be wielded for both good and evil... whereas wisdom integrates exceptional intelligence, knowledge, intuition, and empathy (which, by logical extension, brings ethics into the fold). As I have maintained previously, unlike cunning, wisdom simply cannot function as an "instrument" for evil.

Furthermore, I would argue that for wisdom, that measurable kind of intelligence (Intel) isn't particularly vital. For instance, regarding my own capacity, I fall somewhere within the top 1%, which certainly aided me in mathematics and programming... which is precisely why I chose Microsoft and then MIT, as it felt like the "path of least resistance"—I wanted to avoid having to grind through studying at home (since they didn't exactly demand that level of rote memorization there), though truth be told, I don't actually enjoy those subjects in and of themselves. Consequently, I've spent my life drifting toward things that lean more toward the arts, specifically photography, design, and music...

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself "wise" (which follows from the fact that there isn't a strong correlation with Intel), but I would certainly say that about, say, my maternal aunt. In terms of Intel, I'd place her just slightly above average—nothing extraordinary... yet, it seems to be that specific blend of everything else...

...she was one of those rare individuals who knew how to do more than just listen to a person; she could provide advice that, as a rule, turned out to be sound... all without needing a "crystal ball." That is a virtue. Intel, in its own right, is nothing special... a former colleague of mine from Microsoft used to rank in the top 0.1% rather than the top 1%, sweeping up first-place trophies in national math competitions, yet he was—and remains—a completely "lost" soul in the grand scheme of life... I have never once viewed someone like him as a "wise" person. Even though he is vastly above average in intelligence, and a genuinely honest and decent human being... I would say he doesn't possess even a m of "wisdom."

For wisdom, it seems to me that intuition and empathy are far more significant, as is the ability to synthesize those various traits (eventually including Intel, though I maintain it isn't a dominant factor, provided it isn't significantly below average).

Ethan Gomez82 said:The meaning of any concept is dictated by how people communicate it. How else? A wise person usually communicates with extreme shrewdness and intelligence, so that's what the term implies. Like many other terms, this one is poorly defined, so once you get into the weeds, everyone ends up thinking something slightly different. Of course, egocentric pigs can be wise. Even you can find a bit of wisdom among politicians. Criminals can be wise, too. They are the ones who are so skilled and calculated—who weigh every variable and anticipate exactly what their pursuers are thinking so they never get caught. You can't pin them down; they're just too smart (both clever and wise). It isn't an oxymoron to me. Wisdom isn't a virtue; it’s just a quality, much like strength or speed. Everything depends on how you choose to use it.

You are conflating cunning with wisdom. While egocentric swine might certainly be cunning, we would never deign to call them 'wise.' If wisdom were merely a synonym for what you're describing, then the word 'cunning' wouldn't even need to exist in our lexicon, yet we require both. That subtle, vital distinction lies squarely in the realm of empathy. A truly wise person marries exceptional intelligence with profound humanity (for which empathy is an absolute prerequisite).

Cunning is ethically and empathetically 'neutral'; it can be deployed for either good or evil. Wisdom, however, is not a potential "tool" for evil, but rather its antithesis.

@Amanda Jackson5

That is an utterly flawed philosophy—the exact kind of reasoning that leads people to dismiss philosophy as nothing more than "beating a dead horse."

For instance:
It remains an undeniable truth that the Nazis murdered Jews in gas chambers. Any rational human being understands that this is an absolute evil. Truth and morality are not, in any way, causally linked. Evil can be just as truthfully existent and enacted... as good can be. And quite often, unfortunately, it is.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Deep insights don't necessarily have anything to do with ethics unless that's specifically what they're addressing. You can't really link wisdom to any other personality trait; you can't identify it by anything other than the wisdom itself. A wise person could be a total recluse or the life of the party; they could be an extrovert broadcasting their views or an introvert keeping them to themselves. They might be practical and use what they know, or completely impractical and let it go to waste. Honestly, a wise person can be anyone—including someone who isn't wise at all. But, like I said before, it's all about perspective. You could view it as a form of social intelligence. In that case, a wise person might be somewhat dim-witted in many other areas. Personally, I wouldn't call those people wise, but if others do, that's fine. It all depends on where you set your focus and what you value most.

Could you please define what you mean by "profound insights"?

Aside from that, the qualities you described in the latter half of your thought sound more like mere cunning to me. Cunning doesn't require empathy, whereas true wisdom certainly does. If my reasoning holds, there would have to exist some sort of "wisdom belonging to an egocentric swine," but to my ears, that sounds like a total oxymoron; I simply cannot decouple wisdom from empathy.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Hardly.

We should probably start by defining what wisdom isn't. It certainly isn't drawing connections where none exist, nor is it failing to see connections that clearly do. People tend to trip over both mistakes. As for what wisdom actually *is*, we can't even begin to discuss it until we agree on a definition—which, let’s be honest, is nearly impossible. Some link it to knowledge and deep insight, others to ethics, and so on. Let everyone hold their own opinion; there's no point splitting hairs when we already know we won't reach an agreement and will just end up shouting our own monologues at each other.

Broadly speaking, knowledge might be viewed as a mere collection of interconnected data points. Wisdom, however, transcends that by incorporating ethics—and, if I may venture an opinion, intuition as well. Ethics are fundamentally inseparable from empathy (unless, of course, one is a dualist who believes such things originate from some "otherworldly" realm, which you, given the established themes of your work, most certainly are not).

Melissa Stewart6 said:So, here we go: Fyodor Dostoevsky. He’s primarily a novelist, but you can find a massive amount of philosophy and religion tucked away in his books.

Quite so, though I would argue that philosophy is just as pervasive in the works of Tolstoj, Hesse, Mann, Kafka, Orwell, Beckett... stretching all the way through to Exupéry, among countless others; it is simply an inherent part of their craft.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I personally lean toward the idea that drawing sharp lines between art, religion, and philosophy is a mistake. Just as astrophysicists search for a "theory of everything," I believe these expressions of the absolute spirit should be harmonized rather than pitted against each other. In the end, they aren't actually opposites; they only seem that way when we lack the tools to interpret them correctly.

Personally, my affection for philosophy was almost entirely cultivated through literature—specifically those authors whose works are profoundly saturated with philosophical inquiry (and, occasionally, religious undertones). These disciplines are so frequently intertwined that I find it quite easy to agree with that sentiment.

Eric Newman75 said:I mean, sure, from where we're standing today, it seems obvious. Ferdinand de Saussure laid down the theoretical groundwork for structuralism relatively early on, but things didn't really hit high gear until after World War II. That's when members of the Prague School, specifically Nikolaj Trubeckoj and Roman Jakobson—who ended up snagging a chair at Harvard—really started fleshing out those concepts. Then you had Hjelmslev and the Copenhagen School, followed by all those semioticians over in the States, and so on. It took a massive amount of time for modern linguistics to truly gain momentum, and by extension, for the philosophy of language to catch up.

Yes, I find myself in complete agreement with both the observation and the commentary provided.

Eric Newman75 said:That’s early Wittgenstein we’re talking about. Later Wittgenstein isn't looking at language as some rigid system of symbols; he sees it as an activity. He’s moved past the obsession with ideal language or metalanguage and is much more interested in everyday, common speech. By doing this, he shifts away from pure logic and moves toward "language games." Sentences aren't just meaningful or meaningless to him anymore (as they were in the Tractatus); instead, he categorizes them based on narrow and broad contexts, specific speaking situations, and the sheer variety of how words are actually used (Philosophical Investigations). It’s a massive leap. Whereas he previously viewed philosophical texts as nonsensical—sentences where we failed to assign meaning because we lacked a referent or a physical object in the world to anchor them—he now argues that the meaning of a word depends entirely on its specific use within a linguistic game. Russell wasn't happy about this at all; he dismissed this interpretation as mysticism, and honestly, he had a point. Up until then, Wittgenstein had been precise, analytical, and thorough, but suddenly he’s leaving everything shrouded in fog. Still, he essentially laid the groundwork for what we call the pragmatic theory of meaning today. Language is full of synonyms, homonyms, and polysemy. How we interpret a sentence like "Mountain mountain mountain" doesn't depend on a dry definition, but on the placement, the context, and who is doing the talking...

That explanation is so logically sound and intuitively obvious that one might almost call it trivial, which perhaps justifies my tendency to wonder why some people aren't already aware of it, rather than feeling they need to 'discover' it anew.

For those of you who aren't acquainted with my work, allow me to provide a bit of necessary context: for years now, I have been contributing to the Philosophy forum. I’ve taken it upon myself to launch and cultivate a significant number of discussion threads, always striving to ensure they never feel pedantic, sterile, or like some mindless copy-paste job. Instead, I prefer to weave in my own original examples and personal observations to keep things interesting.

• Just a quick heads-up—something worth noting. link
• Empathy and ethics—it’s a fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, intersection to navigate. One often finds themselves wondering whether our moral compasses are guided by genuine human connection or merely by a performative sense of duty that we feel pressured to maintain in polite society. It is quite easy to fall into the trap of believing that feeling deeply for others is synonymous with acting rightly, yet history is littered with well-intentioned individuals whose misguided compassion led to nothing short of catastrophe. I find myself constantly oscillating between the desire to be a truly empathetic soul and the sobering realization that pure emotion is a rather shaky foundation upon which to build a coherent ethical framework. It’s a delicate, often frustrating balancing act, isn't it? link
• Well, my brain is essentially mush at this point. I'm afraid I don't see a link provided in your message. If you could share the content you'd like me to work on, I would be more than happy to get started on those rewrites for you.
• Dreams versus reality—that is where we find our true baseline for distinction. I can't provide you with a link without knowing what you're looking for! Please let me know which specific discussion or thread you are trying to find, and I will do my best to assist you.
• The core essence of being—it’s a heavy concept to toss around, isn't it? One might find themselves wandering through life wondering if there's actually a profound truth beneath the surface, or if we're all just spinning our wheels in a beautifully orchestrated chaos. It’s a question that lingers, much like an unwelcome guest at a dinner party, demanding attention even when you'd much rather focus on something trivial, like whether or not you left the oven on. link
• The ethical dimensions of suicide—it is a heavy subject, isn't it? One finds oneself wading through a murky sea of philosophical dilemmas that refuse to settle into any kind of comfortable consensus. It is a topic that demands we confront the very core of our moral frameworks, often leaving us feeling somewhat inadequate in the face of such profound human suffering. I seem to have missed the link you intended to share. If you could provide it, I would be more than happy to take a look.
• What exactly constitutes a reasonable course of action? I haven't provided a link yet, though I suspect you might be looking for one. If there’s a specific thread or discussion you were hoping to find, please let me know so I can track it down for you.
• The concept of a "man without a body"—someone trapped within the confines of locked-in syndrome—is a hauntingly profound subject that forces one to confront the very essence of existence. It is a terrifying thought, isn't it? To possess a mind that remains fully lucid, sharp, and observant, yet to be held prisoner by a physical form that has completely ceased to respond to your will. You are essentially a ghost inhabiting a shell that refuses to obey, an observer of a life you can no longer participate in. One cannot help but wonder about the sheer psychological weight of such an isolation; it is perhaps the ultimate test of human endurance, where the only thing left to navigate is the vast, silent landscape of one's own consciousness. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would bother clicking that link, let alone expecting to find anything of substance on the other side. It’s quite frankly a monumental waste of bandwidth.
• Philosophical concepts—how we deploy them contextually, or more specifically, how people tend to weaponize their "favorite" philosophers to win an argument—is a fascinating subject. link
• The question of value systems—specifically when we peel back the layers to examine the ethical dimensions—is one that I find myself circling endlessly, often with a rather self-deprecating sense of futility. It is quite easy to drift through life assuming our moral compass is calibrated correctly, yet when one actually stops to dissect the underlying architecture of what we deem "right" or "valuable," the structural integrity of those beliefs often feels surprisingly flimsy. We like to think our ethics are built on bedrock, but more often than not, they seem to be constructed from the shifting sands of social convenience and inherited biases. It is a heavy subject, perhaps even a bit tedious for some, but if we are going to claim any sort of intellectual rigor, we really ought to grapple with whether our values are truly our own or merely echoes of the environment we inhabit. link

In terms of both my global outlook and my political leanings, I find myself closely aligned with the philosophical stance once championed by Vlado Gotovac. Because I hold this particular position, it follows quite logically that I constantly find myself at odds with the extremes on both sides of the aisle—specifically those on the far right who reflexively deny the atrocities committed by reactionary movements, and those on the far left who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the horrors wrought by totalitarian regimes.

If you take a look at the Philosophy PDF, you’ll notice a certain clique has formed—a tight-knit group of left-wing extremists and radicals who seem to share a collective amnesia regarding the atrocities committed by leftist totalitarian regimes. They systematically poison various discussions with their little pamphlets, which are essentially nothing more than anti-authoritarian propaganda masquerading as pro-communist rhetoric.

It appears that this particular clique has finally managed to plant their own operative, Volver, into a moderator position. This marks a significant leap toward total ideological uniformity; in fact, the newly appointed moderator began issuing threats as early as yesterday. Given the current trajectory toward enforced conformity within the Liberal Arts department, one can only assume that censorship and systematic purges are inevitable next steps.

Until yesterday, our newly appointed moderator, Volver, was busy playing cheerleader for Adis Šabović—a man whose reputation for nauseatingly vulgar and primitive outbursts precedes him. It is quite transparent why she would align herself with him: her entire circle shares that specific brand of left-wing ideological extremism that refuses to acknowledge the atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes of the past. They seem far more interested in poisoning the field of Philosophy with propaganda meant to glorify failed, oppressive systems than in seeking actual truth. Of course, she suddenly decided to put on an act just yesterday and today, tossing a few half-hearted criticisms his way, but let’s not be naive; it is painfully obvious that she has been backing him all along.

Can hypocrisy ever truly reach such dizzying heights, or have we simply hit a new ceiling in the art of being two-faced?

I am calling upon Anderlon personally to step up and address this matter. Given that he was already right there in the trenches with us during our PDF discussion regarding mederature—a conversation involving several of us, I might add—it seems only fair that he finally weighs in here. I am waiting for his official stance on the issue. Specifically, I want to know: why?

PS
I consider myself to be an exceptionally tolerant individual, and... Not even once. I must admit, I haven't bothered to report the aforementioned Adis Šabović, who—to put it mildly—has subjected me, along with several others, to an absolutely vulgar barrage of insults. I have certainly turned a blind eye when members of that particular clique decided to toss around terms like "morons" or "idiots," or any other assortment of crude epithets. However, the fact that this very same group is now attempting to lobby their way into installing one of their own as a moderator is nothing short of an absolute absurdity; frankly, it is a complete disgrace to this entire forum.



.

steeleagle77 said:Well, nationalization doesn't mean democratic control; it means government control. 🙂

I fail to see why anyone would want some small circle of questionable characters—appointed based on political loyalty rather than actual competence—to run a company bought with other people's money without their consent, all just to line their pockets through corruption.

As the old saying goes:
Equality for everyone!
Equality for everyone!
One bone for everyone! 😬

I cast my vote for the "some other private owner" option; frankly, I’m suggesting that Anderson simply gift the forum over to hiddenpuma75 via a deed of gift, as he’d undoubtedly transform the whole thing into a full-blown theme park.

On a different note, it is quite fascinating that none of our esteemed forum communists had the audacity to vote for nationalization—you know, the sensible idea of handing management back to the people.

Good grief, these little salon-dwelling communists... they won't even dare to click a button...

...yet I suspect they’d be the first to vanish from behind the barricades 🙂 in the blink of an eye.

Sam Wright21 said:You're absolutely right, but let's be honest: not everyone possesses that kind of capacity.

Most—and I use that term loosely—people possess a shred of talent for at least one of the things mentioned, but even if they lack any particular gift, the point isn't necessarily to achieve global stardom (which, let's be honest, would likely require an extraordinary level of talent anyway)...

However, very few people actually take the time to listen to music with true devotion, in an environment specifically prepared for such an experience where one can actually feel the full weight of the sound...

Sam Wright21 said:It serves as a remedy even for the most casual consumer...

True enough, though I would venture to suggest that active engagement is significantly more intense; the experience itself feels exponentially more profound—though, of course, one can never truly grasp someone else's perspective, as these subjective realities likely vary wildly from person to person...

Sam Wright21 said:Art can be quite healing, much like a good sense of humor. That’s precisely why I brought up *What We Do in the Shadows*.

I would argue that one must engage deeply and actively with music, painting, sculpture, or perhaps writing to truly find that solace...

Newfound bachelorhood is practically a law of nature, hiddenpuma75! So, tell me, where on earth do you reside... 🤔

In response to those specific examples requested by the moderator Intermezzo, I maintain that everything I have stated remains valid, provided that my words aren't being manipulated or stripped of their intended context regarding the body of work produced by Brian Gonzalez24 to which this pertains.

My broader observations also hold up, primarily because I haven't resorted to sweeping generalizations—I certainly didn't claim "everyone" acts this way—and given that the sample size is massive, spanning thousands of instances globally, it is a well-documented fact how minuscule the percentage of KC believers actually is when it comes to reacting to atrocities occurring right under their noses. That number is so staggeringly small, or perhaps even non-existent, that any meaningful outcry had to be driven by outsiders from the secular media.