The pure destruction of philosophy

This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

Joseph Murphy10 said:This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

👍 I couldn't agree more. That’s the end of philosophy right there. And since you can't have a civilization without philosophy, we might as well prepare for the end of civilization too.

puzzle said:Thanks, I'm sure it'll help someone. Personally, I don't plan on getting serious about philosophy, nor am I really into philosophical debates. Like Sandra Murphy33 said, I just pick up those little "for beginners" booklets for general knowledge—for instance, I read "Heidegger for beginners" and figured I'd grab one work from each of those three philosophers just out of curiosity and leave it at that.

Look, man, once you're caught in this web of love that's way more intense than any wisdom philosophy offers, there's nothing to fear. Just do your thing—don't worry about my guidelines or advice 👍

Anyway, how does philosophy even start?
Take Guthrie, for example—he thinks we all have these subconscious assumptions lurking inside us that won't let us rest. They tickle the imagination, and then we turn to whatever our rational mind offers: observation (in our case, reading) and thinking about what we've read. Of course, if you actually have the guts to step out with your own opinion (like me, with this idea of philosophical "self-annihilation" caused by the massive tension between philosophy and scientific positivism), you start poking at that idea, hunting for sources and inspiration. Basically, you dive into doxography—studying what honorable predecessors and authorities have said—gathering data and expanding your intellectual horizons. First, it's focused on the specific topic bugging you, and then it widens out until... well, first: you need enough references from established authorities so people actually take you seriously—especially if you're an academic philosopher, since those guys are terrified of being spat on by their colleagues and the scientific community. Or second: until you bravely drop an idea like a punch to the solar plexus, regardless of who's right or wrong—which is way easier to do if you aren't some academic, but just a guy thinking for his own damn satisfaction, you know? 🙂

Modern science—which has basically been elevated to a level of sacrosanct worship—has significantly shrunk the space for authentic personal thought, ideas, assumptions, and intuition that make engaging with philosophy so damn magical. It's pushed out everything its own foundations are built upon (think metaphysics, theology, literary criticism, or even the importance of a solid patient history and clinical presence in medicine, which now relies on technicalities instead of technicalities *plus* "intuition," and so on).

To prove my point, look at the facts: Schopenhauer turned down every professorship offered to him; Nietzsche would rather starve than teach at a university; Spinoza preferred grinding lenses over making money from philosophy; Marx had to flee the country; Dostoevsky spent ten years in Siberia, four of them in literal chains; and Berdyaev, who was kicked out of his university and exiled from his homeland, once said that philosophy departments are incredibly reluctant to actually hire philosophers unless they agree to stop teaching their own original ideas...

So, props to you for the question, the post, and the mindset. You're already halfway there—now you just gotta let yourself get sharpened. 🙂

Joseph Murphy10 said:Look, man, once you're caught in this web of love that's way more intense than any wisdom philosophy offers, there's nothing to fear. Just do your thing—don't worry about my guidelines or advice 👍

Anyway, how does philosophy even start?
Take Guthrie, for example—he thinks we all have these subconscious assumptions lurking inside us that won't let us rest. They tickle the imagination, and then we turn to whatever our rational mind offers: observation (in our case, reading) and thinking about what we've read. Of course, if you actually have the guts to step out with your own opinion (like me, with this idea of philosophical "self-annihilation" caused by the massive tension between philosophy and scientific positivism), you start poking at that idea, hunting for sources and inspiration. Basically, you dive into doxography—studying what honorable predecessors and authorities have said—gathering data and expanding your intellectual horizons. First, it's focused on the specific topic bugging you, and then it widens out until... well, first: you need enough references from established authorities so people actually take you seriously—especially if you're an academic philosopher, since those guys are terrified of being spat on by their colleagues and the scientific community. Or second: until you bravely drop an idea like a punch to the solar plexus, regardless of who's right or wrong—which is way easier to do if you aren't some academic, but just a guy thinking for his own damn satisfaction, you know? 🙂

Modern science—which has basically been elevated to a level of sacrosanct worship—has significantly shrunk the space for authentic personal thought, ideas, assumptions, and intuition that make engaging with philosophy so damn magical. It's pushed out everything its own foundations are built upon (think metaphysics, theology, literary criticism, or even the importance of a solid patient history and clinical presence in medicine, which now relies on technicalities instead of technicalities *plus* "intuition," and so on).

To prove my point, look at the facts: Schopenhauer turned down every professorship offered to him; Nietzsche would rather starve than teach at a university; Spinoza preferred grinding lenses over making money from philosophy; Marx had to flee the country; Dostoevsky spent ten years in Siberia, four of them in literal chains; and Berdyaev, who was kicked out of his university and exiled from his homeland, once said that philosophy departments are incredibly reluctant to actually hire philosophers unless they agree to stop teaching their own original ideas...

So, props to you for the question, the post, and the mindset. You're already halfway there—now you just gotta let yourself get sharpened. 🙂

👍

Authenticity isn't some soft, feel-good concept you find in a self-help seminar. To be truly authentic means being uncompromising. It requires a level of grit that most people simply aren't willing to muster. Most folks spend their entire lives smoothing out their edges, polishing their personas just enough to fit into whatever social mold is currently trending, all to avoid the discomfort of being seen for who they actually are. They trade their core truths for the sake of convenience or social standing. But if you’re looking for something real, you have to accept that truth often comes at a cost. It means standing your ground when it's unpopular and refusing to perform for an audience that only wants a curated version of you. In a world built on superficiality, staying true to oneself is a constant, exhausting act of defiance.

Joseph Murphy10 As stated by:
I have to give you credit for the inquiry, the post, and the perspective you've shared. You’ve clearly done the groundwork; now you just need to sharpen the edge. 🙂

Don't go scaring the man... 😉

ruggedraven36 said:👍 I couldn't agree more. That’s the end of philosophy right there. And since you can't have a civilization without philosophy, we might as well prepare for the end of civilization too.

If we consider this "new normal"—where people are constantly being "intervened" upon—as part of the process, then—look, I respect epidemiology and infectious disease specialists as much as anyone, especially given how much stuff gets pushed under the radar despite the constitutional protections meant to stop it in democratic nations—then yeah, philosophically speaking, we really are talking about the end of civilization as we know it.

Obviously, this is just me reacting to recent headlines. But if you actually step back and look at the world we live in compared to the one people inhabited just one generation ago—maybe even less—this isn't just some random panic; it's reality. I'm not out here pushing some wild conspiracy theory. I'm just trying to make sense of things. The fact is, the world is changing at lightning speed. Just look at how social media has flipped everything upside down. How much blatant manipulation has been slipped into our brains through those sweet little pills on social media feeds? How much has that tanked our collective empathy, our language, our manners, or our basic understanding of morality and decency (the kind of stuff our grandparents learned in Sunday school as "fear of God and shame before man")? Or even just the way people push boundaries now? I saw a segment on ABC about content moderators on Facebook and it honestly creeped me out. Then there's the fact that we have people today with advanced degrees and masters in various fields who can't even put together a grammatically correct sentence, not to mention how their entire cognitive focus is narrowed down to one tiny niche while they know absolutely nothing about anything else... if you factor all that in, it's not a whim—it's a massive civilizational shift. And we haven't even hit the big stuff yet: the latest tech revolutions, biomedical enhancements, and cognitive interventions aimed at the very essence of the human self (you could call it a fight for the soul). We only have to look at what's happening in places like Iceland, where they're moving toward eliminating anyone with Down syndrome, or the practices in the Netherlands, where the right to self-determination has been extended to the point of self-annihilation (read: voluntary euthanasia), including children—there are already cases of 11-year-olds deciding they don't want to live because they see no point in it... and so on and so forth.

I'm just throwing these ideas out there. Some thinkers have touched on this, but philosophy as a whole hasn't really taken a clear stand. When philosophy does get involved, it usually just ends up fighting cultural wars that boil down to clashes of worldview and ideology, while allowing the very definition of "human" to be shifted around to suit whoever's in power. We used to have the UN Convention on Human Rights. We still have it. It didn't give us a perfect definition of a human being, but it set some boundaries. Sure, it's fine to debate revising human rights or adding new ones to the Convention, providing definitions and explanations. But I don't get the feeling that any of this is being done in a meaningful way; it just seems like more fuel for the culture wars.

So, civilization is always ending for someone and beginning for someone else. However, the intellectuals out there should probably feel some responsibility to actively cooperate in this transition as much as possible, *sine ira et studio*—without anger or bias. If the philosophers don't step up, someone else will. Right now, it's cognitive psychologists, IT experts, programmers, and STEM scientists working hand-in-hand with political elites (which sounds pretty Marxist, and I'm definitely not a Marxist, but hey, that's just how it looks).😁)

And honestly, this could lead to the total philosophical meltdown—if philosophers actually have nothing left to say about any of this. (Though I guess even back in the day, Jose Ortega y Gasset basically called it. He argued that this is just the fate philosophers have to swallow: because they’re constantly arguing with themselves, they don't really take the world seriously. They just exist in this bubble of irrelevance to the practical, everyday reality—they're happy if someone finds them useful, but they're way happier when nobody asks for anything at all.)

Joseph Murphy10 said:This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

Ethan Gomez82 said:First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

👍

Philosophy is basically just one long, slow slide into deconstruction if you look at how things have been heading lately. I mean, if you start tracing the whole messy lineage from Hegel and Marx - Nietzsche and Stirner, all the way through to those postmodernists like Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida, it’s enough to make your head spin, right? It honestly feels like if we ever want to find any sort of "pure" philosophy again, we’ll have to stop chasing our tails and just go straight back to the roots—back to the Pre-Socratics.

gentlerider7 said:Philosophy is basically just one long, slow slide into deconstruction if you look at how things have been heading lately. I mean, if you start tracing the whole messy lineage from Hegel and Marx - Nietzsche and Stirner, all the way through to those postmodernists like Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida, it’s enough to make your head spin, right? It honestly feels like if we ever want to find any sort of "pure" philosophy again, we’ll have to stop chasing our tails and just go straight back to the roots—back to the Pre-Socratics.

If we’re talking about pure philosophy, I’d argue we need to head back to Hegel rather than the Pre-Socratics. Think of Hegel as having performed the final great philosophical synthesis, effectively drawing a line under everything that came before him—including those early thinkers. Once you pass Hegel, there isn't much left to say that carries any real substance. You can certainly keep philosophizing, sure, but you're really just using that highly refined toolkit he left behind, where logic, metaphysics, and ontology all blend into one seamless machine.

Ethan Gomez82 said:First of all, the job of philosophy is to pursue and defend the truth, not some vague notion of dignity, whether specific or otherwise. Anyone can dabble in that. Furthermore, I don't see philosophy acting like a social climber flirting with others just to improve its standing. If we must label it, wouldn't "consultation" be a better term? The bedrock of all philosophical thought is fact. In the old days, there were no firmer foundations than one's own mind and senses, allowing one to philosophize from an armchair by merely referencing what was previously thought. Honestly, that approach is largely dead and cannot be resuscitated. Facts now arrive in massive torrents. To gather them, you need all sorts of strange tools that aren't exactly part of a philosopher's toolkit. Electronic microscopes and radio telescopes aren't standard equipment for us. Of course, facts cannot be ignored. They must be integrated into the larger picture, and that is precisely the role of philosophy (since no one else is doing it). To remain deaf and blind to these discoveries is effectively to disqualify oneself and become obsolete. Philosophy would then turn into an obscure, hermetic discipline, severed from reality and utterly boring. There would be no reason for anyone to care, as we already have more than enough obscure disciplines to go around.

Look, we might actually be on the same page if we just drop all this specific jargon—it's getting in the way. When I say someone is "flirting" with an idea, that’s just my writing style—it's not some deep-seated philosophical attempt to grab the moral high ground. I never said that, so don't go putting words in my mouth. It's just a rhetorical flourish, plain and simple. And yeah, fine—I'll agree that "consulting" is probably the more accurate term here.

Another thing—I never said anything about "settling down." Don't put words in my mouth—that’s just a weird leap from the word "flirting." And even if that were the case, why does flirting always have to lead to marriage? You can just flirt for the hell of it. Honestly, the way you phrased it—"consulting"—is actually a much better way to put it because it doesn't imply some inevitable romantic progression. It's more neutral. Consulting can be smooth or it can be rough. You can use consulting to suck up to scientists, or you can use it to observe them—to "consult" them—from a critical distance while calling out what they missed in my posts. Specifically, the status of a human being as an entity whose dignity we all need to defend as our highest value. By defending humanity, you're ultimately defending yourself. Obviously, that's not at the expense of scientific, material truth—because truth is just truth, and if it's true, it doesn't need protecting. Truth defends itself just by being true.

Look, everyone obsesses over material facts, but they totally sideline metaphysical truth—which is a massive mistake. Why push it aside? Why just give up on it? We need to figure out how the human being—the actual driver behind everything that happens—relates to the rest of existence. Can an algorithm just invent itself? Hell no, it needs a human to kick things off. But here’s the kicker: will an algorithm actually *need* us in the future? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows for sure, but there's plenty of reason to be cautious. That’s why we seriously need to set some ground rules for scientific progress—rules that protect the human being's right to exist as a unique entity on this planet, at least while we're still running the show. Because once we aren't in control anymore, we won't even exist. We'll be erased. If you look at the root of the action, it’s basically self-annihilation. So yeah, we need ethics. And I don't care if people claim philosophy has nothing left to say just because others are already talking about it—I disagree.

I'm with you—if philosophers opt out of tracking the actual avalanche of material truths, they basically just delete themselves. They turn into some obscure cult that *thinks* it’s thinking (if you'll excuse the phrasing), and from what I can see, most of them aren't doing any real work at all. Honestly, they're way too embedded in the scientific community—which is fine, don't get me wrong—but keeping a critical distance isn't the same thing as ignoring reality. It’s about attention. What really got me thinking about this was seeing people lose that critical edge entirely. If I hadn't felt that void in books, articles, and papers, I wouldn't even be bothering to write this.

I’d also add that a lot of societies have this reflex to react super negatively to any kind of criticism aimed at established policies. If that hostility toward healthy critique crosses a line—to the point where the community just silences, suppresses, and sidelines anyone with an independent view (and there are plenty of those people)—then we’re looking at a symptom of a deeper societal issue. And if there's a symptom, there's a disease. That’s also part of the job description for philosophy. Philosophy shouldn't stay silent when a printing press refuses to print a Jordan Peterson book just because they claim the content "offends the workers." It reminds me of those orchestrated "spontaneous" protests by factory workers who "randomly" hit the streets because they were "concerned as workers about the state of the union." That was a symptom. Kristallnacht was a symptom. Being smart after the fact is easy and cheap. Anyone can play philosopher *post festum*. In a way, philosophy should almost be a "prophetic" endeavor—figure of speech, obviously, unless someone wants to call me a prophet and start nitpicking.

Marcuse argues that at the heart of all intellectual pursuits—philosophy included—is the fundamental assumption that human life is actually worth living, and more importantly, that it *can* be made worth living. I’m with him on that one.

ruggedraven36 said:Marcuse argues that at the heart of all intellectual pursuits—philosophy included—is the fundamental assumption that human life is actually worth living, and more importantly, that it *can* be made worth living. I’m with him on that one.

Same here.
That’s honestly why I even bother thinking about this stuff—or writing it, anyway. If I hadn't felt that crushing weight in the works of modern authors, I wouldn't even be wasting my time posting about it.

ruggedraven36 said:Marcuse argues that at the heart of all intellectual pursuits—philosophy included—is the fundamental assumption that human life is actually worth living, and more importantly, that it *can* be made worth living. I’m with him on that one.

It feels like this is one of those almost universal themes I keep running into in pretty much every philosopher I pick up. If I had to say who gets closest to this idea, it would probably be Nietzsche. To paraphrase his take, he talks about a kind of philosophical self-destruction, because if you ever want to actually move forward, you have to basically tear down and destroy the person you are right now.

It’s not just about that, either; you have to dismantle the external forces grinding you down every single day—specifically the kind of organized religion that drains your spirit and the brand of capitalism that bleeds your bank account dry.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s not just about that, either; you have to dismantle the external forces grinding you down every single day—specifically the kind of organized religion that drains your spirit and the brand of capitalism that bleeds your bank account dry.

I just can't get behind that.

Look, if you actually possess a shred of philosophical thought, then you've already dismantled religion within yourself, so there's no way it can continue to exploit you spiritually.

As for being exploited by capitalism? That’s not a matter of philosophy at all.

If you don't find some way to free yourself spiritually, something is always going to be exploiting you. Once you tear down religion, some random, secular object will just step up, pretend to be sacred, and start forcing its own set of rules on you.
The same goes for capitalism—which basically ate itself anyway by morphing into this system where a tiny handful of billionaires control almost everything on the planet. Once you dismantle that, something else is just going to rise up to take its place and make you feel just as used.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy

dustyranger8 said:I just can't get behind that.

Look, if you actually possess a shred of philosophical thought, then you've already dismantled religion within yourself, so there's no way it can continue to exploit you spiritually.

As for being exploited by capitalism? That’s not a matter of philosophy at all.

You’re actually making some pretty damn good points.

dustyranger8 said:I just can't get behind that.

Look, if you actually possess a shred of philosophical thought, then you've already dismantled religion within yourself, so there's no way it can continue to exploit you spiritually.

As for being exploited by capitalism? That’s not a matter of philosophy at all.

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Any kind of exploitation is inherently an ethical issue, which naturally turns it into a philosophical question as well.

Joseph Murphy10 said:If you don't find some way to free yourself spiritually, something is always going to be exploiting you. Once you tear down religion, some random, secular object will just step up, pretend to be sacred, and start forcing its own set of rules on you.
The same goes for capitalism—which basically ate itself anyway by morphing into this system where a tiny handful of billionaires control almost everything on the planet. Once you dismantle that, something else is just going to rise up to take its place and make you feel just as used.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy

"Spiritual liberation" isn't a destination; it's a continuous process. It's never truly finished, at least not as long as we're living here on Earth as flesh-and-blood humans—essentially, spirit trapped in a body.

It feels somewhat fatalistic—perhaps even nihilistic—to suggest we shouldn't fight against our oppressors just because their replacement will inevitably become a new source of oppression.

In my view, this "liberation of the spirit" is the core driver behind all progress, and that liberation has to happen at the level of the community as much as it does individually.
In fact, I'd argue the two are inseparable: individual "freedom of spirit" is only half-realized if your entire community remains spiritually shackled, just as collective "freedom" is hollow if the individuals making up that collective remain spiritually bound (or, if you prefer the term "narrow-minded," which is effectively the same thing in my book).

Sandra Murphy33 said:"Spiritual liberation" isn't a destination; it's a continuous process. It's never truly finished, at least not as long as we're living here on Earth as flesh-and-blood humans—essentially, spirit trapped in a body.

It feels somewhat fatalistic—perhaps even nihilistic—to suggest we shouldn't fight against our oppressors just because their replacement will inevitably become a new source of oppression.

In my view, this "liberation of the spirit" is the core driver behind all progress, and that liberation has to happen at the level of the community as much as it does individually.
In fact, I'd argue the two are inseparable: individual "freedom of spirit" is only half-realized if your entire community remains spiritually shackled, just as collective "freedom" is hollow if the individuals making up that collective remain spiritually bound (or, if you prefer the term "narrow-minded," which is effectively the same thing in my book).

But how the hell are you supposed to have community-level liberation when the community itself is totally fractured—or better yet, when it doesn't even exist anymore?

gentlerider7 said:But how the hell are you supposed to have community-level liberation when the community itself is totally fractured—or better yet, when it doesn't even exist anymore?

By that logic, you can't claim it on an individual level, either.
That’s precisely where we run into trouble.

Sure, people find ways to cope—the methods of self-deception are virtually endless—but ultimately, our actions are what define our freedom, or lack thereof. It's a principle held true by both Quincy and the Holy Bible Amen.