The pure destruction of philosophy

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).

Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

Ethan Gomez82 said:Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

To me, freedom of spirit just means breaking free from censorship and that nagging sense of self-censorship—basically, escaping the ideological grip that tries to dictate exactly how you should think and what you should believe.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

😂

To me, liberation in the spirit also means breaking free from your own anxieties and everything else that prevents you from simply being who you truly are.
Perhaps "liberation in the spirit" is poorly phrased. A better term might be "liberation of the spirit," given that the spirit is inherently free; I am that spirit, and that spirit naturally wants to live freely within the material world.

The phrase "liberation in the spirit" is likely Christian terminology. It implies that the spirit isn't actually *me*, but rather a God who is distinct from me, yet present within me in some mystical way. Therefore, as a "child of God," I am supposedly meant to find "liberation" within that internal deity, or perhaps release that deity within me so it can act. I don't know; I'll leave it to the Christians to explain exactly what they mean by this. 🙂

Sandra Murphy33 said: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.

But honestly, that's the *only* level where it's possible, because only the individual actually goes through that awakening or transcendence, and without that, you don't have freedom or a community to speak of. And why do we even need transcendence? Well, from what I can see, it's because you can't just find meaning in history or in society—unless, of course, someone could somehow prove that some future utopia is going to make up for all the absolute horrors of history.

I wouldn't call myself much of a philosopher, but I’ve noticed how much psychological theories and anecdotes keep creeping into philosophical discussions lately. It's getting to the point where the two fields overlap so much that it's actually hard to tell them apart. I think the reason is pretty simple: psychology—or even just a good psychological insight—tries to define a specific problem or phenomenon, whether it hits the mark or not. And let's face it, people crave those definitions because they provide a sense of stability in an unpredictable world. I'm definitely guilty of that myself; philosophy doesn't really give me much of a foothold, whereas psychology offers a bit more of a solid base. If I'm being honest, I'd go as far as saying philosophy is just psychology that hasn't been put to practical use yet—not applied to the degree an individual can afford, at least until life really starts squeezing you.

Amanda Jackson5 said:To me, freedom of spirit just means breaking free from censorship and that nagging sense of self-censorship—basically, escaping the ideological grip that tries to dictate exactly how you should think and what you should believe.

That sounds profound, yet it’s utterly hollow. If we actually managed to strip away every external influence, there wouldn't be much left of us at all. You wouldn't even have an opinion on "societal issues," because every single one of those takes root through outside forces, blends with our personal "psychological assets"—like temperament and character—and ultimately shapes who we are. Without those external layers, there is no stance; a spirit "liberated" from everything would just be a shallow, empty shell. There is always something from the outside driving our perspectives; without that input, thinking itself ceases to exist. To me, this whole idea of a liberated spirit feels fake. It’s really just saying: I'll unhook myself from one influence just to latch onto another (or more accurately, the second one is simply stronger and knocks the first one aside).

Sandra Murphy33 said:😂

To me, liberation in the spirit also means breaking free from your own anxieties and everything else that prevents you from simply being who you truly are.
Perhaps "liberation in the spirit" is poorly phrased. A better term might be "liberation of the spirit," given that the spirit is inherently free; I am that spirit, and that spirit naturally wants to live freely within the material world.

The phrase "liberation in the spirit" is likely Christian terminology. It implies that the spirit isn't actually *me*, but rather a God who is distinct from me, yet present within me in some mystical way. Therefore, as a "child of God," I am supposedly meant to find "liberation" within that internal deity, or perhaps release that deity within me so it can act. I don't know; I'll leave it to the Christians to explain exactly what they mean by this. 🙂

If we're talking about Christian terminology, then of course it sounds foreign to me. My spirit has never been a slave to Christian phrasing or mysticism. That entire way of thinking is completely alien to me; it's total uncharted territory. 😁

Ethan Gomez82 said:That sounds profound, yet it’s utterly hollow. If we actually managed to strip away every external influence, there wouldn't be much left of us at all. You wouldn't even have an opinion on "societal issues," because every single one of those takes root through outside forces, blends with our personal "psychological assets"—like temperament and character—and ultimately shapes who we are. Without those external layers, there is no stance; a spirit "liberated" from everything would just be a shallow, empty shell. There is always something from the outside driving our perspectives; without that input, thinking itself ceases to exist. To me, this whole idea of a liberated spirit feels fake. It’s really just saying: I'll unhook myself from one influence just to latch onto another (or more accurately, the second one is simply stronger and knocks the first one aside).

Exactly. But let's be clear—getting rid of censorship isn't the same thing as shedding influence. Not every bit of influence is an act of censorship.

Amanda Jackson5 said:You’re actually making some pretty damn good points.

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.

Look, I can see where you're coming from, but I still think we're veering off into a tangent. To me, philosophical self-negation is an internal process, not some external upheaval. External negation would be a full-blown revolution—tearing down an exploitative system just to build up a fair one. You aren't wrong that the question is ethical and rooted in philosophy, but that doesn't qualify as philosophical (just) self-negation.

For me, philosophical self-negation—heavily influenced by Nietzsche—is that burning desire to destroy who you are today so you can evolve into someone different, someone better. Progress is nothing if not a path of self-negation.

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

Pure philosophy is like pure existence—it’s Nothingness.

It’s like a pristine, sterile kitchen; if you insist on keeping it perfectly clean, you’re going to end up starving.

Harold Doyle3 said:Pure philosophy is like pure existence—it’s Nothingness.

It’s like a pristine, sterile kitchen; if you insist on keeping it perfectly clean, you’re going to end up starving.

Maybe I didn't frame that quite right. Perhaps instead of saying "pure philosophy," it would be more accurate to call it metaphysics, though if we're following Hegel, metaphysics, logic, and ontology all bleed into one single thing anyway.

This whole topic ties in perfectly with that discussion we had about free will. It’s really just two sides of the same coin, isn't it? I mean, in some abstract, philosophical sense, sure, free will exists—but in the actual day-to-day practice of living? Not really.

Just look at how much influence the media can exert over someone's perspective. And it isn't even just about direct brainwashing; it's deeper than that. Our entire social biology kicks in, where people end up echoing the exact same talking points they hear just to feel like they actually belong in the modern era. It becomes this endless, enchanted loop. I mean, think about how many times you've heard people using "2021 was a turning point" as their go-to argument 😁
The reality is that far too few people actually think for themselves. Most people just opt for the path of least resistance. When you sit down, do the math, and realize what the truth actually is, you see it clearly: people become easy to manipulate when you play on those biological instincts we all carry.

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

Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

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

To me, this doesn't look like the annihilation of philosophy, but rather a moment where philosophy becomes empirical. It’s a moment where it gains the ability to discard bad philosophy based on a complete and verified insight into what a human being actually is. With this newfound freedom to alter the human condition, responsibility naturally follows, and as a result, ethics becomes more vital than ever before.

hiddeneagle98 said:To me, this doesn't look like the annihilation of philosophy, but rather a moment where philosophy becomes empirical. It’s a moment where it gains the ability to discard bad philosophy based on a complete and verified insight into what a human being actually is. With this newfound freedom to alter the human condition, responsibility naturally follows, and as a result, ethics becomes more vital than ever before.

Yeah, yeah... maybe I went a little overboard with my wording in those first posts. My old brain is still fighting off the leftover effects of indoctrination on how we think—and how we talk about it, too 😁 (sometimes the right words just slip away)

Bottom line: philosophy is always rooted in empirical stuff that gets processed through thought. In that process, you inevitably end up tossing out parts of what was previously "thought"—if you can even call it that—because while someone was thinking it, it wasn't wrong, it was valid. Only later does it get labeled as wrong. Whether we dump it or try to rebrand it, that old stuff always leaves its mark on current thought, whether that impact is positive or negative

So, based on our understanding of humanity (using whatever knowledge was considered valid at the time), it always demands a level of responsibility and ethics that becomes absolutely critical. That was basically the underlying theme of everything I've been writing here. @medonaodmoru called me out on it—rightly so—noting that philosophy’s job is to deal with the truth, no matter how ugly, and bake that fact into the bigger picture. If they don't, philosophers just negate themselves and become irrelevant. My take? Philosophers have to deal with the intrinsic dignity of the human being. If they don't, they'll self-destruct just as surely as if they ignored reality. And I'm not talking about an "either/or" situation—it's both. We'll always circle back to the starting point: truth and the human being.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

I’ve just "caught the scent" of a text that fits this exact description. 😉

"Ultimately, the problems we face cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created.
The current problems of the world are bigger and more complex than the institutions established to deal with them. Meaningful change requires a true transformation that shifts the levels of understanding and opens the realms of possibility.
Yet, there is a poverty of imagination when it comes to facing the size and depth of the problems we all face.
In mistaking appearances for the real thing, people wind up with the appearance of strength, the appearance of leadership and the appearance of meaning while suffering a loss of all that is truly meaningful in the end. Genuine change, whether it be in the hearts of people or in the culture at large, is more difficult than changing the appearance of things and therefore can be a more rare occurrence. In hard times, inner changes must precede changes to outer circumstances".
- Michael Meade [From “Awakening of Souls”]

English:
"Ultimately, the problems we face cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created. The current problems of the world are bigger and more complex than the institutions established to deal with them.
Meaningful change requires a true transformation that establishes new levels of understanding and opens entirely new possibilities.
And yet, we are witnessing a lack of imagination when it comes to grappling with the sheer scale and depth of the challenges before us. By failing to distinguish between appearance and reality, people mistake the appearance of strength, the appearance of leadership, and the appearance of meaning for the real thing, while actually suffering the loss of what is truly meaningful.
Genuine change, whether it be in the hearts of people or in the culture at large, is far more difficult than merely altering appearances, which makes it much rarer.
In challenging times, inner change must precede any change in external circumstances."
M. Meade, "Awakening of Souls"

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

Well, I haven't said anything that you don't deserve.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

And besides, who really cares about that? What matters is what you write—whether it makes sense to anyone, how substantive and high-quality it is, and even how much it might inspire someone. With all due respect to academia, you don't need a PhD in philosophy or an official professorship to discuss these things. After all, we are just on a forum. 😁

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

Personally, I am quite interested in hermeneutics. I feel I know a fair amount, though I would very much like to delve deeper into philosophical hermeneutics, despite being fully aware of how profound and vast that subject truly is.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

I am not certain that keeping pace with the most recent works is easy for anyone, but I certainly respect the effort. 😁

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

I’m not entirely sure what Hek would contribute to this, but to my mind, "norm" feels much closer to a "standard" than a rigid "rule."🤔 If you take a look at this, there seems to be an usage of the term "norm" that isn't merely a linguistic quirk, but suggests something far more profound.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

Well, either your intuition is failing you, or your ability to communicate it is.😁 Or perhaps it is a combination of both—or something else entirely. Something is certainly amiss.😁

Steven Clark2 said:Well, I haven't said anything that you don't deserve.

And besides, who really cares about that? What matters is what you write—whether it makes sense to anyone, how substantive and high-quality it is, and even how much it might inspire someone. With all due respect to academia, you don't need a PhD in philosophy or an official professorship to discuss these things. After all, we are just on a forum. 😁

Personally, I am quite interested in hermeneutics. I feel I know a fair amount, though I would very much like to delve deeper into philosophical hermeneutics, despite being fully aware of how profound and vast that subject truly is.

I am not certain that keeping pace with the most recent works is easy for anyone, but I certainly respect the effort. 😁

I’m not entirely sure what Hek would contribute to this, but to my mind, "norm" feels much closer to a "standard" than a rigid "rule."🤔 If you take a look at this, there seems to be an usage of the term "norm" that isn't merely a linguistic quirk, but suggests something far more profound.

Well, either your intuition is failing you, or your ability to communicate it is.😁 Or perhaps it is a combination of both—or something else entirely. Something is certainly amiss.😁

Both. Either way. 🙂
Too lazy to move—but I’m still out here stacking ammo. 😁
Look, I know I’m on the right track here—reducing philosophy to just some sidekick for neurocognitive psychology is a massive fail. Honestly? Neurocognitive psychology itself is a total bust. She’s asking questions that aren't going to get any real answers, and the path she’s taking is a dead end. Pretty soon, we won't even have actual psychologists doing the work—it’ll just be highly trained nursing assistants and techs mindlessly following templates.

I won't live to see this belief actually take hold—so for the foreseeable future, we’re basically just stuck teetering on the edge of what I call pure, unadulterated nonsense. 🙂

It doesn't cost me a dime to talk my mouth off—as long as Volver keeps letting me run wild.