Altruism and helping others: what are your thoughts?

ironmarlin1 said:In this twenty-first century, given how much we've advanced in science and everything we learned from Darwin, trying to claim that altruism is truly selfless feels more like a bit of a collective delusion than anything else. It makes you wonder, though—is being deceptive or dishonest actually considered an altruistic or even a "humane" act? If you ask the humanists and the lifelong altruists, they’d probably tell you that it most certainly is.

If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

It’s honestly a little surprising that after being around this forum for so long, you still haven't caught on to the fact that Davor—by his own admission—is just incapable of feeling those kinds of things. No hard feelings 😁

The collective wisdom found on an internet forum is, shall we say, a reliable guarantee of intellectual depth... can you even imagine?😁 (And that’s just my secondary thought—my primary one involves the alchemy of cultivating naivety as a prerequisite for eternal youth, constant rebirth, and the shifting of perspectives...)

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't stay still, always looking for that next peak to climb or some rugged trail to get lost on, though I have to admit my knees aren't quite what they used to be when I first started hiking through the Rockies. kaže:
To actually get this democratic engine running and start tackling our problems head-on, we really need to dive into the deep end of informing people, educating them, winning them over, and basically just getting everyone fired up and aware of what's at stake—it’s all about that collective awakening, honestly. I honestly don't know how you even begin to approach something like that, but I suppose if you really want to push someone into doing something they're clearly resisting, you just have to find that one specific lever that makes them realize they don't really have a choice in the matter. The public is just too passive and disinterested right now, honestly, and they seem completely oblivious to the fact that we actually need to take action, which means the only way to truly wake people up is to lead by example through our own individual efforts.

So, you actually managed to nudge me into diving deep into the weeds of the Affordable Care Act and how health insurance actually functions, and honestly, after spending some time digging through the official guides, I’ve stumbled onto something that really bothers me. I found this one specific procedural detail they insist on following—something that seems completely nonsensical to me—but even when I pointed out how illogical it was, those agencies wouldn't budge. It’s frustrating because, from where I'm sitting, their refusal to adapt to common sense feels like a straight-up violation of how the Affordable Care Act is supposed to be applied.
I honestly feel like we really need to put in the work to educate ourselves and stay informed, because if we don't, we’re never going to truly grasp that frustrating gap between what the textbooks say should happen and how things actually play out in the real world. It isn't enough to just sit back as passive users or people simply checking off boxes to meet some requirement; we have to step up and be active participants who actually call things out when they aren't working right.
It’s probably true that we’re just as much in the dark in other areas and fields too, mostly because there is just so much we don't know simply due to being poorly informed.

When it comes to volunteering—and I don’t just mean the official stuff, but that deeper, more fundamental sense of being a decent human and stepping up when life gets messy—I don't think it's strictly about fixing the cracks in our broken systems. To me, it feels much more like an act of immediate intervention, a way of engaging with "life on the ground" exactly where it's happening, which serves as this vital counterpoint to everything else. It’s almost like a worldview in itself, offering a completely different kind of message than the one we usually get from the world around us, and honestly, it feels like a quiet, necessary refusal to just accept things as they are.
I truly believe that nothing works quite like a personal example, because that’s the only way you can actually transmit real energy to others. It’s that specific kind of spark—the one that connects people and breathes life into them through a shared sense of purpose—that serves as the absolute backbone of any meaningful activism. You just won't find that kind of collective spirit within the rigid machinery of a government agency or a massive federal bureaucracy, mostly because that raw, driving force comes from a grassroots volunteer movement fueled by pure idealism and a genuine belief in what we can achieve together.
But you have to admit, she possesses this incredible creative force that really acts as a glue for everyone around her. Honestly, the world is just starving for that kind of energy right now—that genuine spirit of cooperation and true friendship.

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but find myself constantly looking toward the horizon, always itching to get out there and tackle some rugged trail or scale a peak, because honestly, there's just something about being high up in the mountains that makes all my little everyday stresses feel completely insignificant. kaže:
So, what I’m getting at—and I think this is exactly what you're seeing as both a massive opportunity and a genuine necessity—is that the entire environment where these volunteers operate needs to step up. We’re talking about that passive layer of society, the folks who aren't necessarily out there on the front lines doing the heavy lifting, but who act as a theoretically active voting bloc, and they really need to be backing the political forces that actually give a damn about the goals and missions these volunteers are working so hard to achieve.
Then you have to consider how political forces, once they actually secure a mandate from the voters, start exerting their influence over the entire bureaucratic machine, which then begins to funnel resources, mobilize agencies, scout out locations, open up job postings, and basically dictate how budgets are proposed and planned all according to their own specific political agenda.

Our voting bloc just doesn't have that kind of critical mass or collective consciousness required to actually trigger a shift that promises real change. It feels like we’re stuck, and a friend was just telling me the other day that we simply don't have the right foundation to leverage progressive individual values into an election result that looks any different from the same old cycle we've been trapped in for years, which basically just keeps us stuck in this aimless, directionless status quo.
It’s honestly kind of a paradox how people tend to just hand power right back to the very folks they should probably be trying to escape from.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Volunteers essentially represent the "conscientious neighborhood"—those community members who refuse to sit around waiting for some democratic management model to finally kick in and address local needs. They can't afford to wait, precisely because such a sluggish mechanism might be far too slow to react when a crisis actually hits.

So, what we are seeing here—what you are identifying as both a possibility and a necessity—is that the environment surrounding these volunteers (that segment of the population that remains passive in terms of volunteering, yet is theoretically active as a voting bloc) needs to support the political forces that actually care about the goals and tasks highlighted by the volunteers' actions.
Then, once those political forces secure a mandate from the voters, they can exert influence over the bureaucratic apparatus—which then uses its political leverage to allocate funds, activate agencies, find resources, put out RFPs, and propose or plan budgets...

That is how it works in theory, but—and this is the rub—what happens if the people, that very voting bloc, aren't particularly interested in tackling general community issues because they are already overwhelmed by their own personal problems? Which, let's face it, is usually the case in practice. Furthermore, in an environment crowded with massive crises—including those artificially amplified by the media—who is going to have the willpower to tackle the myriad of small, hidden issues that the public ignores?

To get this democratic problem-solving mechanism moving, you have to inform, educate, win over, mobilize, and raise awareness—essentially, you have to force the inactive, uninterested, and oblivious part of the public into action, which can only be achieved by leading through personal example. Imagine if someone trying to spark this movement was themselves completely disengaged... where would their legitimacy come from?

I remember watching a news segment once about volunteers who were taking in and feeding stray cats in their own apartments, houses, and yards—cats abandoned by owners who were away on summer vacations. It’s clear that, in a perfect world, we need to raise owner awareness to a more responsible level, control the population through spaying and neutering (for which owners or the community must fund), and ensure proper care and veterinary oversight. But until that systemic shift occurs, you have to deal with the reality of the moment and sensitize the public to the issue at hand.

The bureaucratic machine carries responsibility, sure, but it isn't answerable to the community's needs directly—not on an ad hoc basis or in response to individual crises—but rather indirectly and broadly through political channels, by executing planned tasks within its jurisdiction and sticking to pre-allocated federal budgets; its direct accountability lies solely with its superiors—the Executive Branch and various federal agencies.

The Executive Branch, in turn, is held accountable to the Legislative Branch—Congress—for how it enforces laws and upholds the Constitution.

Take this scenario, for instance: an official working at the Department of Health and Human Services or a major insurance provider might deny a patient a life-saving medication simply because that specific drug isn't on the approved formulary covered by their budget. In the eyes of the bureaucracy, that is considered "responsible" behavior. If that official were to bypass the rules and approve the medication out of pure altruism—say, because they felt for a single mother struggling to provide for her five children—they would actually be deemed *irresponsible*... A situation remarkably similar to this happened quite recently, where a patient, aided by a friend who mobilized a grassroots fundraising network via Facebook and other online platforms, managed to crowdsource the funds to buy the expensive medication privately. Eventually, after some movement within the system, the bureaucracy finally caught up and approved the coverage.

So, I'm not suggesting that the bureaucracy shouldn't be empathetic—it just can't be, by definition—since empathy is a human trait, not a structural one. The system exists to apply rules, ensure compliance, and execute the law... and that's about it.

My whole philosophy starts with the idea that, generally speaking, following rules and procedures should never take precedence over respecting human life, because the right to live is fundamentally more important than any regulation.
In that light, the responsibility of public agencies to enforce rules shouldn't ever outweigh their broader purpose; if those rules are used to justify someone's suffering or leave them stranded without help, then the system is failing its original mission. Tools like rules and regulations ought to serve the core idea behind them, not the other way around, and we really ought to be adjusting those tools—or finding better ways to think about them—to meet the actual needs of the people and the communities those services are meant to represent.

On the flip side, that purely procedural nature of the government—as he puts it—really undermines its credibility when it comes to upholding the rule of law, mostly because, in my view, the public perception of these institutions has been pretty badly compromised. And for any system to work, people need to trust it. But a system can't maintain the moral support of the community it serves if it lacks that essential layer of credibility.
To help make sense of that connection, I'll include a thought from a professor at the University of Chicago: "There is a profound link between human values and social norms on one hand, and the legitimacy of an economic system on the other."

Later on, once I have a moment, I'll post about Ernesto Sabato and his piece "Community Values" (the fourth letter from his book *Resistance*).

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

"If we don't let ourselves be moved by what happens around us, we won't be able to feel any true solidarity with anyone or anything; instead, we’ll become that cold, detached way of being that defines the modern individual, an atomized shell, an isolated person who creates other shells in their own environment, retreating into their functional state, into a narrow slice of work, or into the rigid scheduling of their planner. We have to remember that back in the day, things like farming, fishing, gathering, crafting, or working in blacksmith shops, tailor shops, or even on a farm, used to connect people and felt like a natural part of their whole identity. Realizing that this was disappearing is what drove workers in the 13th century to revolt against machines and try to burn them down. Today, people are trying to mass-connect just to adapt to the growing, absolute functionality that the system demands hour after hour. But while massive cities dominate life much like a tornado sweeps through desert sands, and while it has become the norm to just sit in front of the TV and accept whatever happens as inevitable without ever feeling responsible for anything, our freedom is in serious danger. It's a huge risk, as Junger put it: If wolves infect the flock, one bad day, that flock will turn into a pack.
If we can shift the human mindset, the danger we're facing paradoxically turns into hope. We might actually be able to reclaim the home that was mythically handed to us. History is always full of surprises. So, despite all the accumulated disappointments and frustrations, there’s really no reason to stop believing in the value of everyday actions. Even if they seem simple or modest, those small acts are what write a new chapter in history, steering the current of life toward a brand new direction."

(this is actually a passage from the first letter, specifically the fourth one, and I honestly wasn't sure which part to pick because everything feels worth including, but it would get so long—which is probably better suited for the book club thread—so I definitely recommend reading resistance from sabbath; a friend gave it to me a long time ago when we were walking through downtown Chicago at a local bookstore)

And the intro to the first letter:

"What beautiful comforts the world might find
within a single soul, embracing its kind through a friend"
F. Hölderlin

A person isn't truly brave when they're just standing alone and isolated, but they become brave when they've sunk so deeply into the reality of others that there's simply no turning back.
That’s really how it works—you find your courage when you finally reach out to touch someone else's pain, and suddenly, life stops being trivial and becomes something absolute. Most people never actually move toward one another; they don't even cross the threshold of what we all endure, and because of that, by staying obedient to a society that doesn't respect human dignity, we lose the chance to actually participate in something meaningful, to die with a sense of peace. I think plenty of people would tell you it’s better not to get involved, fearing that ideals will just end up unfulfilled, much like those Platonic loves that seem to lose their magic once they become real. Maybe that's true, but human wounds have a way of screaming for attention.
And addressing that requires action, which feels like a brand new concept given everything we're going through lately. Real action only flows from freedom and is tightly bound to a sense of responsibility; it's that specific kind of power that manages to conquer fear. The modern American is often shackled to the comforts provided by technology, and so often, they don't dare to dive into deep experiences like genuine love or solidarity. But, paradoxically, a human being will only save themselves if they risk their own life for someone else—for a neighbor, a friend, or for the children left out on the cold streets of an American city who no one cares about, even though their age demands care, living in hardship that will leave them scarred for the rest of their lives. There are hundreds of millions of children cast out onto the streets of the world.
Those kids belong to us as if they were our own, and they ought to be the primary reason we fight, our most sincere calling.
From our commitment to supporting the poor, a completely different way of life could emerge, where turning inward might be seen as a scandal, and where a person can discover and build a totally different kind of existence. History is mostly just a massive collection of aberrations, wars, persecutions, tortures, and injustices, but at the same time—or perhaps precisely because of all that—millions of men and women sacrifice themselves to care for the most unfortunate among us. They embody resistance from sabbath.
It really comes down to what Camus said: figuring out whether sacrifice is sterile or fruitful, a question that every heart has to face with total seriousness in those decisive moments. In making that choice, we recognize the specific place where each of us is called to offer resistance; that is how spaces of freedom are created, opening up horizons we never saw coming.
That is the bridge we have to cross, the passage. We can't stay chained to the past, nor can we just stare blankly into the abyss. Facing the dead end we find ourselves in today, the human being and their world reappear before us—not just as one possibility among many, but as an undeniable fact, much like the birth of a new creature when its time finally comes.

People actually find the strength to overcome things right in the middle of a crisis. There is so much evidence of this in the countless men and women whose only tools in the struggle were persistence and grit, and who ultimately defeated bloody tyrannies right here on our continent. Human beings know how to turn obstacles into new paths, because life only needs a tiny crack to renew itself. In this task, if we want life to open our eyes, we can't let it suffocate us. We have to defend—just as brave nations have done throughout history—the traditions that prove how much sanctity exists within a person. We shouldn't let the sweetness of those brief moments of freedom slip away: the dinner table we share with the people we love, providing shelter to a few creatures, a walk through the woods, the simple gratitude of a hug. It is an act of courage, almost like jumping from a house into a fire. These acts aren't always rational, but they don't have to be.
Love will be what saves us.

The world can't take anything from a person who sings even when they are miserable.

In the epilogue of the book (printed in 2000), the author reflects on his own mortality and prepares himself for it. He believes that a new humanism will soon emerge and that humanity will successfully overcome the current crisis.

steelridge58 said:

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't stay still, always looking for that next peak to climb or some rugged trail to get lost on, though I have to admit my knees aren't quite what they used to be when I first started hiking through the Rockies. kaže:
To actually get this democratic engine running and start tackling our problems head-on, we really need to dive into the deep end of informing people, educating them, winning them over, and basically just getting everyone fired up and aware of what's at stake—it’s all about that collective awakening, honestly. I honestly don't know how you even begin to approach something like that, but I suppose if you really want to push someone into doing something they're clearly resisting, you just have to find that one specific lever that makes them realize they don't really have a choice in the matter. The public is just too passive and disinterested right now, honestly, and they seem completely oblivious to the fact that we actually need to take action, which means the only way to truly wake people up is to lead by example through our own individual efforts.

So, you actually managed to nudge me into diving deep into the weeds of the Affordable Care Act and how health insurance actually functions, and honestly, after spending some time digging through the official guides, I’ve stumbled onto something that really bothers me. I found this one specific procedural detail they insist on following—something that seems completely nonsensical to me—but even when I pointed out how illogical it was, those agencies wouldn't budge. It’s frustrating because, from where I'm sitting, their refusal to adapt to common sense feels like a straight-up violation of how the Affordable Care Act is supposed to be applied.
I honestly feel like we really need to put in the work to educate ourselves and stay informed, because if we don't, we’re never going to truly grasp that frustrating gap between what the textbooks say should happen and how things actually play out in the real world. It isn't enough to just sit back as passive users or people simply checking off boxes to meet some requirement; we have to step up and be active participants who actually call things out when they aren't working right.
It’s probably true that we’re just as much in the dark in other areas and fields too, mostly because there is just so much we don't know simply due to being poorly informed.

When it comes to volunteering—and I don’t just mean the official stuff, but that deeper, more fundamental sense of being a decent human and stepping up when life gets messy—I don't think it's strictly about fixing the cracks in our broken systems. To me, it feels much more like an act of immediate intervention, a way of engaging with "life on the ground" exactly where it's happening, which serves as this vital counterpoint to everything else. It’s almost like a worldview in itself, offering a completely different kind of message than the one we usually get from the world around us, and honestly, it feels like a quiet, necessary refusal to just accept things as they are.
I truly believe that nothing works quite like a personal example, because that’s the only way you can actually transmit real energy to others. It’s that specific kind of spark—the one that connects people and breathes life into them through a shared sense of purpose—that serves as the absolute backbone of any meaningful activism. You just won't find that kind of collective spirit within the rigid machinery of a government agency or a massive federal bureaucracy, mostly because that raw, driving force comes from a grassroots volunteer movement fueled by pure idealism and a genuine belief in what we can achieve together.
But you have to admit, she possesses this incredible creative force that really acts as a glue for everyone around her. Honestly, the world is just starving for that kind of energy right now—that genuine spirit of cooperation and true friendship.

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but find myself constantly looking toward the horizon, always itching to get out there and tackle some rugged trail or scale a peak, because honestly, there's just something about being high up in the mountains that makes all my little everyday stresses feel completely insignificant. kaže:
So, what I’m getting at—and I think this is exactly what you're seeing as both a massive opportunity and a genuine necessity—is that the entire environment where these volunteers operate needs to step up. We’re talking about that passive layer of society, the folks who aren't necessarily out there on the front lines doing the heavy lifting, but who act as a theoretically active voting bloc, and they really need to be backing the political forces that actually give a damn about the goals and missions these volunteers are working so hard to achieve.
Then you have to consider how political forces, once they actually secure a mandate from the voters, start exerting their influence over the entire bureaucratic machine, which then begins to funnel resources, mobilize agencies, scout out locations, open up job postings, and basically dictate how budgets are proposed and planned all according to their own specific political agenda.

Our voting bloc just doesn't have that kind of critical mass or collective consciousness required to actually trigger a shift that promises real change. It feels like we’re stuck, and a friend was just telling me the other day that we simply don't have the right foundation to leverage progressive individual values into an election result that looks any different from the same old cycle we've been trapped in for years, which basically just keeps us stuck in this aimless, directionless status quo.
It’s honestly kind of a paradox how people tend to just hand power right back to the very folks they should probably be trying to escape from.

My whole philosophy starts with the idea that, generally speaking, following rules and procedures should never take precedence over respecting human life, because the right to live is fundamentally more important than any regulation.
In that light, the responsibility of public agencies to enforce rules shouldn't ever outweigh their broader purpose; if those rules are used to justify someone's suffering or leave them stranded without help, then the system is failing its original mission. Tools like rules and regulations ought to serve the core idea behind them, not the other way around, and we really ought to be adjusting those tools—or finding better ways to think about them—to meet the actual needs of the people and the communities those services are meant to represent.

On the flip side, that purely procedural nature of the government—as he puts it—really undermines its credibility when it comes to upholding the rule of law, mostly because, in my view, the public perception of these institutions has been pretty badly compromised. And for any system to work, people need to trust it. But a system can't maintain the moral support of the community it serves if it lacks that essential layer of credibility.
To help make sense of that connection, I'll include a thought from a professor at the University of Chicago: "There is a profound link between human values and social norms on one hand, and the legitimacy of an economic system on the other."

Later on, once I have a moment, I'll post about Ernesto Sabato and his piece "Community Values" (the fourth letter from his book *Resistance*).

Don't get me wrong—I'm not exactly out here defending "public administration" or "bureaucracy," but it is a product of social evolution, an inevitable byproduct of progress, and we don't really have a better alternative at this stage.

I agree that—on an individual level—it’s often better if someone bypasses a rule to satisfy a higher standard of justice or simple compassion for a neighbor, but rules exist fundamentally (interestingly enough...) to protect the very person who *needs* assistance from being bypassed by someone else who might exploit a loophole.

The common perception is that the bureaucratic machine favors those trying to dodge clear standards while screwing over those whose rights were stripped away by those very dodgers. Of course, that happens—far too often—but that isn't the goal. The goal is the equitable distribution of resources, making that fairness the central benchmark for evaluation.

The fact that such a perception exists is, in itself, a critique of the immaturity of the systems tasked with fair distribution—it's clear that the "human factor" is still under immense pressure to act on tribalism, nepotism, or even organized crime principles like the "Cosa Nostra."

But, I suppose there's no need to dwell on that for too long.....

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Don't get me wrong—I'm not exactly out here defending "public administration" or "bureaucracy," but it is a product of social evolution, an inevitable byproduct of progress, and we don't really have a better alternative at this stage.

I agree that—on an individual level—it’s often better if someone bypasses a rule to satisfy a higher standard of justice or simple compassion for a neighbor, but rules exist fundamentally (interestingly enough...) to protect the very person who *needs* assistance from being bypassed by someone else who might exploit a loophole.

The common perception is that the bureaucratic machine favors those trying to dodge clear standards while screwing over those whose rights were stripped away by those very dodgers. Of course, that happens—far too often—but that isn't the goal. The goal is the equitable distribution of resources, making that fairness the central benchmark for evaluation.

The fact that such a perception exists is, in itself, a critique of the immaturity of the systems tasked with fair distribution—it's clear that the "human factor" is still under immense pressure to act on tribalism, nepotism, or even organized crime principles like the "Cosa Nostra."

But, I suppose there's no need to dwell on that for too long.....

I don't think so. 🙂) Actually, when I first read that, I realized I was probably thinking more along the lines of "bureaucratic madness."
I feel like you have this knack for stripping things down until they reach that necessary, fundamental understanding,
whereas my whole approach tends to lean much more toward the idealistic "how things ought to be,"
even though, deep down, we're really coming from the exact same place.

steelridge58 said:I don't think so. 🙂) Actually, when I first read that, I realized I was probably thinking more along the lines of "bureaucratic madness."
I feel like you have this knack for stripping things down until they reach that necessary, fundamental understanding,
whereas my whole approach tends to lean much more toward the idealistic "how things ought to be,"
even though, deep down, we're really coming from the exact same place.

We are—and I actually find a certain comfort in our disagreement—because that friction always serves as a catalyst for self-reflection and a shared interrogation of ideas, which ultimately leads to a sharpening of our collective perspective.

volver said:Regarding volunteering—not just official charity work, but the general humanitarian impulse to tackle the problems we face in our daily lives—it isn't merely about fixing systemic failures; it’s about intervening in the moment (a sort of "life on the ground") whenever it becomes necessary. In my view, this acts as a counterpoint—a worldview alternative to the prevailing narrative that sends us such qualitatively different messages, representing a refusal to simply conform to the status quo.

Or perhaps even more pointedly: it is an alternative—anarchy versus hierarchy, or antimatter against matter—something that wedges itself in to relieve the pressure, acting as a truth that remains susceptible to all the very maladies that plague the system itself.

lonegardener said:"To pause life, its ineffable process, is not only impossible but, if we try, we shall fall into the blackest of depressions; the days will pass for us lacking all transcendence, they will drag and we can banally waste them, since nothing essential is transacted in them."

Like the difference between stagnant water and a flowing stream?

Charity—much like the labyrinthine halls of federal bureaucracy—seems to possess a rather peculiar, self-perpetuating quality. It functions as a feedback loop, where the very act of providing humanitarian aid often serves only to swell the demand for more... creating a perpetual cycle of intervention that never quite reaches an endpoint...

Sure, even if I personally enjoy being on the opposite side of the fence, I think disagreement is always this great catalyst for self-reflection and collective questioning, which ultimately helps us sharpen our shared perspective.

I feel the exact same way because of that very reason,
it isn't just about disagreeing for the sake of it, but rather having the actual opportunity for dialogue—real, reasoned conversation.

Or to put it even more bluntly; it serves as an alternative, or perhaps anarchy in relation to hierarchy, or like antimatter meeting matter—something that wedges itself in, relieving the pressure—truth, which remains vulnerable to all the same flaws and sicknesses that plague the system itself.

That’s exactly it.

Honestly, that sharper way of framing things was exactly what was needed here.

Looking at what you wrote—specifically that part about truth being subject to all the diseases of the system—I can't help but wonder, where does the core of the problem actually lie?

I guess I would frame it through a comparison like this:

amateurism (our alternative to the establishment) versus professionalism (the established system).

Should we be looking for the answer in the very essence of human freedom and the freedom to simply "be"—is freedom the master key to human potential, the one under which a person's true nature opens up, much like how a vertebra might close up when that same key is turned in the opposite direction?

steelridge58 said:

Sure, even if I personally enjoy being on the opposite side of the fence, I think disagreement is always this great catalyst for self-reflection and collective questioning, which ultimately helps us sharpen our shared perspective.

I feel the exact same way because of that very reason,
it isn't just about disagreeing for the sake of it, but rather having the actual opportunity for dialogue—real, reasoned conversation.

Or to put it even more bluntly; it serves as an alternative, or perhaps anarchy in relation to hierarchy, or like antimatter meeting matter—something that wedges itself in, relieving the pressure—truth, which remains vulnerable to all the same flaws and sicknesses that plague the system itself.

That’s exactly it.

Honestly, that sharper way of framing things was exactly what was needed here.

Looking at what you wrote—specifically that part about truth being subject to all the diseases of the system—I can't help but wonder, where does the core of the problem actually lie?

I guess I would frame it through a comparison like this:

amateurism (our alternative to the establishment) versus professionalism (the established system).

Should we be looking for the answer in the very essence of human freedom and the freedom to simply "be"—is freedom the master key to human potential, the one under which a person's true nature opens up, much like how a vertebra might close up when that same key is turned in the opposite direction?

Indeed, human freedom is the key—it acts simultaneously as our greatest blessing and our most profound curse. Everything we destroy out of a sense of liberty is precisely what we attempt to repair through that same liberty, though even the act of repairing necessitates a certain amount of destruction...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s honestly a little surprising that after being around this forum for so long, you still haven't caught on to the fact that Davor—by his own admission—is just incapable of feeling those kinds of things. No hard feelings 😁

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

That's a pretty interesting look at how someone can basically corrode their own being.

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

Your premise seems to be that one must kill off emotion through sheer force of will, just so the intellect can be liberated to pursue the evolution toward a "new human."

I believe the necessity lies elsewhere—in rationally examining emotions and emotionality from every possible angle to truly understand their role in the human experience. One should acknowledge them rather than fighting them... much like we don't think it's necessary to wage war against our basic physiological needs.
In short, you are currently in a dynamic phase of attempting to rationally analyze emotion, but that phase still feels somewhat... juvenile.

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

Touché...🙏

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Your premise seems to be that one must kill off emotion through sheer force of will, just so the intellect can be liberated to pursue the evolution toward a "new human."

I believe the necessity lies elsewhere—in rationally examining emotions and emotionality from every possible angle to truly understand their role in the human experience. One should acknowledge them rather than fighting them... much like we don't think it's necessary to wage war against our basic physiological needs.
In short, you are currently in a dynamic phase of attempting to rationally analyze emotion, but that phase still feels somewhat... juvenile.

It isn't about killing off your emotions; it's about learning how to channel and sublimate them. If we actually managed to wipe out our feelings entirely, civilization would fall apart overnight.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...ts_Discontents

When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It isn't about killing off your emotions; it's about learning how to channel and sublimate them. If we actually managed to wipe out our feelings entirely, civilization would fall apart overnight.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...ts_Discontents

Actually, I’d argue that altruism, humanitarianism, and volunteering are themselves acts of sublimation—a qualitative transformation of raw emotional instinct into a civilized response to societal dysfunction.

When that emotional impulse proves to be more than just a fleeting moment of affect—when it becomes a sustained state—it finds its outlet in altruism as a philosophical stance, and in humanitarian work and volunteering as practical, political action.

So, framing emotion itself as "the problem" misses the mark entirely here. Since we are dealing with the realm of politics, the counter-response must also be political. For instance, one might use the argument mentioned above—that providing aid actually increases the demand for more aid—but even that falls apart... because the underlying need for help exists regardless of whether anyone steps up to provide it.