Common misconceptions (and how to fix them)

Quote:

restlessbison4 says: In "developed" nations, the primary role assigned to a human being is pretty simple: consumer.

restlessbison4 said:swiftcobra15,

I want to go on a bit of a tangent regarding human needs, specifically looking at
human nature versus manufactured desires.

Everything you mentioned about these artificial needs is basically
something forced upon us just by being born into this world. It’s pretty self-evident.
But what’s truly bizarre is how people don't even stop to ask
why things are this way, or if they could actually be different. Honestly, people are
even willing to hurt others who disagree with them on these very topics,
even when those ideas threaten their own stability. Take religious wars, for instance.
Both sides have their faith, yet both religions essentially
place restrictions on the individual follower. Or you could look at any ideology—
communism, nationalism, all those other "-isms."
Maybe it’s just hardwired into our DNA to obey and follow someone "smarter"
than ourselves—someone who cooked up the rules and laid them down. How else can you explain
the fact that billions of people live almost identical lives? Is there even
an alternative out there?
When did this start? Maybe with the dawn of agriculture? Can we really "blame" farming
for steering civilization in this direction—where the resource holders or the owners of land and corporations
stand opposed to a workforce that, in reality, always works for someone else, never for themselves.
So, why did it happen? Was it for the sake of making life easier for the individual and the community?
Basically, the individual—the worker, someone who doesn't own the key resources—voluntarily
surrenders certain natural rights just so someone else, the owner, will grant them
access to resources, whether those are material or intangible (like the right to coexist
with other people).

Not quite. It really started with the birth of cities and the concept of currency. You see, cities were essentially a necessity for anyone wanting to maintain a paid military force. Soldiers have families, right? So, the easiest way to manage that is to build barracks where both the soldiers and their kin can settle down. But to pay those soldiers, you need money—something they can actually use to buy food, because nothing is growing inside those barracks walls.

Once the idea of money took hold and you could walk into a city and buy pretty much anything, merchants moved in too, hauling produce from the countryside into the urban centers. A pound of potatoes might not mean much to a farmer out in the sticks, but in a city where nothing grows, that potato becomes incredibly valuable. And here's the kicker... very quickly, you end up paying the military in potatoes (because whatever wages you give them immediately goes toward food), and eventually, the military just seizes the land that the farmers are working on. You basically end up in a loop where the farmers are effectively paying the military to stop burning their houses down, stealing their grain, and terrorizing their families, all while you sit back in the shade and profit off basic human greed.

It’s certainly not "human nature" to be a sheep, mindlessly following a shepherd straight to the slaughterhouse. People rarely went to war over high-minded ideals... it was almost always about cash, power, or social standing—and once those things were secured, they figured out how to monetize everything else. Once you move into a city, you become completely dependent on whoever controls the food supply, the money, and the jobs.

In short... they built us prison cells, and we practically moved into them voluntarily.

bluebison70 said:A person is all three of those things... and they have these actual NEEDS, otherwise they wouldn't survive. A human being isn't just some abstract concept. I guess if we try to think about a person while stripping away their material possessions, their social structures, and their spiritual institutions, then what's left... it isn't really a human anymore.

It’s actually quite the opposite... a person enters this world entirely alone, vulnerable and ignorant... everything that follows later
isn't strictly "necessary," because death isn't the end of the story, just the conclusion of this particular chapter...
your definition of what it means to be human is incredibly narrow, mostly because you've fallen for the same old illusions...

Gerald Flores3 said:The whole issue basically stems from how we teach kids today. We just dump a mountain of info and random ideas on them, but we totally fail at actually making them care, you know? Like, nobody’s actually being taught to dig deeper or find that genuine hunger for knowledge through their own curiosity.
With people like that, philosophy doesn't even mean a love for wisdom or truth anymore. It’s pretty much a foreign concept. But honestly, that’s exactly what we need right now—something to help clear up all the nonsense and misconceptions floating around.

The failure of our educational system is perfectly encapsulated by that famous phrase, "The truth is out there," which is nothing more than a lie...

Edward Flores4 said:One of the biggest misconceptions out there—and honestly, it’s baked into how most people view existence—is this idea that we are separate, physical beings who need to "tame" nature and bend it to our will. Because our biological "operating system" is so incredibly sophisticated, we fall into this trap of thinking we’re somehow detached from the planet. A tree doesn't wake up thinking it exists independently of the Earth... and we really start to realize how silly that sounds the moment we try to leave the planet without hauling a little piece of home along with us in a pressurized tin can. But in our day-to-day lives, we just don't see it. We chop down forests to make paper for campaign posters, then print money to buy more land covered in trees. Most people think this is a brilliant way to live because, hey, they get a paycheck at the end of it, but all I want to know is when and to whom the Earth sold its territory—because right now, I'm being forced to pay rent just for the privilege of existing on it.

The whole concept of having an "ego" is just as destructive. When we spend our energy trying to coordinate or suppress something that isn't even fundamentally real... well, it's basically a life sentence with a guaranteed failure rate.

"Culture is man's defense mechanism against nature," says Erich Fromm.

I truly believe that's the common thread tying all of this together.

The "hell squad" rolled into town, laid claim to everything, and shouted "MINE"... and honestly, greed has always been our original sin...

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=51

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
The state should exist solely as an organization comprised of every single member of the community
and it should only "function" when there is a genuine necessity to solve a problem or execute a task
that serves the collective interest of all citizens... people need to actually live their lives instead of squandering everything just to keep the machinery of the state running...
!!!

I suppose there isn't much left to say about shamantrixx... The user says:
They say power acts as a corrupting force, but I’ve always found that perspective a bit shortsighted... the reality is far more cynical: power simply serves as a magnet for those who were already broken, drawing the corruptible toward it like moths to a flame. Those of us with even a shred of sanity tend to be motivated by much more meaningful pursuits than mere dominance...

Well put...

It’s all just noise, isn't it... everything we think we know about how the system functions, only to realize the gears have been grinding against nothing for years...

restlessbison4 said:swiftcobra15,

I want to go on a bit of a tangent regarding human needs, specifically looking at
human nature versus manufactured desires.

Everything you mentioned about these artificial needs is basically
something forced upon us just by being born into this world. It’s pretty self-evident.
But what’s truly bizarre is how people don't even stop to ask
why things are this way, or if they could actually be different. Honestly, people are
even willing to hurt others who disagree with them on these very topics,
even when those ideas threaten their own stability. Take religious wars, for instance.
Both sides have their faith, yet both religions essentially
place restrictions on the individual follower. Or you could look at any ideology—
communism, nationalism, all those other "-isms."
Maybe it’s just hardwired into our DNA to obey and follow someone "smarter"
than ourselves—someone who cooked up the rules and laid them down. How else can you explain
the fact that billions of people live almost identical lives? Is there even
an alternative out there?
When did this start? Maybe with the dawn of agriculture? Can we really "blame" farming
for steering civilization in this direction—where the resource holders or the owners of land and corporations
stand opposed to a workforce that, in reality, always works for someone else, never for themselves.
So, why did it happen? Was it for the sake of making life easier for the individual and the community?
Basically, the individual—the worker, someone who doesn't own the key resources—voluntarily
surrenders certain natural rights just so someone else, the owner, will grant them
access to resources, whether those are material or intangible (like the right to coexist
with other people).

It interests me to consider how historical evidence suggests that this entire mess actually began...
When did those predominantly ranching communities first emerge... though nobody seems to be discussing their origins or how they actually came to be...
And now the farming communities have come under fire... all of this unfolding right in the heart of the territory where they...
The first great civilizations emerged across the Middle East during an era that many people today struggle to even conceptualize...
According to various ancient texts—the Bible, Sumerian chronicles, you name it—there exists a specific point in history when evil first took root on this earth...
How much is it truly possible that this actually occurred... that Evil finally arrived and "selected" the most brilliant among us...
Members of the community were brought in, only to be corrupted by them... isn't it a strange paradox that the very brightest among us are often the ones most susceptible to it...
Is it fair to suggest that certain members of a group are actively working to dismantle whatever remains of their own community... or is that just a cynical way of looking at things?
If you assume certain individuals possess an intellect far above the norm, only to conclude they have somehow defected to the side of evil, then you aren't just questioning their morality... you're questioning whether such people even exist in that capacity...
Just as intelligent as the rest of them, yet their supposed "growth" consists merely of embracing evil... it’s hardly an achievement...
When someone claims they "sold their soul to the devil," the real question isn't about the loss... it's about what exactly they gained in exchange for that transaction, wouldn't you agree...

Of course, I’m not ruling out the possibility that everything mentioned above actually happened quite a lot...
The point is that we shouldn't be wasting our time hunting for "impossible" evidence, but rather reducing everything down to...
It all comes back to the most fundamental concept, if you ask me... one that is inherently dualistic in its very nature... Yin Yang...
To put it simply, the leadership decided on this path a long time ago, opting instead to embrace the principle of evil—the pursuit of power over everything else...
Others were allowed to proceed with their choices, and frankly, no one stepped in to stop them... since Good and Evil are two sides of the same coin...
Different nations receive the same "medals," yet they all follow that same predictable rule... you get exactly what you deserve... or perhaps, exactly what you ask for...
"You reap what you sow"... though I struggle to find even the slightest reason why one shouldn't favor the ambitions of a villain...
They were filled by that same "individual" who also fulfills the desires of the GOOD... because from his...
Perspective is everything... Evil isn't necessarily some inherent wrongness or a purely negative force, but rather just one side of its own polarization...
Nature... Good and evil are merely complementary shifts in the cycle, and one simply cannot exist without the presence of the other...
Without changes, there isn't even a "medal" to speak of, and without that medal, there really isn't anything at all...

The absurdity of modern existence seems to reach its peak when we consider how much energy we expend on trivialities that ultimately leave us exactly where we started... It’s an endless cycle of performative gestures and hollow interactions that serve little purpose other than to fill the silence of our own insignificance... One wonders if anyone actually finds meaning in the noise, or if we are all just drifting through these scripted motions, waiting for a signal that will never come...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Is a non-coercive civilization even feasible? And if it were, how would it differ from what we have today?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Even today, direct communication is nearly impossible even within the smallest "political communities,"
but perhaps we could develop new ways or tools to facilitate that kind of connection.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

The only people who truly crave power over others are those who lack any self-control.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.

Leaders are always standing by, ready to "protect" us from enemies—even when we don't actually have
any enemies other than the leaders themselves, who conveniently manufacture "threats" whenever they need to.

swiftcobra15 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
But wait, did those very first human groups have hierarchical vibes too? I'm no expert on anthropology or anything, but it feels like even back then, there would've been a clear distinction between the shaman and the warrior, the family man and the smart one, the brave one and the fast one... And those traits would naturally carve out someone's place in the group (creating a hierarchy, basically, depending on what the tribe needed at the time).

mistyfox812 said:Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
But wait, did those very first human groups have hierarchical vibes too? I'm no expert on anthropology or anything, but it feels like even back then, there would've been a clear distinction between the shaman and the warrior, the family man and the smart one, the brave one and the fast one... And those traits would naturally carve out someone's place in the group (creating a hierarchy, basically, depending on what the tribe needed at the time).
There was certainly a division of labor and a "natural" social order, which really meant true equality.

Everyone contributed to the group based on their specific talents and capacities,
so while individual differences were obvious, nobody held privilege over anyone else.
The core issue is that social stratification—true hierarchy—often prevents many personal virtues
from ever surfacing because they are stifled by societal oppression.

Only genuine social equality allows an individual's "natural" qualities to truly shine.

Back then, the concept of a "family man" wouldn't have even made sense, because the family and the community were one and the same.

restlessbison4 said:Quote:

restlessbison4 says: In today’s supposedly "advanced" society, we aren't living—we're just fulfilling manufactured desires: We chug mass-produced sodas, eat processed junk, wear synthetic fabrics made in some factory far away, and cram ourselves into concrete high-rise monstrosities. Since manufacturing fake needs is basically the core engine of modern American capitalism, these "needs" just keep multiplying endlessly. There's no such thing as being truly satisfied when the goalposts are always moving.

Maybe these manufactured cravings are becoming the only things the market can actually deliver, mostly because anything genuinely 'natural' is getting harder to find. And if you do find it? God, the price tag.
The system doesn't actually care about satisfying anyone. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a need-generator. For this whole setup to stay upright, it has to convince us all that we're constantly lacking something.
The real question is—how does His Majesty, Capitalism, pull off such a perfect con?

I don't think capitalism actually convinces>> anyone--capitalism isn't a person, after all.
It's just a social framework built on recognizing individual rights, including property rights, where everything is privately owned.
Competition—whether it's for power or just wealth—shows up in pretty much every society, even totalitarian ones (where you won't find capitalism). Capitalism just brings a specific flavor of competition along with a bunch of other useful social traits.

So, how does it "succeed" so well?
Simple: there's no coercion involved. Instead, people are free to produce, sell, or hold onto their goods because they own them. That incentive alone is what keeps everyone pushing and expanding the system...

swiftcobra15 said:

I think the concept of a state—like a tribe—started out as just a set of rules to help people live together more smoothly in one area. People didn't have clear guidelines, so they made deals and picked reps to enforce them.

Also, I don't think digging into exactly how or where it all started is going to give us anything juicy. It's pretty obvious that through history, people have been hunting for the best ethical framework to build a society on... and what we have now is just the best version humans have cooked up so far. We need fresh ideas.

Was actually reading this piece the other day about free societies, socialism, capitalism, and our spiritual needs—this article. It’s split into 7 parts in that previous link, but honestly, it's better to read it part-by-part right here because there are some cool links that got stripped from the combined version.

mistyfox812 said:Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
But wait, did those very first human groups have hierarchical vibes too? I'm no expert on anthropology or anything, but it feels like even back then, there would've been a clear distinction between the shaman and the warrior, the family man and the smart one, the brave one and the fast one... And those traits would naturally carve out someone's place in the group (creating a hierarchy, basically, depending on what the tribe needed at the time).
Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

so, yeah... regarding intellectual development:

well, look, reason is basically the very first manifestation of the axiom of hierarchy that exists at all. reason operates on that exact principle. it’s the thing that categorizes, organizes, and brings order to chaotic sets of information...
every single bit of intellectual work we do exists because of that principle. just try to wrap your head around the alternative: can you even imagine thinking about a topic without breaking it down into what matters and what doesn't? analysis... that's just hierarchy in action. only after you've done that can you reach synthesis... which is when you stitch all those broken-down elements back together into a new whole, where everything feels equal simply because if you left out even one tiny piece, the whole thing wouldn't be right.

it’s both necessary and totally natural. the fact that we can take this necessity and use it to build whatever kind of wholes we want—even ones that are completely nonsensical or actually end up hurting us—that's just part of the principle of free will. I mean, how else could it work? a being without the capacity for choice is nothing more than a puppet on strings... and having freedom of choice inherently means you have the ability to screw up. simple as that...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

😕 😕 😕

What does philosophy actually have to do with intellectual growth?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

Social status certainly stems from the division of labor, but is that something we truly need?

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

Let's assume for a moment that those "gifted teachers" (are there even 5% of them?) earned their way to the top through merit.
The rest likely seized power through force, deception, or some messy combination of both.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Exactly. Society is basically just the physical embodiment of the axiom of hierarchy. Even the simple division of labor found in every single society requires it.

swiftcobra15:

Some people at the "top" are just genuinely great teachers passing their wisdom down to others. And even regarding those who aren't—I mean, who actually allowed them to be at the top? You can only rule a person as much as they allow you to rule them. If there wasn't something in the human spirit that (at least) occasionally hates being a victim, then victims wouldn't exist in the first place...
An axiom: it is impossible to do something to someone that they don't fundamentally want. Desire isn't revealed by what a person thinks, but by what actually happens to them. Society—any society—is an agreement of will that runs much deeper than the superficial level we usually pay attention to.

Besides, if civilization is such a hateful thing to you, what’s keeping you here? Just a couple hundred miles outside of Chicago, there are areas wild enough to let you live exactly like people did a thousand years ago—if that's really what you want. You don't need a bank loan, any special prep, or anything else for a move like that besides pure willpower and the conviction that you're right... so, what's the hold-up? 😁

To be polite, I'll just say you have a rather morbid sense of humor. 👎

swiftcobra15 said:😕 😕 😕

Social status certainly stems from the division of labor, but is that something we truly need?

Sure, social divisions of labor lead to social status, but do we even need that?

Let’s say those who are "good teachers" (are there even 5% of them?) earned their way to the top through merit.
Everyone else got there through force, deception, or some messy mix of both.

Since I'm a polite guy, I'll just tell you that you have a pretty morbid sense of humor. 👎

None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Sure, social divisions of labor lead to social status, but do we even need that?

None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.
None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.
None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.

The concept of "thought" encompasses the Whole. Philosophy predates the intellect and can't simply be built through induction.
The intellect actually dismantles the whole. That’s why I believe "analytical philosophy" is such a distortion of the craft.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Sure, social divisions of labor lead to social status, but do we even need that?

None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.
None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.
None at all, other than the fact that it relies on abstract reasoning—which is essentially the realm of reason, or intellect. Analysis is breaking things down into their core components; abstraction is pulling out the essential elements from the noise. Try imagining philosophy without that.

Like I was saying before, free will. Yeah, people crave status. Just ask them... if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have it in the first place.

And look, this isn't about humor, and it definitely isn't "morbid." It's really just a question of being consistent. You mentioned that you only believe in philosophy that's practical. Well, being practical means actually living out what you believe. If you don't think this civilization is fit for purpose, yet you still choose to be a part of it, then you aren't being consistent, and you certainly aren't being practical.
The reason I'm bringing this up isn't because I'm trying to take a shot at you, it's just that everyone else in this thread seems able to see at least some positive aspects of society. You’re totally denying them. That doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because nothing in this world is ever purely bad. The universe is complicated—simple binaries don't exist—so there's no such thing as something being just good or just evil. Thinking otherwise is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole point of abstraction.
But how could I possibly *not* be a part of it? 😕What am I supposed to do, move to Mars?
Even if I were to take my own life, I couldn't escape being "a part of it."

Ah, regarding intellectual development:

Reason is the primary manifestation of the axiom of hierarchy. Reason operates on this principle; it is the force that divides, organizes, and imposes order upon disordered sets...
All intellectual activity exists because of this principle. Try to imagine the alternative: thinking about any subject without partitioning it into minor and major elements. Analysis is, essentially, hierarchy. Only after that can synthesis occur... which reconnects all dissected elements into a new whole, where everything is equal simply because the whole would be inaccurate without any single part.

This is both necessary and natural. The fact that we can use this necessity and naturalness to construct whatever wholes we desire—even those that are entirely senseless or harmful to ourselves—is part of the principle of free will. How else could it work? A being without the capacity for choice is merely a puppet on strings... and freedom of choice necessitates the possibility of error. Simple as that...

Lawrence Robinson5, I appreciate your posts and your contributions to other topics. 🙂

Thought "encompasses" the Whole. Philosophy predates the intellect and cannot arise inductively.
The intellect destroys the whole. Therefore, "analytical philosophy" is a distortion of philosophy.

swiftcobra15, could you clarify the statement that philosophy is older than the intellect? Do we not create linguistic analyses specifically by using the intellect derived from the mind?

How could I not be a part of it? By going to Mars?
Even if I were to take my own life, I could not avoid being "a part of it."

swiftcobra15, hell is also a part of it; you can laugh at us from there.😬

restlessridge36 said:

Ah, regarding intellectual development:

Reason is the primary manifestation of the axiom of hierarchy. Reason operates on this principle; it is the force that divides, organizes, and imposes order upon disordered sets...
All intellectual activity exists because of this principle. Try to imagine the alternative: thinking about any subject without partitioning it into minor and major elements. Analysis is, essentially, hierarchy. Only after that can synthesis occur... which reconnects all dissected elements into a new whole, where everything is equal simply because the whole would be inaccurate without any single part.

This is both necessary and natural. The fact that we can use this necessity and naturalness to construct whatever wholes we desire—even those that are entirely senseless or harmful to ourselves—is part of the principle of free will. How else could it work? A being without the capacity for choice is merely a puppet on strings... and freedom of choice necessitates the possibility of error. Simple as that...

Lawrence Robinson5, I appreciate your posts and your contributions to other topics. 🙂

Thought "encompasses" the Whole. Philosophy predates the intellect and cannot arise inductively.
The intellect destroys the whole. Therefore, "analytical philosophy" is a distortion of philosophy.

swiftcobra15, could you clarify the statement that philosophy is older than the intellect? Do we not create linguistic analyses specifically by using the intellect derived from the mind?

How could I not be a part of it? By going to Mars?
Even if I were to take my own life, I could not avoid being "a part of it."

swiftcobra15, hell is also a part of it; you can laugh at us from there.😬

Western philosophy originally emerged from a syncretic state of consciousness, and it was from that foundation that our individual sciences eventually branched off.

While certain animals exhibit intelligence—and we can even build intelligent machines—true human consciousness remains our unique domain.

These days, there's a massive push to idolize science and force philosophy to take a backseat to it. I believe intellect, acting as the purely analytical slice of our consciousness, actually destroys wholeness. It lacks the capacity to create anything meaningful; it just builds technology, which often ends up tearing our world apart because its nature is inherently destructive.