Internet Philosophy: How can we apply the "spirit of the web" to restructuring society?

crimsonseal15 said:I mean, whether the technology views us as its tool or as an extension of itself. Think of it like a Monopoly piece being used by players during a game—it doesn't feel any resentment about it. Or like those old "Russian reversal" jokes where the situation flips on you.

The thing is, neither technology nor a game die actually exists in a way that allows them to "use" anything. They can certainly be links in a causal chain, but saying they "use" something is purely metaphorical. A hammer can only be used by another entity if that second entity is also essentially just a tool—something that exists merely as a functional accessory rather than a truly independent agent.

How do you say "struggle" in the original German?

How can we tell if something actually "exists in the sense of a struggle"?

I’m not entirely sure what we’re trying to achieve here, but if this is meant to be some sort of profound statement, it feels a bit like staring at a blank wall in a studio apartment in Chicago and calling it "minimalism." It's just empty space. If there was supposed to be a point buried under that word, I think it got lost somewhere between the keyboard and the screen. kaže:
How do you actually say "struggle" in the original German?

It’s technically "Dasein." But you have to be careful, because when we’re talking about Heidegger Dasein, it isn't carrying the same weight as how someone might use the term in casual German conversation, nor does it mean the same thing as when you find it in the works of Hegel.

I don't know if it's just me, or if everyone else is also feeling like we're collectively losing our grip on reality lately, but there’s this pervasive sense of toxicity creeping into everything. It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash where nobody wants to hit the brakes because they're too busy arguing about the color of the upholstery. You see it everywhere—from the comment sections on a random Reddit thread to the way people interact in the breakroom at a place like Starbucks—it’s this constant, low-level agitation that feels less like genuine disagreement and more like a systemic glitch in how we process social friction. We've traded nuanced conversation for these instant, sharp-edged reactions that leave everyone feeling slightly more bitter than they were five minutes ago. It’s exhausting, honestly, to navigate a landscape where being "right" has become more important than actually being civil or even remotely sane. kaže:
How can we even tell if something actually exists in that hollow, "test tube" kind of way?

So, here’s the breakdown: when we talk about existing as a "being-in-the-world," we aren't just talking about being "inside" the world like a coffee mug sitting on a Starbucks counter—that's just being "inner-worldly." Real existence is more fundamental than that. To exist as a being-in-the-world is essentially defined by "care," and if you follow that thread to its logical conclusion, the whole meaning of care boils down to temporality. But look, I realize that sounds like a lot of heavy lifting, and honestly, unless you've actually slogged through *Being and Time* or at least skimmed the outline in our other discussion thread on "Heidegger: Being and Time...", trying to grasp the full weight of this is probably going to feel like trying to read a manual written in ancient hieroglyphics.

So I’ve been reading through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology, but I can't seem to track down the term "innerweltlich." Is that actually a specific part of Heidegger's terminology, or just a general way of putting it?

If a simple object—like a die—can't exist in the same way as Dasein, would we call its mode of being "being-in-the-world," or is there a more precise term for that?

crimsonseal15 said:So I’ve been reading through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology, but I can't seem to track down the term "innerweltlich." Is that actually a specific part of Heidegger's terminology, or just a general way of putting it?

If a simple object—like a die—can't exist in the same way as Dasein, would we call its mode of being "being-in-the-world," or is there a more precise term for that?

Being ("Sein") that isn't quite "being" exists in two distinct modes:
1. through the mode of readiness or "readiness-to-hand" ("Zuhandenheit") and
2. through the mode of mere presence or "presence-at-hand" ("Vorhandenheit").

The internet, obviously, exists exclusively in that state of readiness-to-hand. Meanwhile, a simple die is capable of existing in both modes of non-fundamental being.

So, I’m curious to get everyone’s take on this Russian reversal: the dice control the players. Have you ever spent time in a casino or playing those e-sports titles? Or maybe just caught a glimpse of kids glued to their phones, all acting according to the level of freedom those dice allow them.

crimsonseal15 said:So, I’m curious to get everyone’s take on this Russian reversal: the dice control the players. Have you ever spent time in a casino or playing those e-sports titles? Or maybe just caught a glimpse of kids glued to their phones, all acting according to the level of freedom those dice allow them.

I believe people are always the ones in control. A person rolls the dice, but then they choose whether or not to follow what the numbers dictate. It is just like anything else we use, from smartphones to computers and the internet. We are the ones using these tools, and we decide exactly how much influence they have over us.

But there’s this certain force—I think the term is a "bond"—that exists between a person and the dice. It can be subtle, or it can be incredibly powerful.

Does this imply that if I decide to launch my own forum and start posting, the platform itself would somehow begin to exert an influence over me?

It seems like you're being influenced. Is it this forum itself, or just your own perspective? I honestly can't tell who's pulling the strings here. I’m feeling a bit conflicted about it all.

I believe these concepts are intertwined.

Inanimate objects lack agency; they don't act on their own. Instead, we are the ones who feel drawn to or repelled by them. That said, because those external influences exist independently of us, one could argue they still exert an effect.

Ideally, we maintain control over how we respond to these outside forces. For instance, if a certain movie feels unsettling, we can simply choose not to watch it, effectively severing that connection. However, what happens when we find ourselves unable to resist? When something becomes an addiction and we lack the strength to defend ourselves against its pull, it feels as though an inanimate object has gained power over us. 🤔

It is a complex issue. 😁

1.

On August 25th, Sigmund Freud wrote a post recommending the Wand to us all

Sigmund Freud said:Look, Wand, it’s really not as straightforward as you’re making it out to be. I’d highly suggest picking up this book (I certainly did!):
http://www.amazon.com/books/example-link

To be honest, I love reading Sigmund Freud's posts, but I can't say the same for his reading list or what he's planning to dive into next.

3. I suspect he probably feels the exact same way about my taste...

4. The reason I don't care for his literary picks—or his intended reading list—is that his favorite books seem to lack any sense of the INNER life. You know, the spiritual and mystical search for identity, the "who am I" and "why am I here" questions, and how to find an exit from this decaying world that Buddha describes as transient.

5. Most of Sigmund Freud's preferred reading is focused on the external side of things—think sociology, philosophy, politics, metaphysics, and that sort of thing.

6. But Buddha, Hamvaš, Cioran, Osho, and Niels Bohr all suggest that those fields won't save us from this fleeting, unreliable, and often miserable world we inhabit.

6. So, when Sigmund recommended that book above, I just waved it off immediately. I "knew" instinctively it was going to be one of those sweeping, over-generalized socio-political history books... something along the lines of *The Decline of the West* or *The End of History*, or perhaps just more of that modern intellectual-linguistic madness like Žižek, Lacan, or Derrida. 😵

But still.....

7. A few days ago, during my regular visit to my favorite local library, I noticed a Freudian recommendation had landed right on the new arrivals shelf 😲

8. I couldn't help but see it as a "divine nudge"—a perfect moment of synchronicity and a sign from my HCA that I really ought to give this Freudian work a read.

Between his massive contributions to this forum and civilization at large, plus the fact that I’ve been navigating the internet for twenty years now, I figured it was high time I learned a bit more about the wild frontiers of the digital world...

9. Unfortunately, I couldn't check it out immediately since I already had three books checked out on my account...

10. I actually spent the whole night worrying someone else might snag it, but luckily, it was still there waiting for me.

11. The next day, I finally checked it out, and I'm currently diving into it 👍

12. It's honestly fantastic—engaging, thought-provoking, and packed with unexpected insights and data...

13. So, my plan is to share some of the key ideas and discoveries with those of you who won't be reading it yourselves

14. I'll be rolling these out slowly over the next few days.

If you want to get a real feel for what this book is all about, try checking these out:

https://www.dopmagazin.com/dop/2017/...am-otvara-oci/

https://www.ravnododna.com/andrew-ke...-bilo-pitanje/

The internet itself isn't the silver bullet, but certain technologies built on top of it—likely emerging after that book was released—could certainly become the answer.

For instance:
- Tech that guarantees anonymity, which essentially protects free speech through tools like Tor.
- Tech that can actually generate new livelihoods, such as cryptocurrency and decentralized business models.

At the end of the day, people will likely keep taking selfies and happily living as products for corporations like Meta or Google; if they’re fine with it, I don't have any problem with it either.

hiddenpuma75 said:1.

On August 25th, Sigmund Freud wrote a post recommending the Wand to us all

To be honest, I love reading Sigmund Freud's posts, but I can't say the same for his reading list or what he's planning to dive into next.

3. I suspect he probably feels the exact same way about my taste...

4. The reason I don't care for his literary picks—or his intended reading list—is that his favorite books seem to lack any sense of the INNER life. You know, the spiritual and mystical search for identity, the "who am I" and "why am I here" questions, and how to find an exit from this decaying world that Buddha describes as transient.

5. Most of Sigmund Freud's preferred reading is focused on the external side of things—think sociology, philosophy, politics, metaphysics, and that sort of thing.

6. But Buddha, Hamvaš, Cioran, Osho, and Niels Bohr all suggest that those fields won't save us from this fleeting, unreliable, and often miserable world we inhabit.

6. So, when Sigmund recommended that book above, I just waved it off immediately. I "knew" instinctively it was going to be one of those sweeping, over-generalized socio-political history books... something along the lines of *The Decline of the West* or *The End of History*, or perhaps just more of that modern intellectual-linguistic madness like Žižek, Lacan, or Derrida. 😵

But still.....

...to their own detriment... Besides, that isn't even true, because I've actually suggested literature to you that isn't just "external" (whatever that implies, though that's just part of your penchant for obscurantism—stuffing things with vague, undefined labels...). Do you even remember when I recommended the book "Platonic reality" to you?

hiddenpuma75 said:1.

On August 25th, Sigmund Freud wrote a post recommending the Wand to us all

To be honest, I love reading Sigmund Freud's posts, but I can't say the same for his reading list or what he's planning to dive into next.

3. I suspect he probably feels the exact same way about my taste...

4. The reason I don't care for his literary picks—or his intended reading list—is that his favorite books seem to lack any sense of the INNER life. You know, the spiritual and mystical search for identity, the "who am I" and "why am I here" questions, and how to find an exit from this decaying world that Buddha describes as transient.

5. Most of Sigmund Freud's preferred reading is focused on the external side of things—think sociology, philosophy, politics, metaphysics, and that sort of thing.

6. But Buddha, Hamvaš, Cioran, Osho, and Niels Bohr all suggest that those fields won't save us from this fleeting, unreliable, and often miserable world we inhabit.

6. So, when Sigmund recommended that book above, I just waved it off immediately. I "knew" instinctively it was going to be one of those sweeping, over-generalized socio-political history books... something along the lines of *The Decline of the West* or *The End of History*, or perhaps just more of that modern intellectual-linguistic madness like Žižek, Lacan, or Derrida. 😵

But still.....

Actually, he doesn't. But that might just be a false asymmetry based on the hypothetical fact that I happen to read more than you do.

hiddenpuma75 said:7. A few days ago, during my regular visit to my favorite local library, I noticed a Freudian recommendation had landed right on the new arrivals shelf 😲

8. I couldn't help but see it as a "divine nudge"—a perfect moment of synchronicity and a sign from my HCA that I really ought to give this Freudian work a read.

Between his massive contributions to this forum and civilization at large, plus the fact that I’ve been navigating the internet for twenty years now, I figured it was high time I learned a bit more about the wild frontiers of the digital world...

9. Unfortunately, I couldn't check it out immediately since I already had three books checked out on my account...

10. I actually spent the whole night worrying someone else might snag it, but luckily, it was still there waiting for me.

11. The next day, I finally checked it out, and I'm currently diving into it 👍

12. It's honestly fantastic—engaging, thought-provoking, and packed with unexpected insights and data...

13. So, my plan is to share some of the key ideas and discoveries with those of you who won't be reading it yourselves

14. I'll be rolling these out slowly over the next few days.

There you go. I'm not out here recommending random garbage. Everything I suggest is carefully considered, useful, educational, and so on...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Wand, it’s really not quite as straightforward as you’re making it out to be. Honestly, I’d highly recommend picking this book up (I certainly did!):
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/example-link

1. I just finished reading that fantastic book Amanda Jackson5 recommended.

2. I had every intention of dropping some insights or mind-blowing facts here from time to time, but the future seems to be arriving much faster than any of us anticipated—I honestly don't have the time, or maybe even the headspace for it right now.

3. I'll try to present my thoughts more "promotively" next time, with plenty of fanfare...

4. You might think I'm being hyperbolic, but trust me, I'm not.

5. This book is absolutely stunning if you consider that 99 out of 100 people are completely oblivious to the revolution happening right before our eyes. That goes for everyone, whether they're just average folks or intellectuals like ND, Amanda Jackson5, Wand, addx Beljki, and others just like us.

6. About 90% of the intuitions, beliefs, or judgments you hold regarding the internet, society, business, and psychology are likely wrong, and this book will help you realize exactly why...

7. I actually think there should be a law making this a MANDATORY exam for anyone looking to sign up with an ISP or gain access to the virtual world...

8. Just like how you need to pass a test to get a driver's license, a boating permit, or a concealed carry permit, access to the internet should be tied to understanding this book and its implications. AFTER ALL, YOU ARE PART OF THE NET, AND YOU ARE THE ONES SHAPING ITS POLICIES.

So, let's take a quick trip back to 1913 in the US.

Imagine if a single PRIVATE corporation held absolute control over the mail service, the telephone lines, public libraries, printing presses, every mapping agency, and even the movie theaters—all while being completely unaccountable to the public. 😲
That sounds like an impossible, terrifying dystopia, doesn't it?

Yet, just one hundred years later, we find ourselves living that exact reality within the digital realm.

The thing is, the virtual world isn't some far-off fantasy; it's inextricably linked to our "real world."

THE VIRTUAL WORLD IS AN EXTENSION OF REALITY, CO-CREATED BY COMPUTERS AND OURSELVES.

Of course, any US President back in 1913 would have moved heaven and earth to limit the kind of overwhelming power such a company could wield and the massive implications that influence carries.

In our era, that company is Google, though Microsoft and Apple hold remarkably similar levels of sway.

This is a pretty blunt take, and I’m definitely oversimplifying things here. It seems to me that most of you—addx, hiddenpuma75, and probably the majority of this group—are "pro-capitalism," while Amanda Jackson5 and mravac88 seem to be the critics leaning toward "socialism."

The core argument from the pro-capitalist side usually goes like this: socialism was doomed to fail because it had to, whereas capitalism rewards those who are talented, bold, and hardworking. In theory, it creates a win-win where both the capitalists and the "working class" can actually prosper.

The critique of socialism is that it leaves everyone equally broke, leaving society stuck in neutral.

From an ethical standpoint, capitalism is undeniably selfish. But since human nature is inherently self-interested, some argue that selfishness is actually a virtue—a concept championed by Ayn Rand.

On the flip side, socialism presents itself as the "good guy" because it aims to redistribute wealth "fairly" for the benefit of society rather than the individual. But let's be honest: people just prefer leaving a legacy to their own families rather than handing it over to some state-run collective or commune.

==
So, after that somewhat reductive breakdown of the arguments against capitalism, I have to say that "real-world" capitalism actually looks quite benevolent when you compare it to the capitalism of the digital world.

The book lays out some absolutely dizzying figures regarding how much wealth a tiny handful of tech giants are pulling in...

THE REAL ISSUE is that this new wave of individual wealth generated in the virtual space has effectively wiped out millions of jobs and livelihoods in the "physical world."

Whether you’re a bookstore owner, a photographer, an artist, an actor, a filmmaker, a taxi driver, a writer, or a journalist... you've likely seen your livelihood and your hard-earned income vanish.

People often point to the downfall of Kodak as the ultimate cautionary tale—a massive company that essentially let billions of precious photographs slip through its fingers.
On Facebook and Instagram.

Back in 1989, Kodak was an absolute powerhouse, employing around 145,000 people. It wasn't just a massive corporation; the entire city of Rochester essentially thrived on the photography business.

Fast forward twenty-five years to 2013, and Kodak was still employing 8,500 people. It’s a heavy thought, really—how that entire company and all those families were essentially wiped out by the rise of free digital sharing on platforms like Instagram and Facebook. Honestly, we’re all somewhat responsible for that shift.

Let’s be honest: the money that Kodak lost didn't just vanish into thin air. It wasn't simply swallowed by the market; it was funneled directly into the pockets of a few select individuals.

It’s the same story with just about any other profession, really.

The core issue here is that such an immense amount of wealth has concentrated into the hands of just a tiny handful of individuals. When people have enough capital to drop millions on 400-foot superyachts, it doesn't exactly feel like that money is being reinvested into the community or doing much to advance the common good.