A Philosophical Dialogue

Respect to the people!
Greek philosophy is basically the bedrock of Western thought and science. It all kicks off with Thales somewhere around 585 BCE. The Milesian school really gained its footing through contact with Babylonian and Egyptian ideas—knowledge that was largely buried along with the Library of Alexandria. We’re talking about a philosophical lineage that stretches back to 4000 BCE. But then you have Indian philosophy—this massive, incredibly complex spiritual and intellectual framework—which starts with the Rigveda. Those are some of the oldest written records of the human spirit, dating all the way back to 10,000 BCE. They flow into the Upanishads, which go from 1000 to 300 BCE. So, when you look at it, Eastern philosophy predates Greece and served as a primary driver and source for much of it, especially those traditions found in Egypt. It’s worth noting that while Greek philosophy heavily shaped the European linear way of thinking, Euclidean geometry, and mechanical physics, Indian and Far Eastern philosophies have had a profound impact on modern Western wave-quantum science—specifically modern physics. Therefore, if we're looking strictly at the timeline, Far Eastern philosophy is older than the West and actually aligns more closely with modern science than Greek philosophy does. In my view, within a philosophical context, Eastern philosophy is "truer" and holds more value than Western thought—which doesn't mean Western philosophy is useless, of course!

geza said:.... So, if we’re looking at this chronologically, Eastern philosophy actually predates Western—or rather, ancient philosophy from places like Greece—and it seems way more aligned with modern science than the Western tradition does. ...

The real issue here is that we're using the exact same word to describe two totally different things.
Most people today treat philosophy as a "love of wisdom"—basically the study of being wise.
Personally, though—and I guess this is just my take—I see philosophy more as a love of truth.

This whole conflict gets somewhat "smoothed over" because people try to bundle them together—treating one as a tool for the other. So, for the "wisdom seekers," truth is just raw material used to build wisdom. But for the "truth seekers," wisdom is always the means to an end—whether that's a way to protect oneself from logical fallacies, a method for passing knowledge along (sometimes even "sneaking" insights past stubborn or hostile authorities and the masses!), or just a practical way to apply what they know to the real world.

I really think this clash hides a certain bias toward one specific type of philosophy or the other.

At the end of the day, though—any insight into WHAT REALLY IS—is incredibly valuable for humanity. In that sense, the differences (even when it comes to actual achievements) don't really matter.

When it comes to methodology, though—there's a bit of a snag—because honestly, none of the famous methods seem to fully hit the mark.
Even the ways we pass knowledge down feel almost like a matter of individual cleverness or how well someone can spin a story. And, well, we have to face the fact that even some of the greatest philosophers failed to get their core messages across. So, either they didn't actually have a clear message (which seems pretty unlikely when you look at their work and what they were hinting at), or their teaching methods just flopped.

Ultimately—methods for applying knowledge are super prone to "wisdom deviations," you know, like deception and lies. That's probably why there's so much intense hatred directed toward certain philosophies or thinkers.

But, let me get back to the main point. Each of us is living proof that philosophy would exist even without the Ancients. The real question is how much their ideas actually shaped our culture versus how much influence came from other traditions that might be tens of thousands of years older.

To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about Eastern philosophies. But—if they really are that valuable—it feels weird (and honestly such a shame) that these ideas aren't more popular, especially in huge areas like metaphysics, methodology, or even politics and economics.

I mean, take ancient Indian civilizations, for example—their local municipalities were so famous for being self-sufficient and resilient, even through all those collapsing dynasties and changing rulers. It makes you wonder: are we looking at Marxist lies here, or the truth? Because if it *is* the truth—isn't it basically impossible for a community to live in peace for that long WITHOUT GOOD LAWS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE? If those laws and systems were actually working, they must have been modeled after something. And that model had to be passed down, maybe through writing or oral tradition—perhaps even as a set of commands. But you couldn't have any of that without solid philosophical understanding and education.
.......

the people says:
But—and here’s the kicker—it seems the great philosophers didn't actually manage to land their core messages. So, either they never really had them (which is hard to believe when you look at the material and what they’re hinting at), or their way of explaining things just completely flopped.

hollowpilot9:

That’s really the heart of the matter when you’re debating philosophical legacy. Personally, I treat those "old" guys like required reading just to get a sense of how our predecessors thought and what they were chewing on, but I haven't given them much actual weight for a long time—mostly because they failed to answer the big philosophical questions. I remember writing something like this once: Traditional philosophies definitely contain valuable nuggets, but they’re also packed with a whole lot of garbage. Sifting through an entire philosophical legacy just to hunt for a single "gem" is a pretty inefficient way to live. It’s smarter to take the tools and the knowledge base we have today and use them to tackle both old and new questions. We could always rewrite the philosophical questions from scratch and see what a Socratic or Platonic response looks like versus yours, mine, or ours in the modern day, right? To me, repetition and apology in philosophy is just pure nonsense—as Unamuno would put it: FOG!

the people says:
Anyway, back to the point. Every one of us is living proof that philosophy would exist even without the Old Guard. The real question is how much their philosophy actually shaped our culture and thought, versus how much influence came from other traditions that are tens of thousands of years older.

hollowpilot9:

I picked this Hegelian quote out of a gentleman's manuscript: "Philosophy is an investigation. It is not a product of individual creation, but the result of the work of individual investigations by generations of thinkers." I’m on board with that definition. By that logic, philosophy is primarily the investigation of truth, which means investigating the whole. My take is that these "old philosophers"—or rather, "early philosophers"—found the philosophical truth long ago, only to foolishly negate it, leading to new philosophers who find the truth again, only to foolishly negate it all over again... all the way down to the present day. Nowadays, plenty of people claim that philosophical truths no longer exist, or that traditional philosophy essentially died off with German ideology... and so on. My view? We need to rediscover this "old" or "early" lost truth and offer it up to clear away the pessimism, fatalism, and this lazy perspective we've fallen into...???

the people says:
Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about Eastern philosophies. But—if they are truly that valuable, it’s strange (and a huge shame) that these ideas don't enjoy any popularity, at least in broad and vital areas like metaphysics and methodology, or even political science and economics.

hollowpilot9: I totally agree, and it is a tragedy! It seems our Westernized culture—and by extension, our philosophy—has so thoroughly blocked our minds that we view any Eastern culture or philosophy as mere mysticism. Meanwhile, our Western friends used that very "mysticism" to unlock unprecedented scientific breakthroughs regarding the microworld. Bhor didn't choose a "Socratic head" for its knightly symbol; it chose the Yin-Yang symbol, and certainly for good reason. How narrow-minded our Western bias is is best demonstrated by the fact that not a single scientist on the academic circuit has stepped up to praise Capra's book "The Tao of Physics"! Instead, the finger-pointing was directed at me simply because my interlocutors haven't the slightest clue what Capra is actually writing about or why!

I try to emphasize this quite often here, though usually without much success: there is a massive difference between a linear and a non-linear perception of the world, between an organic and a non-organic approach to research, between complementarity and exclusivity, and between three-dimensional and four-dimensional space-time. The distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy lies precisely in the fact that Eastern philosophy is grounded in the organic, while the West is non-organic. That specific fact gives the edge to Eastern philosophy, especially since humanity seems to be entering its organic era. The physical era is behind us. At least, that's how I see it.

geza said:That’s really the heart of the matter when you're diving into a debate about philosophical legacy. For me—and I guess this might be a bit unconventional—I tend to treat those "old school" philosophers more like required reading for a history class. It's a great way to see how our predecessors thought and what their specific preoccupations were, but I haven't really given them much weight in terms of practical application lately. I mean, honestly, it's mostly because they just didn't quite hit the mark on those big, fundamental philosophical questions we're still grappling with today!

So, here’s the big question—why were they all dancing around the issue like a bunch of kids playing tag near a hot stove!? I mean, was it some kind of deep-seated wisdom—you know, that cautious instinct to play it safe and avoid making a massive blunder—or maybe Truth itself is just so blindingly brilliant that it would have completely fried the brain of an average person? Or... who knows! Maybe they were just terrified of how the folks in power might react? There could be so many reasons, honestly!

geza said:I remember jotting down something like this once—I guess my take was that while traditional philosophies definitely hold some gems, they’re also packed with a whole lot of junk. Honestly, trying to sift through that entire philosophical legacy just to hunt for a single "nugget" of wisdom feels like such an inefficient way to work!

That’s an A+ for the effort—really! But I still can't help but feel those piles of trash need to be buried or cleared out ASAP—otherwise, we’re just going to end up playing catch-up later when we should have been moving forward. To me, the bigger headache is figuring out how to force this clueless administration—if that's what it takes—to actually invest in decent libraries for the younger generations. I mean, think about it: how was someone like Hegel able to dive into Pythagorean philosophy back then? And where did he even find the space to do all that reading? If he could manage it, why on earth don't we have that kind of access TODAY? We live in an era where a single daily newspaper probably contains more information than all the philosophical texts from that whole period combined—not to mention the internet making global information exchange basically instant—and yet, it feels like we're falling behind. It's just frustrating, I guess!
Is this all just happening so some out-of-touch bureaucrats and academic snobs can cling to their cushy, high-paying gigs? Or—and maybe I'm overthinking this—is it actually about keeping certain secrets tucked away from the public eye? I guess there are a few ways to look at it!

Geza said:...
With all the incredible tools and deep knowledge bases we have at our fingertips today, I honestly think it’s much smarter to tackle those age-old philosophical questions—and the new ones too—from this vantage point. We could always just rewrite the old inquiries to see how, say, a Socratic or Platonic response would look—or better yet, what yours, mine, or our own perspectives might be in this modern era. To me, just repeating the same old arguments or constantly making excuses for them feels like a total waste of time—it’s pure nonsense! It’s exactly like Unamuno said: it's nothing but FOG!

So, this is where things get practical! Honestly, there’s just so much material out there that if you tried to cram it all into one place, you’d end up stuck in a total Sisyphus loop—just endlessly circling the same ideas. I guess that’s what people mean when they talk about the endless grind of philosophy of being research. Because of that, I really think we need to make actual moves forward whenever someone manages to digest a new concept—or, you know, when they hit those "digestive issues" after trying to swallow too much information at once!
And that’s definitely the surest path toward making progress! I guess the only things we're still missing now are the right location and a solid team to pull it off... maybe!

geza said:I was just flipping through some old manuscripts from this gentleman I know, and I stumbled upon this one Hegel quote that really stuck with me—it’s such a great way to look at things! He basically said: "Philosophy is research. It isn't just some product of individual creativity, but rather the result of generations of thinkers working together through their own individual research." I guess it's a nice reminder that we're all just standing on the shoulders of giants, right?

Exactly! You don't even need to invent her—it’s just there. I mean, it's part of our basic human drive to explore, isn't it? Even if we're doing it purely to push the boundaries of mental progress and realize what we're actually capable of. That’s why those big labels like "generations of thinkers" tend to mask the actual individuals behind them—the people who really make everything work. At the end of the day, it's only when we stand as individuals that we can truly be ourselves... you know, be human.

Walter Foster87 said:... I totally agree—it’s actually pretty sad! It feels like our Westernized culture, and by extension our entire approach to philosophy, has kind of boxed in our minds so much that we just dismiss any Eastern culture or philosophy as mere mysticism...

That might be true, but hey—"Here is Rhodes, jump here!" This is the perfect opening for anyone actually interested in Eastern thought.
What even is a state, anyway? Why do people feel forced to live by laws, even when those laws are just old customs? And what about politics? Why do leaders go through such massive amounts of effort—and make all these (sort of subservient) sacrifices—just to stay in power? I mean, if ALL OF HISTORY (in every single society and nation, without exception) teaches us anything, it's how futile those efforts really are and, honestly, how inhumane they can be.

Walter Foster87 said:...
The core difference between Eastern and Western philosophy is that Eastern thought is built on an organic foundation, whereas Western thought is non-organic. That distinction actually gives Eastern philosophy a bit of an edge, since it seems like humanity is heading toward its own "organic era." We're moving past the purely physical era—at least, that's my take on things.

I don't quite catch the main point there, unless maybe the "Leviathan" is actually that Eastern streak hiding inside Western philosophy.

Democracy:
So, here’s the real question—why were they dancing around the issue like someone trying to navigate a minefield in flip-flops? Was it some kind of deep-seated survival instinct—you know, that specific brand of wisdom born purely from being terrified of making a mistake—or was it because the Truth is just so overwhelmingly massive that it would essentially fry the average person's brain if they actually looked at it directly? Or maybe they were just sweating bullets over how the folks in Washington might react... or who knows? What else could it be?

hollowpilot9:

Everything I’ve dug up leads me back to the same conclusion—they were essentially dancing around the point because their brains were hardwired for the "holy trinity" and that standard three-dimensional way of thinking. We finally have Euclid and Euclidean geometry to our credit, which, granted, paved the way for the whole tech-heavy civilization we’re living in now. But honestly? That mindset makes it impossible to actually grasp the Truth they were chasing. In my view, the Truth only really starts to manifest—both scientifically and philosophically—once we step into the fourth dimension. This gives today's philosophers a massive opening, a real shot at uncovering something real, provided they can actually wrap their heads around it. They need to stop playing it safe and look closely at the last fifty years—specifically how many things we were "dead certain" about yesterday turned out to be complete nonsense today. It’s all about being willing to strain the brain a little, isn't it?

Democracy.
Fine—I’ll give that a solid A+. But honestly, I still think those piles of trash need to be buried before we find ourselves in a situation where we're basically trying to reinvent the wheel just to stay afloat. The bigger issue here is how we force this clueless administration—if we even have to go that route—to actually secure decent libraries for the younger generations. I mean, how was someone like Hegel even able to sit down and digest the philosophy of Pythagoras? Where did he do it, and how much access did he really have? If he managed to pull that off, why don't we have that kind of accessibility TODAY—especially now, when a single daily newspaper probably contains more information than all the philosophical literature from his era combined, and since the Internet has essentially made global information exchange effortless? Why aren't we seeing that level of depth right now?
Is this all just a way for some out-of-touch bureaucrats and career academics to protect their bloated, taxpayer-funded salaries? Or maybe—just maybe—it’s because there are certain things they still don't want the public getting their hands on?
I haven't seen any posts from hollowpilot9 yet—is there something I missed? Or are we just sitting here in silence waiting for the first word to drop? It feels like one of those quiet afternoons in a small town where nothing happens until suddenly everything does. Anyway, I'm around. What's on everyone's mind?

Who wants to go digging? Even the old-school miners found a few nuggets of gold buried under all that waste rock. My take—and feel free to disagree—is that you really have to dig through the history of philosophy, or just human intellect in general, before you can get anywhere. But then, more importantly, you’ve got to wrap your head around what we actually know now in biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, psychology, and so on. Once you realize that some of our most cutting-edge modern findings are basically echoes of ancient insights, that’s when the real fire of philosophy finally ignites. Now, mind you, I’m talking about actual original work here—not just some lazy imitation or a desperate attempt at an apology for existing ideas. So, yeah, I’m totally with the sentiment of "if Pythagoras could pull it off, why can't we do it today?" Honestly, from my very first day on this Forum, I've been pushing for exactly this: let's start researching by actually revisiting and revising all those tired theories people still cling to like life rafts. But the resistance is just too massive... it's always easier to just parrot what someone else already said, isn't it? Much easier than thinking for yourself.

Democracy:
So, here’s the practical side of things. There is just so much raw material available that if you tried to wrap yourself up in all of it, you’d end up stuck in a Sisyphus-style loop of endless philosophizing—just pushing the same thoughts up a hill forever. That’s why you have to make actual moves whenever you manage to digest a new idea—or, on the flip side, when you start getting a bit of "indigestion" from trying to swallow too much of it at once.
And that’s a surefire path toward progress—really. All we’re missing now is the right venue and a solid crew to pull it off...

I don't know—maybe we should just sit back and watch how this all unfolds? It feels like everyone is rushing toward a conclusion without actually looking at the data—or even bothering to ask if the data is being interpreted correctly in the first place. Is anyone actually checking the math here? It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way. We talk about progress, we talk about moving forward, but then we stumble over the most basic principles—almost as if we've forgotten that you can't build anything lasting without a solid foundation. Does anyone else feel that? Or am I just overthinking things again? Probably both. Anyway, let's see where this goes.

The sheer volume of available information out there creates this massive, illusory nightmare—it’s overwhelming. Take the discovery of the structure and logic behind the DNA molecule, for instance; back then, it was almost like child's play compared to what we face now. But since then, the endless stream of data has become so tangled and convoluted that people struggle to actually make sense of what they're looking at. A philosopher shouldn't be wasting time getting bogged down in those tiny, granular truths—not when they should be focusing on the overarching Truth that actually dictates how those small details function. It feels like there are so few people left who can actually perform real synthesis—you know, taking those insights and weaving them into a larger synthesis of Truth? Ideally, the internet would serve as the hub for this, perhaps with occasional real-world meetups... and as for the right group of people? Well, I suspect there are at least ten capable teams out there today just waiting to find one another.
Look, if we’re actually going to pull this off—whether that means launching our own dedicated website or just building out our own private Forum—we really need to think about how we approach it. It probably makes the most sense to hand the reins over to someone younger, someone who actually speaks the language of modern web dev and knows the current landscape—you know, someone who won't stare blankly at a server migration. We could then step in to provide the backbone—which, let's be honest, would likely mean backing them up financially if things get expensive. Wouldn't that be the logical way to handle it?

Democracy:
Exactly. You don't even need to invent her. It’s just built into us—this restless urge to dig, to explore, even if we're doing it purely to push the boundaries of what the mind can grasp and how it evolves. That’s why people always hide behind those tired phrases like "generations of thinkers." It’s a convenient way to mask the actual individuals who carry the weight of everything—the ones who actually make this world turn. Because at the end of the day, you can only truly be a human being when you exist as an individual. Otherwise, what are we even doing?
hollowpilot9:
I’m totally with you on that comment—though I’d always argue that the relationship between the individual and the collective isn't some linear progression, but rather a qualitative one. A group of individuals, once they reach a certain threshold, forms a qualitatively higher entity than any single unit within it. Think about the relationship between cells and a human being; the cell is the individual, while the human is the collection of those individuals acting as a higher qualitative level. That’s why I think primary philosophical inquiry—real philosophical work—should be asking where we are actually heading evolutionarily. Are we drifting toward a chaos of disconnected individuals, or toward a synthesis of individuals that will form an order higher than the human species itself? We touched on this back in that thread about atheism.

Democracy:
Maybe, but "Hic Rhodos, hic salta!"—show us what you know! Here’s a chance for those who claim to be well-versed in Eastern thought to step up.
What exactly is the state? Why are people forced to live by laws, even when those laws take the form of mere custom? And what is politics? Why do rulers put in such massive effort—and make such subservient sacrifices—just to stay in power, when ALL OF HISTORY (of every society and nation without exception) TEACHES US how futile and ultimately UNHUMAN those efforts truly are?
hollowpilot9:

In any case, it would be interesting to hash out the meaning of the state from Antiquity to the modern era. As for the Eastern perspective, all I know is that the Japanese suggest their state would function essentially like a biological organism by around 2020. So, what is a state during the phase where nations integrate into a higher form of community, or what is a state during the age of globalization?
Law is also a fascinating rabbit hole because humans are created and brought into being according to Law—the question is just which Law and what kind? From Pharaohs to Emperors or Kings, the ruler has always been a reflection of God on Earth; though, as I've written before, the old God wasn't nearly as merciful as the modern version suggests. Is "might makes right" actually just a legitimate instrument of evolution?

Democracy:
I don't quite follow the point, unless the "Great Leviathan" is just that Eastern thread woven into Western philosophy.
hollowpilot9:
Joseph Needham writes in his book *Science and Civilisation in China*: "First of all, we can demonstrate that Chinese *philosophia perennis* is organic materialism. This is evident in the maxims of philosophers and scientists across all eras. Chinese thought simply never developed a mechanistic view of the world; instead, an organic understanding completely prevailed among Chinese thinkers."
In direct contrast, Western thought developed a mechanistic vision of the world—which, of course, is incredibly easy to prove by looking at the evolution of our apparatuses for destroying and killing biological beings, especially humans...!?

geza said:If you want to dig, then go ahead and grab a shovel! Even the old miners used to dig through mountains of waste just to strike a few nuggets of gold here and there. Personally, I think we really need to dive deep into the history of philosophy—or just general intellect, really—but then, more importantly, we have to get up to speed with what modern biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, and psychology are telling us today. Once you realize that some of these cutting-edge discoveries are actually incredibly similar to ancient insights... well, that’s when the real "vault" of philosophy finally swings open! Of course, that kind of work requires true original thought, not just copying someone else or acting as an apologist for old ideas. So, I am totally on board with the sentiment—if Pythagoras could pull it off, why on earth can't we do it today? Honestly, from the very first day I joined this Reddit community, I’ve been pushing for exactly this: let's kickstart some real research and take a hard look at all those theories that people still cling to like they're gospel. But man, the resistance is just so massive. It's always much easier to just "cluck along" with whatever someone famous said a hundred years ago than to actually think for yourself.

I mean—once an idea finally finds its footing within the wisdom of the Elders—that’s when it truly gains some weight, right? It’s different once it moves past the surface level. Otherwise, you just have all these "sheep" tossing around cynical little slogans like "Columbia Bra!" without actually thinking about anything.
I mean, honestly—that gap right there? Between all that old-school wisdom and the way people actually act? It’s such a fascinating phenomenon! It’s almost like most people aren't actually clueless about the basics—they just pretend to be—but they're totally unwilling to actually put that knowledge into practice. It really is quite a wonder to observe, I guess!

geza said:Honestly, having access to such a massive flood of information can feel like a total nightmare sometimes! It’s overwhelming—like, take the discovery of the structure and logo of the DNA molecule; that was practically child's play compared to what happened next. But then, people just started overcomplicating things so much that they lost sight of what they were actually saying in the first place. I really feel like a philosopher shouldn't be getting bogged down in all those tiny, granular details—you know, those little "truths"—instead, they should be focusing on the ultimate Truth that actually gives those small details their meaning. It feels like there are so few people left who are actually capable of making big-picture syntheses—and then, you know, weaving those syntheses together into one grand Synthesis of Truth. Maybe the perfect setup would be an online community—something like Reddit—with the occasional in-person meetup to keep things grounded? I guess if the right crew could find each other... honestly, I think there are at least ten groups out there today that could pull it off!
Maybe we should just launch our own website—or perhaps even our own private subreddit—instead of relying on this platform? I mean, it feels like it's something a younger person who actually knows their way around tech should handle—someone with those modern skills—and then the rest of us could step up to support them... you know, maybe even help out with the funding if that's what it takes!

Maybe we'll see the Youth Party pop up around here—and I guess The Illegals might be trying to make a move too...

geza said:..
I totally agree with that comment—but I’d always add that the relationship between an individual and the collective isn't exactly a linear thing, you know? It feels more like a qualitative shift to me! Basically, once a group of individuals reaches a certain level, they form a qualitatively higher entity than any single person within that group could ever be on their own. To put it simply—think about the relationship between a single cell and the human body. A cell is just one tiny unit, but the human being is that whole higher-level existence formed by all those cells working together... it's a bit more complex than just adding numbers up, I guess!

Look, there’s one incredibly vital point right here—maybe even more important than that whole idea of the "Origin of its own image." As much as we like to think of society as being more than just a collection of individuals—which, I guess, it is—it still isn't actually capable of producing any kind of artificial subject that could ever be considered more significant or valuable than the very last human being left in that community.
It’s all about that individualistic approach! Honestly, we've seen so many versions of collectivism before—ranging from the truly twisted stuff like old-school socialist communism to those quasi-liberal democratic styles. It's a wild spectrum, I guess!
I mean, let’s be real—this whole tug-of-war between individualism and collectivism isn't just some random occurrence in our history! It feels like there's a definite continuity here—though, if I remember correctly, I don't think any society we know of has ever truly seen individualism take the lead over collectivism—even just as a small part of the mix. It’s almost certainly not a coincidence that this tension exists, and honestly? It feels like an obvious legacy we're leaving behind for the future.
Look, I’m definitely not going to argue with you about how important upgrades are—I totally get that—but I will never, ever accept collectivism as part of that package.

geza said:..
Anyway, it would be super interesting to dive into what "the state" actually means from ancient times up to right now. As for those Eastern perspectives, I just know that some Japanese thinkers suggest their nation might basically function like a single biological organism by around 2020. So, is the state currently in a phase of merging into a higher form of community, or is it just caught up in this whole globalization thing?
The concept of Law is also such a fascinating topic, since humans are essentially shaped and brought into being through Law—the real question is, which Law, and what kind? ...

So, I guess the "Leviathan" serves as an ideological touchstone—a point of connection, at least. Hobbes actually put forward some pretty solid ideas, so I imagine Japanese philosophers might have something similar. If you happen to find a link to that—let me know! (whenever you can).
Oh, and regarding that Law—it’s sort of tied to a foundation, a prime cause, God, or the Absolute... so it feels quite individualized, too.
To put it in plain English for me: it’s all about the very essence of our nature, which allows us to participate simultaneously in both the physical (animalistic) and spiritual (legal) realms.

Walter Foster87:
I mean—when an insight finally finds its footing within the thoughts of the Old Guard, that’s when it actually gains some real weight. It moves past being just a fleeting thought and becomes something substantial. It’s much different from the way those "sheep" react—you know, the ones who just toss around a cynical little "brava Kolumb" slogan like they’ve actually achieved something deep? It’s all just noise.
So, I mean—in that particular gap (that bit of old wisdom which isn't actually all that hidden from the "sheep," they just pretend it is—coupled with a total refusal to actually use what they know)—there’s this genuine phenomenon happening. It’s honestly kind of a marvel, if you think about it. A real subject for wonder.
Absolutely. Honestly, I felt this weird sense of relief when I realized that the Old Guard knew exactly what today’s Gen Z knows—it’s just that the tools have changed. The gap in instrumentation is massive, like looking at the cosmos. Today’s kids process everything through high-powered electron microscopes, whereas the older generation had to rely on... what? Pre-ontological experience? Raw intuition? It’s all the same stuff, just different lenses. But look, let me tell you about my encounter with a literal ram. The sheep were charming enough, I guess, but there was this one massive ram that just floored me with its sheer size and those horns. Being young, naive, and completely clueless, I started offering him these grand speeches of admiration and praise. And what does he do? He rears up on his front legs and—BOOM—slams them into the dirt. I actually thought it was a sign of approval. I kept going. He rears up again, harder this time—BOOM. Then a third time, even louder. By the fourth time, the guy was charging straight at me, and I barely managed to scramble away with my life intact. It wasn't until much later that I realized my little pep talks weren't compliments—they were threats. In his head, I probably looked like some rival ram trying to muscle in on his flock. The point is, the sheep don't give a damn about any of this. They aren't interested. It's only the horned rams that care, and that right there is the fundamental philosophical error.

Walter Foster87: Maybe we'll see the Youth Party make a move around here—and I think Illegale is trying to get something going too...

hollowpilot9🙂Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if anyone actually survives this... or if we'll all be around long enough to find out.

Walter Foster87: Look, there’s one massive point here—something that probably carries even more weight than that whole "Creation in His Own Image" concept. As much as we like to pretend society is something greater than just a collection of individuals—it really isn't capable of birthing some artificial entity that holds more value or importance than the very last human being left in the community.
It’s such an individualistic way of looking at things—really. We’ve been exposed to all sorts of collectivism, haven't we? Everything from the most twisted socialist-style communist models to those quasi-liberal democratic setups that claim to be different. It's all just different flavors of the same crowd mentality.
Look, the clash between individualism and collectivism isn't just some random coincidence—it’s got this deep, historical continuity that didn't just pop out of nowhere. And if you look at history—not that we can find a single society where individualism actually managed to overtake collectivism, even just as a core component—it becomes pretty clear that this tension is an obvious legacy we're leaving for the future. It's almost inevitable, isn't it?
Look, I won't argue with you regarding how important an upgrade is—I get that much—but I am absolutely not going to sign off on that if it comes bundled with collectivism. Not happening.
hollowpilot9:

That’s just how it works. Honestly, I’ve gone to great lengths to distance myself from any kind of collectivist nonsense—I make it a point to emphasize that qualitative gap between the individual and the group. Look, if you have a pile of bricks, a brick is just a brick. Simple. In a group of people who aren't interacting—just random folks standing around—an individual remains strictly an individual. But? Once you have a group of connected, interactive people, that individual still keeps their own identity, but they pick up the properties of the group too. They gain an extra dimension. We really need to wrap our heads around this, because it's the fundamental novelty here—this idea that a human being can acquire a dimension beyond the standard, linear dimension we're all used to. I’d actually suggest we have a full-on discussion about this specific dimension. Because, let's be real: unless we "elevate" the human being to this higher level, the whole distinction between *Homo sapiens* and *Homo politicus* becomes completely meaningless.

Walter Foster87: So, I guess *Leviathan* at least serves as an ideological anchor point—a way to tie everything together. Hobbes actually had some pretty solid insights, though, so I’d imagine there's a similar thread to be found with Japanese philosophers. If you happen to know of any connections—whenever that might be—let me know.
So, that Law—it’s basically rooted in some sort of foundational essence, right? Like a first cause, or God, or some kind of Absolute... which makes the whole thing feel pretty individualized, I guess. Or is it?
If I were to put this in plain English—just to make sure we’re all on the same page—it basically comes down to our fundamental nature. It's that specific way we operate, where we're somehow capable of existing simultaneously in both the physical, animalistic realm and the spiritual—or, if you want to get technical about it, the legal—sphere. It's a bit of a strange duality, isn't it? To be part of both worlds at once?

That’s exactly it! Honestly, how many times have I said that talking to my cat, Mickey, and my dog, Chuck, is often more productive than having a conversation with a human being? A cat or a dog sends incredibly clear signals—a flick of the tail, a certain look, or just a specific growl—to let you know if they approve of what you're saying. Humans, on the other hand... they either give you that sneaky, silent treatment or launch into an arrogant attack. It's exhausting. I truly believe that once we stop acting like we're the sole "geniuses of the universe," we might actually move toward some level of universal—and I mean real, deep philosophical—insight. In my opinion, the Cabinet isn't exactly the place for philosophical input or high-level theorizing. Sure, I’ll cite the Leviathan, Hobbes, and plenty of others, but what about people like Ivo, Mark, Daniel, Anthony, or Mary? Do we actually have any better ideas of our own? Or are we just stuck in this cycle of mental provincialism, forever running in circles trying to catch up to Hobbes and those other Harrys...?
I was actually reading something about Japan in a Sunday Times supplement about a year ago—can't quite recall the exact issue. If I stumble upon the link again, I'll shoot it over to you.

That tongue-wagging emoji isn't mine. Someone else slipped it in there... and honestly, we can probably guess who that was, right?

hollowpilot9 said:Totally! Honestly, I felt so happy when I realized that the Old Guard knew the exact same things today's Youth know—it’s just that the tools they use are worlds apart! Today's kids use super-powered electron microscopes, whereas the Old Guard had to rely on... well, raw, pre-intellectual experience. Sheep might be "charming," I guess, but one massive ram totally floored me with his sheer size and horns. Being naive and inexperienced, I actually started showering him with praise, and he just—BAM—slammed his front hooves into the ground! I thought it was some kind of nod of approval, so I kept going. Then he did it again, harder—BAM! It happened a third time with an even bigger BAM, and by the fourth time, he was actually charging at me! I barely managed to save my skin by running away. It was only later that I realized my little pep talks were actually perceived as a THREAT! He probably "thought" I was just some other RAM trying to steal HIS sheep. The point is, the sheep themselves don't really care about any of this!! It's only the horned rams that matter, and that—well, that is the philosophical error right there!

So, we’re basically circling back to the Plato problem—how do you actually get philosophers to reveal what they’ve discovered? That’s why he proposed that little state of his, run by philosophers. If that worked, maybe they wouldn't have to constantly worry about being eaten by sheep or charged by rams, while simultaneously getting a chance to actually apply what they know.

hollowpilot9 said:... Yeah, exactly! But I've made sure to build a huge buffer against collectivism by emphasizing the qualitative difference between an individual and a group. In a pile of bricks, a brick is just a brick! In a group of disconnected, non-interactive people, an individual remains just an individual. But in a group of connected, interactive people, the individual keeps their essence while gaining the property of the group—basically adding a whole extra dimension! We really need to grasp this, because it’s the NEW thing—the way a Human gains a dimension beyond the standard, straight-line dimension we're all used to. I think we should talk more about this dimension. Because without lifting a Human to that higher level, the traditional homo sapiens and homo politicus just don't make sense anymore!

True, though it's a sensitive subject. It isn't a coincidence that those who always manage to seize power through that "higher dimension" are the collectivists—even when they start from ideals that seem so uniquely individualistic, like Liberty and Equality.

hollowpilot9 said:... I am firmly convinced that the cabinet is NOT the place for philosophical input or actual philosophizing! Sure, I'll invite the "Leviathan," Hobbes, and plenty of others, but what about Ivo, Mark, Daniel, Anthony, Mary... and so on? Do we really have better ideas than everyone else, or are we just doomed to forever "run" after Hobbes and all those other Harrys due to some kind of mental provincialism?

That's a pretty clever way to frame the whole Hobbes situation. Actually, the foundation was already laid—it was already found. But during one of our many debates, someone threw out a critique along the lines of: "That all sounds great, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back it up with the thoughts of great minds... like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel...!" And just like that, I'm lost in that "Striborov" forest. It's true—when you filter everything down, there isn't much there, but when you look at it all together, the contribution is huge. I'm talking about the material itself. However, as far as the other stuff goes... there's really nothing serious to be found.
I mean, I’m really not trying to sell anyone short—not Ivo, not Mark, and definitely not Daniel...
And honestly, let's not even get started on those folks who just blindly follow after Hobbes and the rest of them.
Here’s how I see it: plenty of people read the exact same books and study the same philosophers. But—well, most people don't actually grasp anything in those texts, even if they can recite quotes from memory. Then you have the other group—they only pick out the bits that happen to fit their own pre-existing philosophies (or biases, I guess). So, in the end, neither group is actually reaching the POINT.

P.S. I don't really notice emoticons anyway.

Walter Foster87:
So, we’re basically circling back to that old Platonic dilemma—how exactly do you convince philosophers to actually share what they’ve figured out? It's the whole reason he dreamed up that ideal state run by thinkers. I mean, if the philosophers are calling the shots, they wouldn't have to constantly look over their shoulders worrying about being trampled by a stampede of Rams, right? Plus, it finally gives them a practical way to actually put all those deep insights to use instead of just talking about them.
People say that the theory of knowledge from that Indian philosopher Socrates is actually quite similar to Kant's in certain aspects. To me, it feels most like Plato—mostly because they’re both spiritual realists who try to synthesize the core ambitions of the past. They both draw this line between two kinds of knowledge: the higher and the lower. I’m talking about that higher level of cognition—the kind that leads us toward the original Truth and an ideal good. The Ram and the sheep are really just symbols of a specific relationship and its underlying meaning. If you just look at a horned Ram or a quiet, bleating sheep, you aren't going to learn anything more than what they physically represent. It’s only when you bring them together that you solve the problem posed by Socrates and Plato—and not just their problem, but ours too: Why do humans multiply in the first place? Once you actually answer that question, "the multitude" becomes a totally NEW concept—one that has absolutely nothing to do with a collective lacking intelligence. Intelligence lives in the individual—it’s right there in the brain—but once the multitude builds its own collective brain, it becomes obvious why collectivists have to rule at that lower level of knowledge. They are a force that moves, expands, conquers, and imposes itself.

Look, it’s a sensitive subject—and honestly, it’s not exactly a coincidence that, from that higher perspective, collectivists always seem to end up seizing control. Even when they start out building something based on ideals that are fundamentally rooted in individualism—you know, things like Liberty and Equality—it just ends up going that way.

hollowpilot9: The whole thing only feels sensitive because we’re living under this illusion that collectivists actually hold the reins. You know how it goes—after every major crusade, they eventually stall out and lose everything they started with. But instead of those losers taking center stage, we get a shift toward a new qualitative level—which, if you ask me, is where things get interesting. We're looking at the highest tier: the identity of the individual merged with the mass, which is basically just a holographic, post-singular philosophical consciousness. Or something like that.
The whole concept of Liberty and Equality doesn't really hold water anymore—not when everything is unfolding within an environment of absolute Liberty and Equality, much like the atmosphere inside a plasma field. The "old" timers used to just call plasma Fire. You probably know this—or at least you really ought to—but the fourth state of matter is essentially the same thing; take a single water molecule, for instance, and turn it into plasma. Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe. A philosopher living in a nearly absolute plasmatic universe has nothing to fear—certainly not some Ram guarding his collective flock of sheep. It’s basically the relationship between a locomotive and its train cars, where the traditional definitions of Liberty and Equality become... well, highly questionable. Personally, I’m not entirely convinced where one finds more Liberty and Equality: is it tucked away in a block of ice, or in that equivalent vapor transitioning into a plasmatic state where Liberty and Equality become absolute? In that state, electrons, protons, and neutrons are completely free. But let’s not forget—neutrons are free even before they hit the plasma stage. It’s the same with people. Neutral people? They’re free. Only the polarized and the intellectually dependent are truly unfree.

Walter Foster87: You’re making some interesting points regarding Hobbes and that whole crowd—though, honestly, most of those ideas were already baked and ready to go long before he showed up. I remember being in one of those endless debates where someone basically hits you with this condescending critique: "Look, your argument is fine, but if you actually want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back it up with the heavy hitters... you know, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and the rest!" And that’s exactly how you end up lost in a dense thicket of academic nonsense. It’s true, in a way—once you filter out all the fluff, there isn't much left. But when you look at the sheer volume of it all together, the contribution seems massive. I'm talking about the raw material itself. As for everything else... well, let's just say there's nothing truly substantial to be found.
That’s why I’m not underestimating John, Mark, or Daniel...
And just two words about those folks running headlong after Hobbes and all that...
It looks something like this to me—most people end up reading the exact same books and studying the same philosophers. But here’s the thing: the vast majority of those readers don't actually grasp anything at all; they could recite a passage from memory and still be completely clueless. Then you have the other group—the ones who cherry-pick only the bits that happen to align with their own pre-existing philosophies (or whatever biases they're clinging to). In the end, neither group actually reaches the point. They miss the whole purpose, don't they?

hollowpilot9: This post is honestly brilliant because it’s completely self-contradictory. I’ve seen it happen so many times—these new authorities "clinging" to the old guard just to cement their own status. It seems like philosophy only survives if it constantly leans on the "THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS," which—let's be honest—is totally at odds with the whole idea of elevating Liberty and Equality among people. Then you have this weird dynamic between millions of minds and a single mind—take Platonic or Hegelian thought, for example—where those individual thinkers are always positioned "ABOVE" the masses. Within that supposed "philosophical principle of the capable versus the incapable," there’s actually just hidden terror from puffed-up authorities who only exist to serve the incapable. Isn't that just a fancy way of hiding UNFREEDOM and INEQUALITY? We act like we're fighting them, but maybe we're just fighting the formal version rather than the real thing. In my opinion, the real scam of our modern era is this principle where MAN JUDGES MAN, instead of letting facts or truth lead the way. Philosophy has drifted miles away from actual facts and truths—much like how freedom has drifted away from humanity, trapped behind bars and barriers created by man’s own—well, let's call it—blessed foolishness. Establishing a standard for truth isn't easy, and it certainly isn't simple, yet we toss around "truths" like we’re wealthy people throwing cash around a casino. If it’s true that we know so little about the past and absolutely nothing about the future—and considering the present is so massive and complex that it exceeds the scope of any individual experience—then invoking these intellectual authorities feels a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? My suggestion? Read what the old thinkers wrote, sure, but when it comes to today's questions, answer them with YOUR OWN MODERN MIND. If we can't manage that, then we basically forfeit ourselves to the category of the incapable. The contribution of the old guard is undoubtedly great, but it isn't current; it needs to be updated, and you can't do that just by recycling the THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS. Thinking for yourself today is nearly impossible in a world of seven billion heads—it’s too crowded, too chaotic, too much competition—so I’m putting my hope in a global brain. A sort of super-brain that is, by design and content, NEUTRAL. It’s an artificial construct made by people, but it isn't "human" in the traditional sense. Beautiful, really.

hollowpilot9 said:Some people say that the theory of knowledge from the Indian philosopher Socrates is actually quite similar to Kant's in certain ways—I guess you could see that! It reminds me most of Plato, though, because they both act like spiritual realists who try to synthesize all those big ambitions from the past. They both seem to make this distinction between two different levels of knowledge—the higher and the lower... it’s pretty interesting!

I think we really ought to separate those two ideas. Honestly, I feel like the whole thing goes way deeper than that—since a higher form of perception can actually be found within those relationships of idealism (you know, that realm of ideas) which is just so incredibly beautiful, even if it does end up totally captivating and trapping you!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole thing is only sensitive because, honestly, it’s mostly just an illusion that collectivists are actually in charge. It’s kind of like how—if you look at history—after any big crusade or campaign, people always end up stalling out and losing exactly what they started with in the first place. Instead of those losers taking center stage, I think we’re seeing a shift toward a totally NEW level of quality—one that I’d argue is the ultimate peak. We're talking about the intersection of individual identity and the collective, which, if you ask me, is basically this holographic, post-singularity philosophical consciousness.

Sure, you could look at it that way—and maybe you're right—but when it comes to how the Government actually operates, the issue looks more like this:
Can the truly righteous—those who actually have some moral backbone—actually build a government that takes all their hard work and sacrifice and turns it into a better life and a more functional society? Or am I just being overly optimistic? Maybe they simply don't have those skills—it's possible—and they're destined to spend their entire lives dragging along all those parasites and opportunists, dealing with everything from "planned" conflicts to random chaos, and both the legal and illegal looting that seems to happen everywhere...
So, how are things looking lately in this messy, cluttered society we’ve built? Honestly, I don't think even a purely rational person could be happy with the current state of affairs—and that's saying something! When you look at the relationship between Good and evil (which is something Reason should be able to navigate quite easily), the issue of intellectual beings being suppressed becomes even more obvious. It feels like it's even harder to see clearly when you factor in those mysterious nuances of the Mind—you know, things like mediation, the sheer inevitability of friction, and the inevitable risk of power being misused during that whole process. It's all just a bit complicated, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole idea of Liberty and Equality just doesn't seem to hold much water anymore—mostly because everything is happening within this massive environment of Absolute Liberty and Equality. I mean, I’m not exactly sure where you'd even find true Liberty and Equality these days! Is it tucked away inside an ice cube? Or maybe it's in that equivalent state where matter turns into plasma, where Liberty and Equality become absolute? I guess you could say electrons, protons, and neutrons are totally free there! But hey, let's not forget that neutrons are actually FREE even before they hit the plasma stage!! It’s kind of like people, too—neutral people are essentially the same way! In my opinion, the only ones who aren't truly free are the polarized folks who are totally dependent on others.

I don't quite "get" it—this whole transition from the realm of intellectual beings over to the world of nature. I mean, they really are two completely different worlds, aren't they? They operate under totally different versions of liberty and equality—I guess you could say they just don't speak the same language!
An intellectual being—well, besides just having that pure freedom of thought—really has this deep-seated drive and need for freedom through action, simply because they exist! I guess it’s just part of being alive. Especially since, if you think about it, our highest purpose is basically to evolve toward reaching our full mental potential. An intellectual being can't really be dependent, either—it’s just not in their nature. They really only have two paths: they’re either suppressed and subjugated, or they are free.
At long last, we have reached true equality and freedom for the thinking mind—it’s basically the very essence of righteousness that drives us to create laws, build civilizations, and give a state its actual purpose... and, well, I suppose it also leads us right to that fickle little lady we call Justice!
I mean, what’s the point—for instance—if people don't actually feel that sense of justice or how much it can be violated? We really have to credit that whole surge of enthusiasm we saw back in the early '90s for that, I guess. It seems like this pattern repeats itself in pretty much every major conflict, too. The only real issue is that the masses rarely see things clearly—so they end up thinking injustice is actually fair, or maybe politicians are just getting really good at dressing up ugly truths to look decent.

hollowpilot9 said:Plus, we have this whole dynamic where millions of minds interact with just one single mind—like comparing a Platonic view to a Hegelian one—where those individual minds always seem to sit way ABOVE millions of others. I guess that’s where the real terror lies in this whole "capable vs. incapable" philosophical principle; it’s basically just puffed-up authorities who are only actually needed by the incapable. It feels like there's actual UNFREEDOM and INEQUALITY hidden right there, which we only fight against in a formal sense, but not really in reality, right? So, in my opinion, the big SCAM of modern times is this idea that MAN JUDGES MAN, instead of focusing on FACTS or TRUTH.

And it doesn't stop there! Just listen to how they teach kids about Plato, or how philosophers actually perceive him. If you ask anyone about Plato's Republic, everyone starts blathering on about some "state of necessity"—but I haven't heard a soul cite the BEST MEANS—which Plato lays out right on the opening pages of the Republic—as the tool for managing such an understood and organized state. Now, if that means trading in marketplaces (you know, exchange), then it’s pretty obvious why I wouldn't want to present the idea of perfected commodity goods to all the Plato enthusiasts out there. But—things don't work that way.
Or, you know, all that noise about gold, silver, and bronze layers, and the "community" of goods... It’s honestly incredible how boldly and persistently they push that onto young people as being Plato's Republic, when he was really just TALKING ABOUT ORGANIZING ADMINISTRATION AND POWER WITHIN A STATE. ....

hollowpilot9 said:Philosophy has drifted miles away from facts and truths, much like how Freedom has drifted away from man due to the cages and barriers that a (blessed foolishness) human being invents and builds for himself. Establishing a CRITERION OF TRUTH isn't easy or simple, yet we toss "truths" around like arrogant people throwing cash. ...

That criterion, though—is method. And, in a CHANGING and imperfect world, the method we use to protect ourselves from delusions must have a Perfect Being as its highest criterion. Only then do you see how truths (no matter how lasting they seem)—are relative and replaceable by completely opposite truths, or maybe both are valid, or perhaps there's some kind of interconnection (unity) involved. Another big thing regarding method is purpose. Whether the purpose is rooted in nature, or just a mere reflection of our own nature onto the physical world (basically, the way humans can perceive that world)—that principle will separate the active world from the final world (purposes). It will distinguish our active purpose as a means to a final one, and it'll also teach us how MEANS MUST BE TWO. Because, wherever there is only ONE means—it actually becomes an ABSOLUTE. No matter how much we might fantasize, desire, or try to find comfort in something Sublime.

hollowpilot9 said:... The contribution of the "old" ones is undeniably HUGE, but their input isn't current; it needs to be updated, and you can't do that just by quoting the THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS. Thinking for yourself today is almost impossible in a society of seven billion heads (the crowd and the competition are just too massive and chaotic), so I'm putting my hope in a global brain—a superbrain that is, by design and content, NEUTRAL. It's made of us, created by people, but it isn't "human." BEAUTIFUL!!!

There's a lovely Schopenhauer critique here: "We forget that the Greeks and Romans were born in Freedom, while we (including him, Hegel, and the Marxist) are only just emerging from the darkness of the Middle Ages."
The kind of freedom she’s talking about—I guess she probably gave those philosophers way more breathing room, which likely allowed them to dream up all sorts of grand visions for the future.
But here’s the thing—they ended up creating an absolute mountain of wealth, maybe even too much. So now, we’re basically stuck with two pretty silly options: either ignore everything they did and just repeat their (or even the earlier) mistakes, or just drown in all that material stuff until the day we die.

Walter Foster87: It might be worth separating the two. I mean, this goes way deeper than that—higher forms of cognition can also exist within those relationships of idealism (that realm of ideas) which, quite beautifully, both inspires you and traps you.

I agree that we're looking at something much deeper here—something far more complex because there are actually multiple layers of perception involved. I only used that specific example because it touches on the idea of "lower" versus "higher" cognition, which is a bit of a slippery slope since nobody ever really defines what they mean by those terms. You end up just wandering aimlessly between two vague concepts unless you manage to grasp the space in between—that middle ground, or rather, the unified whole. And that’s exactly where the deeper issue you're pointing out resides. I have to go back to my tired old argument—pardon my repetitive "story"—that traditional scientific and philosophical thought is built on duality, binary structures, and linearity. It’s all very one-dimensional. But this newer way of thinking? It’s rooted in quaternary and tetrahedral structures, much like what the ancients understood. We're talking about non-linearity—a perspective that actually aligns with how we perceive the world through wave mechanics, quantum physics, and biology.

Walter Foster87: Sure, you could look at it that way—but when we’re talking about how the Government actually functions, the problem looks more like this:
Can those who are actually capable—those truly righteous ones—actually build a government that directs all that sacrifice and effort toward a more productive life and a functional social system? Or do they just lack that specific kind of ability? It makes you wonder if they’re simply doomed to spend eternity dragging along those useless parasites and broken souls—the ones fueled by both their "planned" and unplanned wars, alongside all those legal and illegal heists... Is there an actual way out, or is it just a cycle?
So, where do we actually stand right now in this messy, cluttered society? Honestly, even a purely rational person wouldn't be satisfied. When you look at the relationship between Good and evil—something Reason should be able to navigate quite easily—the issue of how intellectual beings are being suppressed becomes even more glaring. It’s even harder to ignore when you factor in all those murky, mysterious elements of the Mind—you know, the inevitable mediation, the unavoidable friction, and the resulting abuse of power that always seems to creep in during that process. It's a bit of a mess, isn't it?

Everything you said makes sense—I'm not disputing that—but since my head is mostly stuck in the clouds of phenomenology rather than dealing with actual, concrete events, I keep circling back to that question you dropped in your last post. Why is it that rulers (or honestly, people in general) have been such consistent tyrants throughout history, and still are today? Is it just some ego trip for those in power—a sort of human glitch—is it an automatic byproduct of how power itself functions, or is tyranny just an inevitable phase in the early stages of any developing society?
The evolution of society? Look, I don't have a definitive answer for you—I’m not exactly claiming to be a walking encyclopedia here—but lately, I can't shake the feeling that we're looking at a phenomenon driven almost entirely by a single polarity: the masculine. If you want evidence for that perspective, you'll find plenty if you look at both humans and the animal kingdom—it’s everywhere, really. But then the inevitable question pops up: Is it actually possible to seize someone else's territory, their property, or their wealth without fighting, brawling, war, or outright tyranny? Can you just... walk in and take it? It seems to me that the only way it happens is on some higher plane of reality—that is, when a tyrant adopts a sort of "winner-takes-all" psychology, where they ensure they always come out ahead, even at the expense of the person they're taking from. Just food for thought.
It’s a messy, complicated business—really "stuck" and heavy—because when you actually dive into research, you run headfirst into the phenomena of force, polarization, hunger, and sex. You see, tyranny and the seeds of autocracy are lurking inside all four of those things, making it incredibly difficult to pin down where the actual source or cause begins. I could probably lay out a whole theory on being anti-tyrant, but honestly? You can't get anywhere without a solid grasp of what's neutral—or what some might call the center, the true gravity point of any given phenomenon.

Walter Foster87: I’m just not buying it—this whole idea of transitioning from the realm of intellectual beings into the world of nature. They are two entirely different spheres, really—operating under completely different versions of freedom and equality.
An intellectual being—well, if we’re talking about true intellect—isn't just about the capacity for pure freedom of thought. There's also this inherent drive, this fundamental need for freedom in action, simply because an intellect is an active entity. It's part of the design, right? Especially when you consider that its highest purpose is essentially the reconstruction of its own achieved intelligence. An intellectual being can never truly be dependent. It’s really that simple—it either ends up suppressed and subjugated, or it remains free. There isn't much middle ground.
At last, we arrive at the equality and freedom of the thinking being—the very essence of that righteousness which serves as the foundation for our laws, the building of our institutions, and the entire purpose of the state. And then, of course, there’s that fickle lady herself—Justice.
I mean, what’s the point—if people don't actually feel the sting of injustice or sense when things have gone sideways—of even being thankful for that whole surge of enthusiasm we saw back in the early '90s? It seems like this pattern repeats itself in pretty much every major conflict, too. The only real issue is that the masses rarely see things with any kind of clarity—so to them, even blatant unfairness starts looking just fine, or maybe politicians are just getting really good at dressing up injustice to make it look respectable.
Equality and freedom are, historically speaking, just subconscious human cravings—things we expect to happen, things that are supposed to arrive eventually... But if we’re talking about equality and freedom as they apply to the individual, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist—nor can it—as long as interpersonal dependency remains in play. It's pretty much like how you don't have molecular freedom or molecular equality while intermolecular forces are still doing their thing. So, this individual freedom—which I think is what you're getting at—can only really be achieved once we move past that web of human dependency that we're all currently stumbling into. It’s part of an evolutionary shift, really—the kind that brings about the electrification of the US, the exponential explosion of technology, massive energy consumption, and this "breakneck" acceleration of life itself. In these circumstances, the individual becomes less and less dependent on other people because everyone else is being replaced by something universal and all-encompassing... Talking strictly about intellectual freedom—about an intellectual being who is, as you say, inherently intellectually free—isn't enough. We need to talk about existential freedom. Only when intellectual and existential freedom finally merge can we actually start talking about FREEDOM that actually means something. Your last sentence touches on exactly that, which is why I think we're approaching a point where intellectuals simply *must* become producers of ideas that are actually useful for people—ideas that allow us to live and, more importantly, stay alive! Without that, all these debates about intellect are nothing more than dreams.

Walter Foster87: And that’s not even the half of it. Just listen to how they teach Plato to kids—or how philosophers actually perceive him, for that matter. Go ahead, ask them about Plato’s Republic. Everyone starts blathering on about some supposed "state of necessity"—but honestly, I’ve yet to meet anyone (working for those types of states, anyway) who has actually cited the BEST TOOL—the very mechanism Plato lays out right on the opening pages of the Republic—to make such an understood and organized state actually function. Now, if that tool is just trading in marketplaces (you know, basic exchange), then it’s pretty obvious why I wouldn't feel any burning desire to present the idea of perfected commodity goods to all these self-proclaimed Plato enthusiasts. But—things aren't quite that simple.
So, here we go again—that whole loud-mouthed trumpet blast about those gold, silver, and bronze social layers, and this supposed "communal" ownership of property... It’s honestly wild how boldly and relentlessly they shove that stuff down the throats of young people as if it were the core of Plato's Republic. As if that was the point. I mean, wasn't the man actually just talking about how to organize administration and power within a state? Just that. Why does everyone have to make it so much more complicated than it needs to be?
That’s exactly it—we’re talking about the same thing, just on different levels of reality. If Plato's mind was a genius—which I don't doubt, nor do I care to test, given he was doing his thinking some 2,000 years ago—it’s still true that the collective superbrain of millions of people is something entirely distinct from just one guy's brain. Maybe he was brilliant when theorizing about the State, or perhaps he was just sketching out the outlines of that Ideal State so many other philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine obsessed over—or even the versions idealized by Hegel and the Marxists—but the fact remains: Plato's State stayed a mere utopia in a civic sense. In a military context, however, you can actually find elements of it being realized. I mean, we have to remember that Plato's utopian vision was heavily influenced by Sparta, right? So, as paradoxical and impossible as it might sound, I see certain elements of his utopia actually playing out in the "State" known as a nuclear aircraft carrier, supporting a population of roughly 5,000 crew plus maybe 500,000 people in its orbit. Within this floating, drifting little "nation," everything operates close to an ideal order. This mobile little state functions through a strict division of labor during work hours, yet shifts toward maximum principles of individual and social freedom during downtime. It seems to me those are two essential traits of any biological organism—so, my suggestion to the philosophers who simply can't live without Plato is this: go look for an analogy for his philosophical tenets within the biological and military organization of human society. That might be a way to solidify, or even revive, Platonic viewpoints, assuming they still matter to philosophy.

Walter Foster87: That criterion is really just a method, isn't it? And look—we’re living in this constantly shifting, imperfect world, so if we want a method that actually protects us from falling for delusions, it needs a benchmark of the highest order: a Perfect Being. Only then can you see how truths—no matter how steady they seem—are ultimately relative. They could be swapped out for their exact opposites, or perhaps both coexist, or maybe there's some sort of underlying unity between them... who knows? Then there’s the other vital part of any method: the purpose. Whether that purpose is rooted in nature itself, or if it's just our own human nature being projected onto the physical world—basically, the way we go about perceiving things—that principle is what separates the realm of action from the finality of the world. It's what allows us to distinguish an instrumental purpose from an ultimate one. It also teaches us that means must always be twofold. Because, honestly, when there is only one single mean, you aren't looking at a tool anymore—you're looking at an Absolute. No matter what we might fantasize about, or what we crave, or what kind of "Higher Power" we use to comfort ourselves... that's just the reality of it.

hollowpilot9: I honestly don't think the issue is the method itself—it’s more about how philosophy has drifted away from its actual subject matter. It just fragments into thousands of individual opinions, gets broken down into tiny pieces, or gets bloated beyond recognition. And let's be real, the ultimate litmus test is that most philosophers today seem incapable of actually revising traditional thought to produce something truly NEW. That's why we're essentially "drowning" in delusions, not because of the methodology used. The misconceptions regarding Platonic teachings you mentioned are just a drop in the bucket compared to the institutionalized nonsense kids are fed in American schools every single day. There is a massive, endless line of questions that desperately need a total overhaul. You have to realize that before any real panic sets in, there's usually this period of superficiality, conformism, and pure laziness. Seriously, can anyone actually convince me that it is vital for children to spend their time learning how to find a square root, or how 1 : 2 = 1/2, or how the Earth orbits the Sun? Sure, those are fundamental questions—questions of Truth—but we are still lightyears away from the Truth because we stubbornly cling to the belief that you only need TWO elements for existence. Meanwhile, someone is "whispering" in my ear that it isn't two, but four... or even a fifth synthetic element, much like what the Pythagoreans so deeply believed and practiced.

Continued:

Walter Foster87: There’s this rather sharp Schopenhauer's critique sitting right there: "We tend to forget that the Greeks and Romans were born into Freedom, whereas we—including him, Hegel, and the Marxist—are only just emerging from the darkness of the Middle Ages."
That specific sense of freedom he’s talking about probably afforded those philosophers much more breathing room, which in turn allowed them to cultivate actual visions for the future.
But here's the catch—they also managed to create an overwhelming amount of intellectual wealth at the same time. So now, we’re stuck with a bit of a dilemma, isn't it? We can either ignore it all and keep repeating the same mistakes they made (or their predecessors did), or we can drown in all that material until the day we die.

hollowpilot9: If you look at Greece during the era of Pericles, then the FREEDOM being discussed was present right there in the streets—among the locals, the servers, the everyday people—on a one-to-one basis. It was dismantled by foolish people who convinced themselves they were smarter than God and everyone else, and in doing so, they steadily eroded that liberty until we were left with the version of "freedom" forced upon us by politicians, thieves, and criminals. Philosophers really ought to address this: Why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? Why does society value someone who knows a tiny bit about a niche specialization over someone with broad, macro-level understanding? These questions lead us to ask: Why do our most complex artifacts—like a nuclear submarine, a supersonic jet, or a manned rocket—always end up being reduced to some kind of "monkey finger" simplification? To me, those are the real philosophical questions of our time, rather than obsessing over what the geniuses of the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries were thinking.

hollowpilot9 said:I keep coming back to that question you raised in your last post—it’s such a deep one! Why is it that rulers (or honestly, people in general) have been mostly tyrants throughout history, and still seem to be today? I wonder if it’s just pure ego on the part of the leader, maybe some kind of automatic byproduct of holding power that naturally breeds tyranny—or perhaps it’s just an inevitable phase that happens during the early stages of societal development. What do you think?

I guess you could look for the answer in what I’d call "systemic conditioning"—you know, how those old rulers used to "mold" the youth. Honestly, if you look at like 90% of the material pushed through our American elementary and high school curricula today, it’s really just one big mental drill. Then there’s the other side of things—that inevitable, almost necessary process of sharpening the mind. But let's be real: you can't have true intellect without the physical talents of a human being, and that includes raw strength. Strength is tied directly to *voluntas*—the will—which is basically just the intellect when it's been filtered through, or maybe even trapped by, Rational desires and logic. Of course, since will and strength are so deeply intertwined with the mind, they end up looping back to influence both the source and the person actually doing the work. Maybe the simplest answer, though, is just the fact that philosophers—and philosophy as a whole—never really bothered to write a practical handbook for what makes a GOOD leader.
If there are instructions—then they’re either being Machiavellian or they're just some hidden agenda from pseudo-intellectuals (you know the type... like, "...but if you actually take a closer look, there's no way such wildly different things could be compatible..." or something along those lines). I guess!

I have to admit, I’m still a little worried about this—mostly because we're talking about how the masses interact. It seems like people don't actually want good leaders or any real leadership at all. Whether a regime is forced upon them through war, raw power, systemic pressure, or even through elections, it feels like those leaders either just fade away in their early days or—let's be honest—they eventually prove they belong to that "pack of wolves" mentality. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it's hard not to see the pattern!

So—instead of just sitting around waiting for some "perfect leader" to swoop in and save the day—I’m not really interested in getting bogged into all those little political debates. I think there’s actually only one sensible compromise here: true municipal autonomy. And I mean the kind of autonomy where the federal government doesn't just step in to tax the winners to subsidize the losers—that's just not how it should work! Instead, a city's survival should depend entirely on its own economic strength and whether its citizens are actually willing to foot the bill for their own independence. That's my take, anyway!
So, just imagine—just for a second—a Constitution that actually guarantees a local community (established through a proper referendum, of course!) the right to opt out of federal laws whenever they’ve already handled those specific issues with their own local ordinances. If we actually did that, I bet all those hardcore partisans, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else in between would finally show us what they truly stand for. They’d have to prove it on their own terms—carrying the weight themselves without trying to force their views on anyone else. Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful to live in a community where nobody is constantly obstructing the local agenda or messing with people's goals? Imagine places where folks can just focus on constructively proving that their way of life actually works. In a setup like that, there wouldn't even be room for real political enemies or true adversaries. Because, honestly, if you're facing constant opposition, maybe that resistance isn't actually that strong—or maybe it’s just driven by the fact that people eventually feel the need to find their own place under the sun within a community made up of "people just like them."
Once we finally move past the whole mess of dealing with power struggles and government issues—which, let's be honest, feels like a massive headache—we won't be looking for those "wolf-like rulers" anymore. Instead, maybe we'll just be searching for people who actually know how to handle the day-to-day logistics of whatever social model we decide to live by!
The people won't truly grasp the sheer depth—and the age of this idea, too... I mean, how long have we actually been waiting centuries for this?—of that classic mantra: "No one can FORCE me to be happy on their terms!"

hollowpilot9 said:Honestly, I’m starting to feel like we're looking at a phenomenon driven by just one single polarity—the masculine one. I mean, if you look at both humans and animals, there’s plenty of evidence to support that viewpoint—but then you have to ask yourself the big question: Is it actually possible to seize someone else's territory, property, or wealth without fighting, brawling, war, or tyranny? It’s a tough one, I guess!

That’s just the illusion right there—I mean, think about it! The whole idea of a private mental structure (basically, a legal entity) is naturally wired to drift toward isolation—you know, that sense of exclusion or pure egoism—and it constantly hunts for prey to snatch up, rob, or just leave totally stranded without an owner... It's almost inevitable, I guess! And honestly, the way it plays out, it just seems to produce results that heavily favor a "masculine" principle.
Wait, hold on—look at this too: are you really trying to justify being low-life, deceitful, a murderer of a "mad mob," or a thief... by calling it "manliness"!?
Is there actually any way to grab what isn't yours—territory, assets, wealth—without some level of fighting, brawling, war, or tyranny? I mean, maybe not... it doesn't necessarily require that "masculine principle," but you definitely need at least a little bit of animal instinct to get the job done!
Finally—if we’re really going to be bold about this, let’s say we take a hypothetical approach: It’s been argued, and maybe even proven, that to ensure long-term stability—you know, for the sake of "eternity"—and to actually preserve our society and the state (in our case, the US), implementing a perfected market is basically unavoidable. Since we don't exactly have a playbook for how that would work, I guess we’ll just have to build that experience ourselves! To make sure we aren't stepping on anyone else's toes, we could run this "experiment" within an autonomously organized municipality—perhaps located in a federally managed or "expropriated" area that's either undeveloped or just hasn't been built up much yet.
So, I’m thinking we should call out all the true believers—you know, those folks who are actually willing to go all in, even if it means "giving their lives" for an ideal. If we could get a crowd of maybe 10,000 or 20,000 together and just lay it all out for them—explain exactly what we’re after and what kind of life they'd be signing up for—what do you think, Walter Foster87? How many of them do you reckon would actually stick around once they hear the full truth?
Now, that—right there—is what I call true grit. It’s about being a whole, integrated person. I mean, anyone can claim to be a "tough guy" by being half-hearted or fragmented, but that's just being a half-human, really. And honestly, because everyone else is living such fractured lives, they feel forced into these dramatic sacrifices—you know, those moments where people "give their lives"—because they've essentially made those sudden, jarring breaks in their existence feel absolutely necessary. It’s like, if your life is already full of gaps, then a total collapse just seems like the only way to make sense of it all!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you could say that equality and freedom are basically deep-seated, subconscious human desires—sort of like things we just expect to exist, or maybe things that are still waiting to finally arrive... If we’re talking about equality and freedom in terms of the individual, I don't think they can actually exist as long as we're all stuck in this web of interpersonal dependency. It’s kind of like how you can't have molecular freedom or equality while those intermolecular forces are still pulling everything together, right? So, that sense of individual freedom—which I think is what you're getting at—could only really happen if we weren't tied up in all that social dependency that keeps us... well, you know.

hollowpilot9: Forget about the PHYSICAL REALM for a second. Maybe—just to help wrap your head around the problem—try looking at yourself through those legal relationships instead... you know, within that silent, untouchable, almost supernatural realm? It might actually help you grasp everything when you're aiming for the HEAVENLY KINGDOM!
I mean, when you look at the animal kingdom, animals aren't exactly all equal, right? It’s just how things work in the physical realm—some are faster, some are stronger, and everything is just naturally varied. I guess you could say it’s the same with us humans—our bodies and our individual talents are all so different that true equality just doesn't really exist in that sense!
In any realm—whether we’re talking about the legal system or something more spiritual—equality has to be the starting point. I mean, really think about it! Equality is basically the yardstick for freedom, and freedom... well, that's just the flip side of equality. It's all connected, I guess!
I think we really need to look at HUMAN RIGHTS as a kind of SOCIAL TALENT—you know, like an individual’s innate power—rather than just some abstract concept! It honestly has nothing to do with animalistic rights, except for the fact that—given how things turn out—they end up being enforced through physical talent... or, I guess, through the sheer physical force of the Government, which isn't just about morality, but is very much a physical reality.
I mean, no matter how ridiculous that whole idea sounds—you know, the notion that human Equality is really just about Power/Rights, specifically that every single individual holds the same legal standing to trigger equal public force against any other person or entity—well, I guess you're just going to have to "swallow" it!
Only then can we really start to dive into whether a system like that could actually work—or if it's just a pipe dream, I guess!
Why don't we notice it in our current civilization? I mean, why isn't there a clear separation between the power that creates the Constitution and the power that actually makes the laws? It’s honestly wild to me—why does our system still cling to this "democratic" setup where the main legislative body is basically the one drafting and passing the Constitution itself? It feels like we're stuck in a loop! These are almost "biblical" questions if you think about it—everything from the concept of Original Sin to the idea of the "wide gate."
It feels like a real problem with our modern era—there just aren't many people left who could actually justify themselves through a bit of blessed foolishness!
At the end of the day—and I really think this is the crux of it—if you refuse to recognize someone else's inherent, natural right to equality, you’re basically stripping away your own humanity in the process. It’s almost like a paradox, isn't it? I guess you could say that by denying another person their status as an equal, you're effectively dehumanizing yourself. A master isn't truly a human being if they're just ruling over property! Honestly, the slave owners of history hit the nail on the head when they described it—it wasn't a relationship between two people, but rather a dynamic between a master and a creature that's been reduced to something sub-human.

hollowpilot9 said:In situations like this, I guess an individual starts becoming way less dependent on anyone else—mostly because they just end up replacing that other person with something much more universal and all-encompassing!

I mean, we can't really talk about those kinds of universal truths until Liberty and Equality are actually established—and I don't just mean in some tiny little municipality, but across the entire world.

hollowpilot9 said:....
.... It’s easy to talk about intellectual freedom—you know, the idea that an intellectual being is inherently mentally free—but I think we really need to address existential freedom. Honestly, I feel like we can only talk about FREEDOM that actually carries weight once intellectual and existential freedom become one and the same. That’s kind of what your last sentence was getting at, right? So, in my view, we're approaching a moment where intellectuals simply have to become PRODUCERS OF IDEAS THAT ARE ACTUALLY USEFUL FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE BY AND SURVIVE ON!! Without that, all these deep debates about intellect are basically just DAYDREAMS!

Maybe look at it this way: An intellectual being exists. And part of that existence involves reaping the fruits offered by the Mind. It’s just that humans stopped "picking bananas off trees" (since work didn't exactly create man, right?). A person doesn't necessarily have to invent something to be considered an inventor—that's just how some people are wired. But, they really do need to validate themselves through a way of life that fits the dignity of an intellectual being. So, the identification you're looking for is actually built into existence itself. The catch? It isn't fully realized! We live for a while, then we just drift, and then suddenly we face a total break—like a war or something—and we have to rebuild ourselves and start over. Man, we sure are different from little Job, aren't we?
So, it’s not really about whether the smartest folks will eventually come up with more stuff—though that would be great! The real issue is that you just can't build a functional law society or healthy social relations around intellectual beings as long as they are being crushed by people who either never truly thought about their own nature, or who just lazily adopted someone else's ideas—which, let's be honest, is probably 99% of voters. Or maybe they think they're just cogs in a giant corporate conglomerate (even if they believe in God or Reason, their identity is split between those two principles, not to mention how they perceive them). Or, which is super rare, they identify with only one single principle—thinking they are purely made of Reason, Will, Soul, Heart, or maybe Jehovah or Allah...
But, despite all these contradictions and this suppression, SOCIETY isn't without its tools. Because, well—everyone loves to brag about having a hero's heart, acting all righteous and just.
But a day is coming when we'll tell them: "Here's the leap of faith—TAKE IT!"
Because, at the end of the day, nobody advocating for Liberty and Equality is actually asking for anything more or less than true justice.

CONTINUED

hollowpilot9 said:.... . ....
hollowpilot9: That's exactly it! I think we're talking about the same thing, just on different levels of reality. If Platonic MIND is GENIUS, then ...... Maybe he was an excellent philosopher regarding the STATE—perhaps those are the outlines of the IDEAL state that many other philosophers, like Aquinas or Augustine, idealized, or even how Hegel and the Marxist envisioned it—but the fact remains that from Plato's state—that utopia within a civic context—only the UTOPIA actually remained, ....

Aside from the whole militaristic angle—there's so much left over that there's really no doubt—the SUPER BRAIN isn't made up of those millions or billions of people, but rather some sort of "bosses" and controllers.
Actually, Aristotle points out that flaw in Plato (the fact that he didn't leave enough room to connect the needs of the state with the BEST way to achieve them) and steps forward with the thesis "Everything must be valued by money!" ...
Of course, that’s where Plato's state of needs ends—it's only mentioned formally after that, except maybe for that one command, "Go sell everything you own!"
But, the idea of Plato's "community of goods" continues, standing both as part of and in opposition to the "community of needs"—Plato can be seen among the Christians who "held nothing as their own, but as common" (Plato asks: why is it that the same object is sometimes called mine, sometimes yours, sometimes his...). Judging by modern texts and what's taught in schools—generations have been inspired by this—and, finally, what we used to call communism was somehow strangely (whether openly or covertly) linked to Plato's "community of goods."

hollowpilot9 said:.... .
I guess the criterion isn't the METHOD, but rather philosophy distancing itself from its subject matter...

See—the criterion lies in the method as a PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE in law.
Well, just as a method is that generalization which distances itself from every single object in order to encompass everything (or as much as possible), the criterion for EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (including the method itself) is a higher degree of generality (distancing) from it.

hollowpilot9 said:... Why is human freedom defined by a negative criterion? Why is someone who knows a lot at a tiny, specific level (specialization) considered more socially important than someone who knows a lot at a broad macro-level? These questions exist in the context of: Why do the most complex artifacts, like a nuclear submarine, a supersonic jet, or a rocket, end up being simplified down to the "monkey finger" level for a human? Those are, I think, the real modern philosophical questions, not what the geniuses of the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries were thinking about.

On the contrary, a person working on or assigned to that nuclear submarine isn't a FREE PERSON. No matter what we claim, during the work process, MAN IS JUST A PHYSICAL BEING to whom that "invisible" side of nature—that is, the law—is ONLY WITHHELD.
So, one has to ask—why does a person remain unfree and "on the other side of the line"? Because "simplification to the monkey finger" has no other purpose than to FREE man from the complication of that humiliating inevitability (namely, organized labor).

Walter Foster87: ( I’m shortening your posts and just citing them as markers, since I can easily read the whole thing in your original message ). You can find the answer in "systematic upbringing"—where the old rulers "teach" the youth—which is basically what 90% of the material shoved down students' throats in American elementary and high schools is; it’s nothing more than mental drilling. You can also find it in that inevitable, necessary post-developmental refinement of the mind, which simply CANNOT happen without the physical talents of a biological being—and among those, includes raw FORCE.

hollowpilot9: You’re describing things based on how they were and how they still are in many parts of the US, but as I’ve mentioned a few times, I deal with the RESEARCH of phenomena. In that kind of investigative context, I always ask an analogous question, something like this: What kind of social (or governmental) arrangement exists within my own organism? Are there cells or groups of cells acting as tyrants? What kind of rule GOVERNS the cellular universe of billions of cells? Since I have a pretty solid grasp of organic cellular structure and how a cell itself is organized, I don't find any tyrant cells anywhere—not even an organ that acts like a state, "oppressing" other organs or cells! I don't even see it in the brain, which might seem to be "above" everything, seemingly "ruling" over the other organs and cells, when in reality it is a synthetic PARTNER that SERVES and MANAGES through the principle of partnership—of cooperation—through the principle of biological feedback, a principle of absolute fairness for all billions of cells... regardless of who they belong to or what organ they serve. There is harmony here—functional organization and, above all, LOGOS, which philosophers should study if they want to finally grasp the tragedy of autocratic, authoritarian, tyrannical, and even "democratic" rule. Personally, it truly baffles me how the human organism, which possesses such a fantastically organized internal social structure, produces disorder, chaos, injustice, and tyranny in its external life...? I carry a fairly strong conviction that the internal and external human organizations must eventually align; there are already plenty of signs that this is happening. From that perspective, traditional theories and practices become—and remain—nothing more than a collection of nonsense that humans have done and continue to do.

Walter Foster87: That’s the illusion. You see, the private structure of the spirit (that is, the legal person) is such that it inevitably develops closure—namely, exclusion (or egoism)—and equally, it hunts for prey that must be seized, looted, or stripped of its owner... It produces effects that GIVE THE ADVANTAGE TO THE "MASCULINE" PRINCIPLE.
.
hollowpilot9: So you think cowardice, deception, the "mad mob"—murderers, looters... STRUGGLE, FIGHTS, WAR, TYRANNY? ... —that doesn't require a masculine principle, but rather a dose of animalistic instinct? In my view, the argumentation you're presenting SKIPS the genesis of intelligence, which, according to many modern perspectives, arises due to the NECESSITY of the male being the one who secures sustenance as a HUNTER and predator. The evolution of predation (greed, gluttony, robbery, looting, murder, and destruction) is very elegantly and convincingly described by Renata Sabbatinija in the chapter " Tool Making, Hunting and War " where she notes, among other things: " Hunting is the foremost human activity and it was made possible only by the invention of hunting weapons. Hunting exists and is instinctive among chimpanzees, which hunt for small prey, such as baby monkeys and antelopes, in bands as large as 10 individuals. They kill by flailing, thrashing and beating. However, using tools for rapidly and effectively killing large preys and in a large number, is uniquely human ". Within the scope of humanoids, " hunting, war and killing " has always belonged to the male half of humanity.
In wars fought until recently, looting was a legitimate pursuit, and the origin was the march to seize from others what had already been gathered—say, for the winter. It was easier to attack a neighboring TRIBE or state and take what was already CAUGHT than to go out and actually hunt. Furthermore, it's a fact that the apparatus for destruction and killing is invented, created, and utilized by men, not women. Of course, there are instances on the female side of the coin, but I'm talking about the dominant trend, which certainly and factually belongs to men. Historically, the man has been the ruler and the tyrant, and that nature persists today, with the only thing changing being the TOOL. Tyranny isn't primarily about PHYSICAL FORCE anymore; today, it's more MENTAL—like the mental tyranny that precedes HISTORICAL DECISIONS, leading up to the tyranny of the decision itself. We listen every single day to some " WISE MAN " speaking in IMPERATIVES, implying that if we don't act exactly as HE thinks, the world, the country, the nation will perish!?
So, now that you’re bringing up the WHOLE PERSON—that favorite little concept of so many philosophers—I have to say, despite my very best efforts, I just can't wrap my head around what people actually *mean* by it. Those Marxist theses about the whole person don't really hold water, mostly because that WHOLE person is always tucked away inside a CLASS—you know, the working class, the laborer with the hammer and sickle, who, as we see in this era of disappearing identities, is being turned into either a robot or some mid-level bureaucrat. And I mean this, whether it's some enlightened intellectual trying to calibrate Plato, Hegel, or a modern Nobel laureate—it’s still not hitting the mark. So, what even *is* a WHOLE PERSON? The old concepts and those dusty definitions just don't cut it anymore.

One somewhat acceptable answer I come across is finding it in the identity of the feminine within the masculine when a new human is being CREATED. Some folks claim it's LOVE! By that logic, a person full of love would be a WHOLE PERSON, but let's be honest, that's just an abstraction, not reality. Personally, I think a unified state is the prerequisite for a whole person in a biological, social, and phenomenological sense. To put that into plain English regarding our actual social reality, it would mean a person who renounces their own personality, their ego, their vanity, and ultimately their own life—which, at that point, is already a UTOPIA or perhaps the definition of a HERO who is detached from this world for the sake of the world. Philosophers really ought to define this "whole person" concept more clearly, given how skillfully it's been used in the past for all sorts of "intellectual" and material manipulations.

Walter Foster87: hollowpilot9: forget the PHYSICAL REALM. Look at yourself through what you might call legal relationships—you know, the physical, the UNTOUCHABLE, the INDIVISIBLE, the SUPERNATURAL REALM—and take it, for the sake of understanding the problem, FOR THE HEAVENLY REALM.
Because animals are either equal or unequal in the physical realm; our bodies and talents exist there, where true equality simply doesn't exist.

hollowpilot9: I "forgot the physical realm" a long time ago. People who only know me on the surface tend to say I live in outer space rather than on Earth, having no clue that I am simultaneously a practical guy, a grounded person, an innovator, a builder, a designer, a creator (I'm actually reconstructing a boat right now), and so on. But I suppose the issue is that I perceive and experience the "spiritual realm" differently than the usual stereotypes. For instance, I view the "spiritual realm" as a constant, active collaboration with the "spirits of the past" interacting with the "spirits of the present." You said...
"The POWER/RIGHT contained exclusively in the EQUAL RIGHT/POWER of an individual to exert EQUAL PUBLIC FORCE against any other individual/subject—you'll have to 'chew on' that. Only then can we discuss whether such a system is actually possible."
I agree, though it seems the difference is that you see "equal public force" as the coercion of another subject, whereas I see this force as a NECESSITY of a certain evolutionary stage that exists beyond the will or decision of the subject—something coming from that "mysterious" sphere of the subconscious. In my view, we only truly realize that a tyrant—whether they go by the name of some Caesar, Emperor, King, or a democratically elected President—is merely a phenomenon of a lower-level developmental imperative. Figures like Attila, Genghis Khan, Caligula, Henry, Louis, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam simply had to emerge at certain times as phenomena, regardless of whatever individual name they carried. Today, these tyrants just wear different faces and different clothes; we find them in bureaucratic oligarchies, management hierarchies, power structures, meritocracies, and so on. Regarding the questions you're asking, like: Why don't we notice them in our current civilization? Why isn't there a separation between legislative and constituent power, and why does the system persist where the Constitution is drafted and adopted by the highest legislative body through some "democratic" achievement?—well, those are practically "biblical" questions (ranging from Original Sin to the "narrow gate"). The problem with our era is that there are so few people left who could justify themselves through "blessed foolishness." My answer? It's because we've become incredibly SMART at interpreting the microworld, yet remain utterly STUPID when it comes to interpreting the MACROWORLD we are creating ourselves. It used to be the other way around! Humans were smart because they understood macro-phenomena, and foolish because they didn't understand micro-phenomena. That's where the "rabbit is in the bush," and until we peek into that "bush," we are destined to wander, because in my opinion, we have already moved past subjectivity—or the philosophical cauldron—out of the subject-object relation and into a state of identity, where the subject has become the object and the object has become the subject. The proof lies in creativity that transcends the creativity provided by our given or inherited nature. That is my "absolute" argument for why old theories must be replaced by new ones. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as someone who studies the incredibly complex things humans have made, I am increasingly convinced that these "things" are far more complex than any known natural thing, or anything created by God.

( continued )
Somewhere in here lies " blessed foolishness"—a charming new little concept, something fresh that I’m hearing from you, and honestly, it appeals to me at first glance. Without this " blessed foolishness," it feels like there's no way to rebuild ethics or morality, which currently exist as nothing more than empty buzzwords used by charlatans. It’s only when an intellectual—take one of our highly esteemed gentlemen, for instance—says he isn't sure who is outsmarting whom, whether the virus is outsmarting the human or vice versa, that we find the true, original essence of this " blessed foolishness." It’s the very thing so-called intellectuals are terrified of, lest they accidentally appear as dim-witted as viruses... which, frankly, are quite clever. They almost seem smarter than humans because, so far, they always manage to "outmaneuver" us through recombination whenever they return to their home in the East. So, are we talking about the "intelligence" of a virus battling the "intelligence" of a human, where the human just hasn't grasped this particular brand of logic yet? What happens when people start thinking like a "foolish" bee, a termite, an octopus, or a frog? That's why your " blessed foolishness" resonates with me; this specific situation perfectly illustrates what I mean by it. Imagine a movement of Bach's music played this way: first, the whole piece from start to finish as the first movement; then, from end to beginning as the second; then, from the midpoint forward and from the midpoint backward as the third; and finally, the fourth movement as a reverse of the third. A listener experiencing this musical acrobatics wouldn't even notice the trickery; it would seem like one continuous, seamless movement. But at the end of each section, imagine a sudden "THUD" sound, leaving the listener wondering, "What was that 'THUD'?" and what it signifies. I answered that question instinctively, with a sense of wonder: how could I possibly know? The logic I used to answer belongs precisely to that " blessed foolishness" I've described: the "THUD" is the summary, the concentrated essence of the entire complex musical movement. If you were to stretch that "THUD" back out, you'd hear Bach's music again. My take is that everything in existence is essentially structured this way: on one side, there is what we call "music"—that which exists and which we perceive as INTELLIGENCE; on the other side, there is the "THUD"—what we dismiss as foolishness, though it is actually the exact same thing, just perceived at a different level of reading existence itself. In nature, a perfect example is the relationship between a seed and its plant. The seed is the "THUD," and the plant is the musical movement.
You say: "The master is not a MAN, but property! Slave owners defined that relationship precisely. It is the relationship of master-to-man and the enslavement of a man-like animal." I was genuinely stunned to realize that a SLAVE can actually be a MASTER. I was taught that a "slave" on a Southern cotton plantation was the same as property in ancient Greece during the era of Pericles. What a lie, stretched to infinite proportions! There existed the slave-master—like a banker or a police officer in Pericles' time—and there existed the slave-animal on the cotton plantations; whereas today, we have the self-made slave, someone who is effectively enslaved to a Mercedes or a yacht worth, say, $400,000.

Walter Foster87: Such universalities and comprehensiveness cannot exist until Liberty and Equality are established—not just in some small state, but across the entire World.

hollowpilot9: Absolutely! That is the point, that is what we are working toward, and that is what we ought to be working toward, rather than just babbling about it like everyone else does.

Walter Foster87: Look at it this way. An INTELLECTUAL BEING EXISTS. And because it exists, it harvests the fruits offered by the Mind. It only stopped "picking bananas from the tree" (meaning, work didn't create man!). One doesn't have to invent something to be an inventor (to belong to that species). However, one must validate oneself through a WAY OF LIFE that is worthy of an INTELLECTUAL BEING. Therefore, the identification you are looking for is GIVEN BY EXISTENCE ITSELF. The problem, however, is that it IS NOT FULLY REALIZED! We live for a while in that state, then we struggle through life, then suddenly we cease to exist (due to "discontinuity," war, etc.), and then we become again, rebuilding everything and starting over—lord, how much we differ from little Job.

hollowpilot9: Fair enough, but my comment was about the INTELLECTUAL being a being of intellect that ONLY thinks and does absolutely nothing! A wonderful example would be those four Nobel Prize-winning writers—they were on TV a few years back; I think one was Argentine, one Canadian, maybe one Dutch, and the fourth was perhaps Swedish. They received their prizes because they wrote incredibly critical pieces about the conformism of intellectuals who sat by windows watching the "swastika" drift by without even bothering to "spit" on it. I am talking about those kinds of intellects—those who are perpetually surprised and constantly marveling at events they failed to see even when it was happening right under their noses. That is the other side of the "intellectual medal"; it is actually the "tragedy of intellect," much like the "Birth of Tragedy" in music, rather than something occurring in the "mind of a tyrant." A tyrant merely executes what his music commands, whereas an intellectual fails to do even what REASON dictates!

Walter Foster87: Aside from the whole militaristic angle—which, let’s be honest, leaves zero doubt about the intent—a SUPER BRAIN isn't built by billions or trillions of people; it's manufactured by a handful of "gatekeepers" and controllers.
Basically, Aristotle calls out that vague gap in Plato's logic—you know, how he failed to really connect the needs of the state to the BEST possible way to actually meet them—and pushes back against the idea that "everything can be measured in dollars."

hollowpilot9: I think we’re talking past each other here. When I talk about a true SUPER BRAIN, I’m talking about an ACTIVE NEW REALITY—a tangible, present phenomenon—not just some massive pile of disconnected, negative minds. There's a massive distinction there. A Super Brain would be a universal knowledge SERVICE available to everyone. It’s something even Emegvali hinted at years ago—the guy they used to dismiss as a "buffoon" but now treat like some kind of dark genius.
Walter Foster87: See, the issue is that the criterion lies within the method itself, acting as a PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE in law.
Well, if a method is just a generalization that distances itself from every individual object in order to encompass everything (or as much as possible), then the criterion for EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (including the method itself) must be an even higher degree of abstraction—essentially distancing itself from the method too.

hollowpilot9: I’ve spent plenty of time with scientists who worship the scientific method
"like a golden calf." Even quoting other experts hasn't helped; most don't view the scientific method as an idol, but rather agree with me that a method is only as good as the problems it's trying to solve. There is no such thing as a universal scientific method! But honestly, it’s all a bit futile, because if you strip away the method, you strip away the form and the institution along with it, and then everything else falls apart. If science can't claim one singular, unified method, then philosophy certainly can't—and shouldn't, if philosophy is meant to be an INVESTIGATION into the whole. As you likely know, the DIALECTICAL METHOD in philosophy completely collapsed because the questions and answers used by "old Greek philosophers" were flipped and reinterpreted as an absolute law governing the relationship between things and phenomena in nature and society, which is, frankly, nonsensical and impossible. Trying to translate the concept of opposition into the concept of complementarity seems harder than trying to swap a man for a woman or vice versa, but that shift from opposition to complementarity is inevitable in both philosophy and science!

( continued )
Walter Foster87: On the contrary—a man working a shift or performing duties on a nuclear submarine isn't exactly a FREE MAN. No matter how much we ramble about it, during the actual labor process, a HUMAN IS MERELY A PHYSICAL BEING to whom that "invisible" side of nature (meaning rights)—is ONLY ever withheld.
That leads to the question: why does he remain unfree and "on the wrong side of the line"? Because this "simplification down to a monkey's finger"—it serves no other purpose than to liberate a person from having to deal with the humiliating inevitability of organized labor.

hollowpilot9: My question was actually—why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? But you’ve twisted that into some negative association with a "submarine," which honestly has nothing to do with what I asked. When I say
"by negative criteria," I am primarily referring to the fact that the laws of society only come into existence through the emergence of something negative, or in a (failed) attempt to prevent that negativity from surfacing (despite all the "don't kill" preaching, while actual violence just keeps rising). These PROHIBITIONS aimed at thieves and criminals end up consuming honest people instead. For instance, I'm not as certain as you are that civil liberty carries more weight than military liberty on the nose of a fighter jet?? You know the old saying, "rules, rules... they'll bend my spine," yet RULES are invented by people like that (militant) bureaucrat who served as the starting point for Perkins' Law! Instead of having that one
(militant) bureaucrat, whose scope is objectively limited by his military rank, we have thousands of spatially unrestricted bureaucrats who do nothing but dream up ways to restrict someone else's freedom just to justify their own existence. A classic example is when a government official approves the standards and ingredients for a chef's menu!!? Social and public filters are, among other things, those negatives used to tailor a man's pants to state measurements, even if there's a thirty-centimeter difference in height. Consequently, citizens always end up looking like caricatures compared to the very factor meant to "fight" against negativity—when in reality, they are creating it!! So, I’m talking about that specific brand of unfreedom born within so-called civil laws; instead of order, they cause anarchy and lawlessness—not because someone chooses to be an anarchist, but because the hyperproduction of laws based on the negative makes it impossible for a citizen to actually exist, let alone function. An honest person becomes a lawbreaker, and in that "violation," the bureaucrat or the > who dreamed up the law triumphs. In a truly functional society, this kind of nonsense simply couldn't happen, because such a society wouldn't have these negatives, or if it did, they would be minor.
By "simplification down to a monkey's finger," I meant the phenomenon where managing the most complex human creation ends up at the level of a "monkey's finger." Specifically, I mean the fact that by pressing a BUTTON, we turn on a TV, yet we can also trigger planetary annihilation just as easily as we trigger the "annihilation" of dozens or hundreds of innocent souls. Our resident genius will argue that it isn't the "BUTTON" at fault, but rather the finger of a stupid man; meanwhile, I’d say: the BUTTON was invented by a smart man for a stupid man, so that he might kill himself and another (smart) man. That is the social paradox I'm trying to get at!

hollowpilot9 said:You’re describing things that have happened in the past—and honestly, things that are still happening in plenty of countries around the world today—but... I wanted to pose an analogous question, just to see what you think! For example: what kind of social (or governmental) structure is actually running my own body? Are there certain cells, or maybe even groups of cells, acting like little tyrants in there?
What kind of Government could possibly rule over a stationary universe made up of billions of cells? I mean, just think about it—it's wild! Maybe it’s just an impossible concept to wrap our heads around, but I guess it makes you wonder how any kind of order could actually function in a space that massive.
....
There’s just such a beautiful sense of harmony here—this functional organization and that profound LOGOS that I think every philosopher ought to study if they want to truly grasp how tragic autocratic, authoritarian, or even pseudo-democratic rule can be. Honestly, it boggles my mind a little! How is it that the human organism—which possesses such an incredibly well-ordered internal social structure—can turn around and produce nothing but chaos, injustice, and tyranny on the outside? It's wild... I mean, really! I carry this pretty strong conviction that we’re eventually going to see our internal and external organizations align perfectly. And honestly, looking at things lately, I feel like there are already plenty of signs that we're starting to head in that direction!

There’s this interesting parallel between an individual and their own internal makeup, much like how a society mirrors itself through its institutions—it’s almost as if our social structures and organizations act as a way to gather up and refine our raw human nature. I don't think we need to go looking for biological or cellular analogies here, really—unless you look at it from the angle that a truly organized system aligns perfectly with our capacity for reason. If we could actually achieve that kind of balance, it might just be the most optimized foundation for the progress of the Mind!

hollowpilot9 said:So, you’re suggesting that dealing with lowlife behavior, deception, or those "mad mob" types—the ones driven by theft, fighting, war, or tyranny—doesn't necessarily call for a masculine principle, but rather some level of animalistic instinct? I guess I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion, your argument kind of skips over the actual genesis of intelligence. See, many modern perspectives suggest that intelligence itself develops because of a fundamental necessity—specifically, the need for the male to secure food as both a hunter and a predator. It’s an interesting way to look at it! In fact, the whole evolution of predatory traits—you know, things like greed, gluttony, robbery, looting, murder, and general destruction—is actually described quite beautifully and thoroughly by Renata Sabbatinija in the chapter "Tool Making, Hunting and War"...

I guess you could say that for any individual—regardless of gender, really—every single principle we hold is shaped by our specific approach, and that approach is essentially just a reflection of what we consider to be justice!
Honestly, you hit the nail on the head—there are really only a handful of people who actually see themselves as part of some supernatural realm. Sure, they "know" they exist in that space, and they’ll happily cite their rights and demand protection from the US Government when necessary... but to them, it all feels so incredibly normal, so everyday, and so grounded in the physical world that I guess they'd probably just burst out laughing if you tried to tell them otherwise!
I honestly don't think a person can actually kill someone just by thinking about it—I mean, really! It’s probably just impossible to pull that off through pure imagination alone.

It’s honestly because of that specific crowd—you know, the ones who basically manufacture "public opinion" just to make sure whatever theories they like best actually get through—that those whole ideas about predators and providers seem so convincing in the first place. I guess it's all just a bit of a setup!
I don't know, I feel like that’s really just a rebellion against one's own nature—and it's not just because, at our core, humans are meant to be creators and builders rather than just greedy predators!
Of course, he’s got that physical side to his nature too—which means, in the physical realm, he actually CAN do all sorts of things that he simply CANNOT do in the supernatural (or legal) realm. And honestly, it works both ways!
So, he could potentially commit robbery or even a full-blown murder. But—I mean, does that actually prove his humanity, or did he just "kill" it (basically, sever his connection to it entirely)? I guess it's a tough one!
The existence of human NATURE—that one defining trait shared by every single member of our species, which serves as the true source of all our natural rights and laws (not just those animalistic, pre-human instincts)—is pretty much beyond doubt! I mean, if you look at it this way, a cold-blooded killer isn't really any different from a mere human-like animal. It’s almost certain, don't you think?
Look, I guess what I’m trying to say is—even though we choose to respect him again through our system and basically hand him back those status rights—that whole collective bit of "half-humanity" on our part doesn't actually erase what he did, nor does it change the consequences of his actions!
Or maybe we should look at this from the opposite angle—if we actually were just mindless predators, if our nature and everything we do weren't driven by something much more elevated than that—wouldn't we be just as pathetic and oblivious as wild animals!?

By the way, regarding that "Tool Making animal!" comment—it’s really just an ode to the sensible creature and its most vital decision: its capacity for work!
Look, I honestly think even monkeys can make REAL (human-level) tools—and maybe even go beyond that—to perform what’s essentially human-like labor. But, in my opinion, they'd probably still need a human around to supervise things and keep an eye on them!
If we just left them to their own devices—honestly, I guess they’d probably ditch those roles pretty fast and go right back to being... well, just regular monkeys!

So—it’s not like people just make tools for the sake of having them, right? It’s more that they act as aids—you know, actual means to get things done. I guess you could say the end goals of those activities (the products themselves) and the tools used to reach them aren't really born from manual labor or even pure Reason—but rather from the Mind. Maybe that's just how it works!

hollowpilot9 said:I've always felt that when you look at the humanoid design, things like Hunting and War—and honestly, the whole killing aspect—have traditionally been tied to the male half of humanity. It’s just one of those things, I guess!

Even if you consider the idea that just 10% of the male population could basically rebuild a nation from scratch—as if everyone was starting from zero—it’s pretty clear that war and killing aren't just "men's business" anymore. I mean, more and more militaries around the world are opening up to everyone—including what some might call the "weaker" guys—so things are definitely shifting!

hollowpilot9 said:In those wars they were fighting until recently, looting was basically treated as a legitimate part of the job—it’s kind of wild when you think about it! I guess the whole origin story really boils down to just marching out to snatch things from someone else. It’s much easier to just raid a neighboring tribe or a nearby state and grab what’s already been gathered—you know, like someone's winter supplies—rather than actually going out and doing the hard work of hunting for yourself. It's definitely the path of least resistance, I suppose!

War is really just a way for society to perform an abortion on its own excess—it’s like the system is trying to purge what it can't handle. And all that looting you see during the chaos? I guess that's just a little consolation prize for the small-minded people caught up in the mess. Sometimes, it even feels like some sort of twisted "national tradition." But honestly—when you look at any conflict—you have to wonder how many actual human beings are truly involved, versus just those who happen to look human.
It’s really about reaching a specific state—one that you just can't get to unless those essential, unavoidable relationships are established first. You know, those connections that basically define us as human beings in the first place! So, I guess you’d need at least an entire social group to step up—to essentially go to war with themselves—just to push everyone back into being actual, human-like creatures.

hollowpilot9 said:So, now that you’re bringing up this idea of the "WHOLE MAN"—which, let's be honest, seems to be everyone's favorite buzzword among philosophers—I have to admit, despite my very best efforts, I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what people actually mean by that! I guess I just don't quite get it—maybe I'm missing something obvious?

For me, it’s actually pretty straightforward! I think the only way we truly EXIST today is under one specific condition: we exist exclusively as PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. As legal beings, we're basically structured around three core principles—though, honestly, those principles really stem from Locke and his focus on affirming the human being as a rational creature. Because of that—you know, because of the very cause and purpose of being a private individual—there’s this undeniable, overlooked possibility (kind of like that "cornerstone the builders ignored..." idea). It points toward a completely different way for humans to exist, a totally distinct structure that also relies on its own set of three principles. But since both structures serve as tools to affirm our rationality, they really ought to coexist in a continuous loop. To make that happen, though, we’d need a social organization where the individual is, a priori, affirmed based on four fundamental principles. Maybe that's the missing piece!
When we talk about the concept of the Whole Man—it’s really all about reaching that point where we stop constantly choosing between our two different sides. It’s more about providing an unconditional affirmation for just one of those human personalities, I guess—which then helps establish true wholeness in how we relate to one another. By doing that, we might finally be able to bridge those little "discontinuities" that tend to pop up in our relationships!

hollowpilot9 said:... One acceptable answer I can find lies in the identity of the female within the male when a new human being is CREATED. Some call this LOVE! Based on that, a person full of love would be a WHOLE PERSON, but that’s just an abstract concept of a person, not reality...

Well, things can be presented in all sorts of ways. But, once they become that generalized, they don't really commit to anything—and I guess everyone has the right to imagine whatever they want under the concept of love, and by extension, that specific kind of whole person.
The whole person I'm talking about is CONCRETE. Their entire issue is EXCHANGE. Because, just like creatures in nature have to exchange matter with their environment, humans have to do the same. However, for us, that exchange is mediated through the PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND EXCHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE.
Production is what clings so tightly to the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. Meanwhile, exchange remains a PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON CANNOT DISAVOW, NOR ABANDON, NOR LET STAND IN THEIR WAY!
So, a whole person will never (for moral reasons) say to someone else: This (or that, regarding external things) IS NOT FOR SALE! They might, however, suggest an outrageously high price, and that’s about it.
Because, honestly, that's the only way to avoid being a person only temporarily: during those little gaps between two "discontinuities"—instead, one should live their whole life within a human identity and dignity.

hollowpilot9 said:... If there isn't a single unified scientific method in science, then there certainly isn't one in philosophy—and there shouldn't be, naturally, if philosophy is an INVESTIGATION and a reasoning toward the whole.

Actually, I'd argue the opposite. A person has to defend themselves using certain means against the delusions that their own Reason might lead them toward. Without a philosophical method of investigation, philosophers would just be wandering aimlessly without direction. And without a philosophical method of presentation, their achievements would struggle to survive the "iron grip of tyrants," ....

hollowpilot9 said:... As I believe you know, the DIALECTICAL METHOD in philosophy has suffered a complete collapse because questions and answers are like elements of investigation and cognition ....

No, I don't think it's accurate to say the dialectical method in philosophy has totally collapsed. I mean, sure, the flaws in Hegel's (so-called Marxist) dialectical method are well known, as is the fact that much of it can already be found in Kant's work.
But—why would dialectics be limited to just those six principles!? And are they truly sufficient criteria to protect us from delusion?

Anyway—since we're on the subject. I hope you aren't referring to that "cliché" dying gasp of the dialectical method, which Dr. Smith conveniently replaced with some sort of "PRO ET CONTRA" method.
So, yeah—it’s a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation—conversing from opposing positions remains the foundation, but—in Smith's case—it's completely UNPRINCIPLED, or rather—totally detached.

geza said:My actual question was—why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? But you somehow linked that to a "submarine," which I guess doesn't really have anything to do with what I asked! When I talk about "negative criteria," I’m mainly thinking about how a law firm only starts creating rules once something bad happens—or when they try (and usually fail) to stop something bad from happening. It’s like how everyone shouts "DON'T KILL," yet violence seems to be everywhere! Honestly, all these bans aimed at thieves and criminals end up just weighing down honest, hardworking people. For instance, I'm not quite sure I agree with you that civil liberties are more important than, say, military strength on an aircraft carrier??

See, a positive principle would only actually work if true justice existed—meaning, if we didn't have to force things through laws and public coercion. As it stands now, the only thing authorities can actually do to promote fairness is... well, making it impossible for people to do wrong.
As for that whole "rules vs. rules" debate—there's another old-school way to look at it:
"People need laws, otherwise they'd be living like wild animals!"
But, maybe, there shouldn't be too many rules. In fact—if you ask me—the very nature of law should be such that no rule is ever passed unless it truly applies to every single member of the community.

A limit like that—baked right into the constitution—would ensure the legislature never gets the chance to pass regulations that exist solely to trip us up in the race of life.

geza said:...we have thousands of bureaucrats with endless desk space who do nothing but dream up ways to restrict someone else's freedom just to justify their own jobs. ... It feels like citizens are always treated like caricatures compared to the very factors meant to "fight" the negative, when in reality, they're actually creating more negativity!! ...
. Because of that, an honest person ends up being a lawbreaker, and in that "offense," the bureaucrat or the editor who invented the rule gets to feel like they've won! ....

Well, when you see the whole picture, you realize why we absolutely need a constitution, and why those kinds of laws shouldn't be passed or adopted by any of the highest governing bodies—especially not Congress.
Once we have a solid constitution, the bureaucrats and politicians can try to scheme all they want, but it won't matter much...