Pure Nonsense

Since I’ve been labeled by a certain duo—one being a "Intro to Philosophy" moderator and the other an expert in... let's call it "penis philosophy"—as someone who just writes nonsense, I figured I should probably clear the air. It wouldn't be fair to any potential readers to leave them wandering in the dark about my supposed "nonsense," so here is a concise summary of my various follies, all in one place. You see, these two love to claim I'm talking rubbish without actually specifying which brand of rubbish it is. So, to prevent any confusion, here is a clear breakdown of my "stupidities":

Stupidity No. 1
All traditional "modern" intellect is built upon a linear perception of the world—a view that is fundamentally untrue, false, illusory, and frankly utopian, simply because there isn't a single straight line or flat surface to be found in the USA. The USA is a sphere, the Sun is a sphere, every planet is a sphere, and their orbits might look like circles in a projection, but in reality, they are spirals. I am considered a fool because I develop, proclaim, affirm, and practice wave-quantum physics, elementary tetrahedral philosophy, the philosophy of complementarity and polarity, and, of course, the philosophy of origin, which traditional philosophers haven't the slightest clue about.

Stupidity No. 2
All traditional "modern" intellect speaks of a dual—binary—order of the world, whereas I, the fool, speak of a quaternary order.

Stupidity No. 3
All traditional "modern" intellect describes the flow of time as moving from a beginning in the past toward a future, while I, the fool, also discuss the flow of time moving from a beginning in the future back toward the past.

Stupidity No. 4
All traditional "modern" intellect claims that life began through chemical processes in some primordial "primordial soup," whereas I, the fool, suggest that life was created (or rather, transmitted) by a civilization similar to our own. I am also a fool for claiming that life creates life.

Stupidity No. 5
All traditional "modern" intellect discusses the evolution of life and plants, while I, the fool, talk about the evolution of humanity—and, in my ultimate foolishness, I claim that humanity is evolving toward a cosmic macro-being that actually created us. As a hardened fool, I have even given this being a preliminary, ridiculous name: HOMOTERAS.

Stupidity No. 6
With the emergence of Homoteras in my foolish consciousness, a swarm of further nonsense follows, so here are a few examples:

- A living historical human is a single entity—a cell within Homoteras, much like a biological
cell is a single entity within a human, or any other form of life.
- Man is primarily a creative, generative being who, through the medium of intelligence,
performs all those actions and attributes typically assigned to God.
- One of my crowning stupidities is the idea that at the evolutionary
peak of humanity, man possesses all the anticipated attributes of God. It is also my folly
to claim that at that point, Man becomes and is God. This particular bit of nonsense particularly
irks the "intelligent" types.
- It is certainly a major blunder to suggest that there are at least two ways
atoms of matter are created in the universe: one in the stars (the Sun) and one here on Earth. This
particular absurdity especially annoys scientists.
- Since one stupidity inevitably breeds another, comes the next:
that life forms transmute atoms of matter, which, again, tends to irritate
intelligent scientists.
- I’ve been branded a fool because I was the first one on a scientific forum to mention
COLD FUSION. The fact that an entire division of such fools exists alongside me doesn't
interest the "smart" people at all.
- As a fool, I caused such a stir among the ranks of intelligent scientists
that they went so far as to violate the US Constitution, arbitrarily erasing my legitimate
civil opinion (knowledge)—which states that man evolves further toward four
transhuman beings: robo sapiens, cyborg sapiens, astro sapiens, and cyber
sapiens. This quaternary folly is especially irritating to philosophers.
- As a fool, I assert that Science is that human endeavor—that intellect—which will eventually discover and
If you want to prove the existence of God, philosophy acts as nothing more than a glorified nanny—which, granted, makes me a complete
idiot for claiming there’s actually no distinction between a human at their evolutionary peak and God. That is,
just my own particular brand of nonsense.
- I'm also an idiot for suggesting there are two different types of zero instead of just one, despite what we were all taught in school.
There is the EMPTY Zero and the FULL Zero.

Stupidity No. 7
All this mainstream "modern" intelligence focuses on how incredibly complex the human brain is. People love crowning themselves with intellectual majesty, treating the brain like some sacred relic during their little ceremonies—as if it's the pinnacle of brilliance—while I, the idiot, ramble on about some kind of global SUPERBRAIN that outclasses a single biological human brain by several billion times. It really seems to grate on the nerves of certain philosophers who walk around thinking they possess a "massive" intellect.

Stupidity No. 8
Modernity loves to glorify philosophy as merely the collection of opinions held by various philosophers, whereas I, the fool, celebrate the philosophy of origin—something most philosophers haven't even begun to grasp. This philosophy absolutely terrifies them, while it just makes me feel exceptionally stupid.

Stupidity No. 9
I am particularly foolish for suggesting that teachers (not through any fault of their own, mind you) are misguiding our children when they teach that 1 : 2 = 1/2. And I'm an idiot for claiming that the USA doesn't simply orbit the Sun in a circle as Copernicus supposedly "discovered," but rather—like a total moron—that the USA follows a spiral path.

Stupidity No. 10
( CONTINUED )

Here’s a little collection of my philosophical nonsense—just so everyone else can stop claiming I’m stupid.
I’ll admit, I am an idiot, mostly because I believe the vast majority of philosophers, from Thales all the way down to Hegel, have spent their lives churning out worthless subjective fluff that has, quite frankly, led humanity straight into various tragedies.

And yeah, I’m an idiot for thinking Esher was the first person to actually write a real philosophy through drawings—something that mirrors my own philosophy of origin. And since I’m the author of this second attempt at a "real" philosophy, I guess that makes me the idiot in question!

I also confess to being a complete idiot for writing a 500-page book titled *Philosophy of Origin Total Idiot*, especially since I cited 126 different books totaling over a thousand pages in the literature review.

Actually, I’m an even bigger idiot than a "total idiot" because, in that very same book, I claim to be the first person in the world to propose a BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.

I’m an idiot for writing a second book too—this one is 426 A4 pages long with 317 illustrations. Half of them were drawn by other people, just to make sure the visual evidence of my stupidity is undeniable. That’s why I titled it *A Picture Book for Adults*.

And I’m an idiot for once again trying to elevate Man to the level of the Divine, pulling him up from his current state as a sort of vegetative, criminalized creature.

I suppose I’m talking nonsense when I bring up autopoiesis, too.

If you need proof that I’m truly dim-witted, look no further: scientists have kicked me out for being a "philosophical fool," and philosophers are trying to shove me into an asylum because of the nonsense I write.

This little excerpt of my foolishness gives everyone here the chance to decide for themselves—autonomously, without anyone else's influence—exactly how much of an idiot I am on this forum.

To wrap things up, here are four silly snippets from my little booklet, *The Philosophy of Stupidity*:

"Deep within my being, I am convinced that our current perception is merely a single spark amidst a much wider, latent consciousness within us—a consciousness that will eventually spiral toward a UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE of which we currently have no inkling."
Physicist C.N. Martin

"The staggering progress of science also brings equally staggering realizations: that global catastrophes are now easily achievable, perhaps even highly probable. This explains the endless controversies regarding the future of humanity. Today, there is a glaring divergence between elite science and mass ignorance."
Dr. T. Švob

"The scientific community is increasingly pointing toward the fact that established truths are no longer sustainable. It’s becoming common knowledge that formal educational systems have nothing to do with a person's actual level of intelligence."
*The New York Times*, August 27, 2000

"From an evolutionary standpoint, the green limbic brain is what drove development toward intelligent humans. Within it lies a pre-cognitive, archaic, mythical, religious, and childlike consciousness. In real life, this is the state where you aren't thinking—when you are sleeping, yawning, singing, laughing, playing, or crying. It’s the state of being in love, or the moment a human being is truly created. Philosophy and philosophers, science and scientists, haven't a clue about it. But I do, and that’s why I’m an idiot. COMPLETELY BEYOND REASON."

These four quotes clearly illustrate where a smart person actually stands, and they give anyone who thinks I'm an idiot full permission to go ahead and say it.

I’m curious, though—will any of my "distinguished acquaintances" bother to write that I occasionally produce intelligent text instead of just the garbage?

Is it really possible that all 1,700 of my posts are just pure nonsense? If that’s actually the case, then I’m definitely a genius at writing stupidity. Honestly, I’m starting to feel a bit proud of being such a prolific idiot.
The only real problem is that thousands of people have already read and copied my books and my stupid posts; they won't just vanish from the public eye as easily as some people might wish.

All traditional "modern" art is based on a linear perception of the world.

Is that so? And who says?

Stupidity No. 2
All traditional "modern" art discusses a dual—binary order of the world, whereas I, a fool, speak of a quaternary order.

Really? And who claims this?

Stupidity No. 3
All traditional "modern" art speaks of time flowing from a beginning in the past toward the future self, but I, a fool, also speak of time flowing from a beginning in the future self back toward the past.

Well, you are my guiding light.

Stupidity No. 4
All traditional "modern" art claims life began via chemical processes in a primordial "primordial soup," while I, a fool, say life was created (or transmitted) by a civilization similar to humanity. I am a fool because I suggest that life creates life.

You aren't alone, though. You should reach out to Deniken; maybe you could grab a drink together.

Stupidity No. 5
All traditional "modern" art focuses on the evolution of life and plants, whereas I, a fool, discuss the evolution of mankind, and most foolishly, claim that humanity evolves toward a cosmic macro-being that actually created us. As a stubborn fool, I have even provided a preliminary, foolish name for this being: HOMOTERAS.

It isn't macro; perhaps it is a micro-being.

After reading this, one becomes pathologically paranoid and enters an asylum, so I suppose I won't dwell on it.

I only hope you were slightly more coherent in those two books than you are here. If I had to guess, was your publisher Old Town?

MODERATOR

What on earth is that supposed to be, some kind of macro-entity?

hollowpilot9, don't let them get under your skin...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:hollowpilot9, don't let them get under your skin...

👍
@ hollowpilot9🙂

👍 for our headline

I had a good laugh at this—honestly, give people a break. Everyone should be free to think outside the box and share different perspectives without being harassed (provided, of course, those ideas aren't aimed at hurting others).

As for the "Idiots" themselves, I don't have much to say—I don't think the topic is brilliant, nor do I think it's foolish in its own right. Though, if I had to guess, it probably sits somewhere right in the middle.

planinar said:hollowpilot9, don't let them get under your skin...

Thanks for the input, really, but let's be real—do I actually know what I'm doing here?
This is just pathetic!

Geza, just stay bold. Don't let yourself get stuck while you're out there searching. Go ahead and explore, even if you trip up once in a while. Hard work, guts, and being daring—mixed with a bit of humility and selflessness—those are the traits worth having.

Geza, did I somehow offend you? Because if I did, then we’re dealing with an ego of truly astronomical proportions, and honestly, having a sane, healthy conversation with someone like that is basically impossible—I’ve learned that through plenty of trial and error... Philosophy is supposed to be a dialogue, not just some dogmatic rambling. It’s about constantly questioning everything, even philosophy itself, rather than just shouting slogans or throwing unbacked insults to prove yourself right. To me, philosophy is about beauty and the brilliance of the mind, not some egocentric outburst or acting all high and mighty just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you. When I was talking about Kanrga, I kept things strictly polite and composed; I can't even begin to imagine how things would have gone down if I had actually let myself get emotional or cared too much, seriously... All I'm sensing here is this massive, old-school ego, and frankly, I have no interest in dealing with that kind of drama. It's just going in circles...

It isn't just that I've always seen your posts as interesting pieces of a larger puzzle—though I usually appreciate what you write because there's almost always something to learn if you read between the lines. But this level of dramatization and this unnecessary "hey everyone, look at me!" vibe really isn't my thing... What's the point?! There's a modern term for it that fits perfectly: "attention whore."

So now I see it—it’s just classic academic syndrome... 😬 I really hope I don't end up falling into those same traps during my own college years; and even if I do, I truly hope I won't feel the need to force people to respect me just because I felt obligated to slog through every single book out there just to maintain some sense of self-respect...

Geza, look, if you actually want to write about something personal, then go for it. Start your own thread and lay out your ideas for everyone; I have no reason to believe they aren't worth hearing. But if your plan is just this cheap way of grabbing attention by trashing topics you don't actually understand—because let's be real, nobody knows everything—and throwing around ungrounded, almost paranoid labels like calling people "Marxist lapdogs" and whatnot, then you're just doing it wrong. Just because you wrote a 1,500-page book doesn't make you any smarter; if anything, it just makes it a proportionally more tragic case study...

Why do you feel such a need to keep bringing up Kangrga and Marx if they're basically relics of the past? Why not try writing something high-quality instead, stepping outside that outdated framework rather than just spinning your wheels in it? Nothing great ever really comes from tearing things down or undermining them. The funny thing is, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't see you actually living by it, whereas I'm out here trying to do exactly that. See, the whole point of philosophy isn't just nodding along and validating one another; it's about constantly asking, "Wait, why is it actually like this?" It seems like your ego doesn't quite grasp that, which leads to you feeding it hand and foot, resulting in these honestly pretty ridiculous and childish situations. I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in all that. You should write whatever you want—that's your right and your choice. It's also my right to take people less seriously after outbursts like these. Best,

geza said:Basically, these two just claim I'm talking nonsense without actually pointing out what kind of nonsense I'm supposedly spewing. So, to clear things up, here's a little breakdown of my supposed "stupidities":

CONSPIRACY!!!

It’s almost sad how some readers can't seem to connect the dots on their own... Honestly, man, I always knew you could influence someone through a bit of suggestion, but I didn't realize I possessed THAT kind of superpower. Goodness, thanks for the ego boost, geza...

Looks like our favorite little science nerd is back at it again, sticking to their usual routine... 😁

So, Gaza dropped some questions on me. Usually, I’m the type who jumps at the chance to answer anyone asking me something directly, but this guy? He’s the exception. Honestly, he was actually on my ignore list before I stepped up as a moderator. I’ve tried talking to him enough times, and I’ve spent plenty of time reading his "discussions" with other users, just to realize that trying to have a real conversation with him is basically just a massive waste of my time and energy.

Nah, since they're actually announcing it:

Gaza said:You won't answer because you're just incapable, but man, are you an expert at being cynical and ignoring anyone who doesn't fit your narrow little worldview! From here on out, I’m gonna be commenting on every single one of your posts—not to talk to you, obviously, but to show everyone exactly how you try to hoodwink them with that whole mistyfox812 philosophy of yours.

I guess I’m kind of forced to say something here. Honestly, it’s not even because I give a damn about Gezin’s opinion of me—I don't value his take at all, and frankly, I doubt anyone who actually matters takes him seriously either. It's more that I can't stand his little announcement about "commenting on my every single post." That would totally kill the vibe for me. I love posting when things feel friendly and chill, but he's threatening to turn this place into that typical, narrow-minded, loud-mouthed shouting match. Look, you can't have a real philosophical debate when someone is forcing your hand like this, but hey, I didn't ask for this confrontation. I usually skip replying to his threads because, let's be real, everything he posts feels like pure spam cluttering up the boards. So, these replies? They're just a byproduct of his spamming. I'm using this specific thread since the title actually makes sense for once. I'm not really expecting to make Gezin see reason—I'm just hoping he'll finally back off with this creepy threat to stalk my every move on the forum.

So, let me jump in and actually respond to those two posts of his.

Gaza said:Look, you’re totally misinterpreting this and basically shooting yourself in the foot because you're completely ignoring virtual electrons. Like, seriously? What even is a "virtual electron" compared to the "real" ones actually zipping around your TV screen or whatever monitor you're staring at? Why aren't you bringing that up? Or better yet, why isn't anyone talking about it? So, I was just spiraling down this rabbit hole thinking about electron polar complementarity... like, seriously, how does that even work? It’s one of those things that sounds super intense when you first hear it, but once you start digging, it’s actually kind of wild. Just thinking about the way everything balances out on such a tiny, microscopic level. It's honestly mind-blowing. What actually led guys like Borove or Heisenberg to lean into those specific takes on physical uncertainty? And look, if you're gonna bring up Boma, why not just be straight about it? That guy is primarily focused on holographic phenomena, not stuff involving particles—you know, like electrons, or me, or you, or even a cow.
When is everyone finally gonna wake up and realize that modern physics—and honestly, everything else, even biology—is built on POLAR NON-LINEAR COMPLEMENTARITY? Like, seriously. We need to stop obsessing over these tiny little electron balls bouncing around the Moon or Earth and actually look at the big picture. It’s time to get it right.
So, like... is there actually any fresh news on virtual electums or even a "virtual human"? I mean, does that kind of thing even exist? Like, is it an object, a creation, or just some weird phenomenon? And seriously, could there even be a virtual America?

It’s honestly pretty stupid to claim any piece of writing—especially a random forum post—is "wrong" just because I left something out. Let's be real: every single text leaves stuff out by design. If that were actually a thing, then clearly Gaza still needs to spend hundreds of pages explaining himself in his famous book (self-published, obviously) just to make sure people get it. So, yeah, every statement is technically incomplete. Calling my post a "wrong interpretation" or "bad teaching" just because I skipped a detail is total nonsense. And honestly, using the word "teaching" is super uncalled for. I’m not out here trying to lecture anyone on this forum, and I definitely wasn't lecturing in the post they were reacting to; I was just answering a question someone asked me. I mean, why even ask me instead of going to Gaza? He'd probably give them the "correct" lesson anyway. Who knows what that guy is thinking.
You can find stuff about virtual electrons in pretty much any physics textbook, including Wikipedia. If someone who actually knows how to hold a conversation asked me, I might try to give an answer—but honestly, there’s zero reason to.

I have no clue why people don't talk about this or that. It's not my job to decide what gets discussed or how. Why don't I bring up "electron polar complementarity"? Because I literally have nothing to say about it. As far as I know, neither Bohr nor Heisenberg had anything to say about it either. They did have plenty to say about complementarity, though—which I've actually posted about on the forum before when the timing felt right. As for the late Boma, he also looked into using holograms as a sort of metaphor for a whole new way of seeing reality. I've written about that too, whenever I felt it was necessary. Calling him someone who primarily dealt with "holographic phenomena" is just nonsense. First off, using the word "phenomena" there is totally out of place, and second, Gaza isn't in any position to judge which part of Boma's work is "primary" and which is secondary. Plus, it's just plain stupid to try and tell anyone what someone else's main focus was every single time you mention their name.

It's a side note, but kind of interesting to me—Gaza constantly misspells Boma's name, and not just his. Anyone unlucky enough to read more of Gaza's work probably noticed this total lack of care for the text. Maybe you could write it off as him being focused on "bigger things" and being dismissive of trivial details. But honestly? I think it just shows Gaza doesn't really care about his readers. Most people on here read over their posts after they hit send and fix typos—that's called showing respect to the people reading. Gaza obviously doesn't read his posts once they're live—not that anyone can blame him, since reading those things is a struggle in itself. But here's the weird part: several times now, other users have pointed out when he's misspelled a name or a word. And yet, he just keeps doing it, stubbornly. To me, that kind of stubbornness points to one specific trait: an inability to admit to any mistake, even when it's tiny and super obvious. But look, if Gaza actually started seriously considering what other users were telling him, his entire long-standing intellectual structure might just collapse into a pile of nonsense built from half-understood or out-of-context fragments. It feels like Gaza has gone too far into building his own little fantasy castle—somewhere caught between heaven and earth—to ever allow himself to face that possibility. You kind of have to understand him, though.

As for the question of "when will we finally get it," I can't answer that. I don't have a crystal ball or a window into the future. Unlike Gaza, who seems to have the future laid out before him, so it feels pretty silly for him to ask me "when will we finally get it."

The "virtual electron" and the "virtual man" are totally related, but only within Gaza's imagination. Outside of that, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Gaza said:Maybe it’d be a lot smarter if you spent your time moving on with your life instead of obsessing over my posts? Seriously, who gave you the right to go around twisting my words when I’m being perfectly civil? You aren't my tutor, you don't get to dictate my opinions, and you're definitely not some expert in philosophy. What are you even doing here? What’s your actual role? Are you just trying to brainwash people? Like, trying to force some obscure philosophical takes from the bottom of a history book down everyone's throats? And what is this "unique Gezin theory" nonsense? Gezin doesn't even have a theory! He just interprets that one incredible, magnificent system called the Philosophy of Origins—it's not about Socrates or Marx. What do you actually know about that philosophy? Why are you even doing this?

I moved some of the posts from the "Why do we exist? What's the point???" thread over to its own separate topic. Honestly, the reasons for doing that aren't even hard to figure out—it was pretty obvious just looking at the main post in that new thread. Like Gaza correctly pointed out, most people jumping into this discussion are coming at it from a place of pure existential curiosity about their own purpose. That kind of question—just like questioning who you actually are—is one of those fundamental triggers everyone hits eventually, and it’s usually what kicks off all the deep philosophizing. That whole existential spark only really works when you take the question personally. It's one of those things where the question itself matters way more than any actual answer. Because at the end of the day, if you're looking at it through that lens, you're the only one who can ever provide the answer for yourself.
That’s how he’s looking at it—an existential approach (and yeah, I’m totally stealing that term from Gaza). It’s fundamentally different from how Gezin sees things, which he actually made pretty clear himself. For Gezin, it's all about how one single person relates to the entire human race from an evolutionary standpoint. It's like comparing a single cell to a whole organism or something.
So, the Gezin approach is... well, it’s definitely a different vibe than what everyone else is doing on this thread. You can tell because there are like 68 people chiming in here who have only posted once or twice on this specific topic. It kind of implies that the main question is one of those super personal ones—you know? Like, almost everyone feels the need to weigh in with their own take, but hardly anyone feels the urge to go around trying to convince someone else that they're right. I guess it's just one of those things where you have to figure out the answer for yourself.
Look, Gezin’s approach is totally valid—it’s just... different. I actually thought about taking a bunch of his posts from this thread—maybe like half of them—specifically the ones where he lays out that unique way of thinking, and spinning them off into their own separate discussion. But since he’s totally against me doing that, I just scrapped the idea and went back to how things were.

Look, let me answer those questions real quick: what I consider "smart" is my call to make, Gezin—not yours. As a moderator, I have the right to move posts from one thread to another whenever necessary. And just to be clear, I don't belong to anyone. I’m the moderator for the Philosophy subforum, and my job is to manage discussions based on my own judgment, as long as I’m staying within the site rules. You can't force philosophical viewpoints on people; philosophy is meant to be shared and explored, not dictated.I'm just gonna say it—it’s time to expose everything. Honestly, I'm tired of keeping it all in. We need to lay it all out on the table, no filters, no holding back. It's about being real for once. Let's get into it.It’s just not gonna happen.imposingLook, whether something’s just mindless noise or actually worth your time? That’s totally up to you. Personally, I know way too much about this "Philosophy of Origins" stuff—honestly, more than I ever wanted to know. Not only is the Philosophy subforum absolutely drowning in all that Gezin nonsense, but they even opened a new "On the Edge" section just to try and shield the Science department from that notorious Geza guy. And guess what? He’s already flooded that one, too. To top it off, before I even ran into him here, I had the bad luck of checking out his book from the local library in San Diego. I mean, maybe the library was feeling extra generous and took two copies just so the citizens could be eternally grateful, but whatever. I barely even managed to get through a third of it. 🙂

Come on, guys, why even bother getting worked up over bolded Gaza? He’s just another half-baked fanatic who thinks he's the only one holding the right answers. He spends his time aggressively preaching his "truth" to anyone listening, usually without even bothering to be civil. Honestly, people like that aren't worth the energy once you realize what they're actually about.👎
The best move is to just hit ignore. These types literally feed off the attention you give them when you try to argue.

Tyler Scott3 said:Geza, just stay bold. Don't let yourself get stuck while you're out there searching. Go ahead and explore, even if you trip up once in a while. Hard work, guts, and being daring—mixed with a bit of humility and selflessness—those are the traits worth having.

Thanks for the support. Without worrying? Well, it seems like nobody actually took this dialogue to heart in their own way. I’m not against anyone, really. But, alongside his approach, I’m going to offer "my way"—and you neutrals can just watch how things develop and how we communicate. Give some credit to those who speak with actual arguments, who seek the TRUTH through their own deep reflection rather than through corroded ideologies, or dogmatic preaching, or the crumbling paradigms and failed formalisms that have essentially made philosophy trivial—or at the very least, unappealing and unwanted. As someone trying to revive philosophy as a living MINDSET, I find myself being stigmatized—basically spat on—by people who don't know a thing about philosophy beyond what some thinkers taught 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago.

Just think about it—today, when humanity has mapped nature down to the subatomic level, when we basically manage life itself and harness the forces of the stars, we're still being forced into ancient philosophies—Ludo! I previously mentioned why no one was particularly offended by me, but I also pointed out that while ancient philosophy is a treasure trove of great minds, its influence has lingered so long that it has lost all its meaning. There is only NEW, and ONLY NEW PHILOSOPHY, and nothing else! It's a shame our thinkers aren't capable of that. Not just "new" in a small sense, hollowpilot9, but UNIVERSALLY NEW.

Which philosophers are we even talking about here?

And honestly, what about the relationship between philosophy and the sciences? There’s a whole history there that stretches back way before the classics, filled with these incredible, brilliant insights that haven't lost their luster—if anything, they seem to shine even brighter in our modern world.

Plus, I feel like what you're describing isn't really philosophy itself, but more like a history of ideas—sort of a doxography or just a giant catalog of names through the ages. To me, that's not quite hitting the mark of what philosophy actually is. In my eyes, the whole point shouldn't be to just pick one school of thought and cling to it for life, dividing ourselves into little cliques of Spinozists, Aristotelians, Marxists, Thomists, or any other group of folks just following a label.

hollowpilot9 said:Thanks for the support. Without worrying? Well, it seems like nobody actually took this dialogue to heart in their own way. I’m not against anyone, really. But, alongside his approach, I’m going to offer "my way"—and you neutrals can just watch how things develop and how we communicate. Give some credit to those who speak with actual arguments, who seek the TRUTH through their own deep reflection rather than through corroded ideologies, or dogmatic preaching, or the crumbling paradigms and failed formalisms that have essentially made philosophy trivial—or at the very least, unappealing and unwanted. As someone trying to revive philosophy as a living MINDSET, I find myself being stigmatized—basically spat on—by people who don't know a thing about philosophy beyond what some thinkers taught 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago.

Just think about it—today, when humanity has mapped nature down to the subatomic level, when we basically manage life itself and harness the forces of the stars, we're still being forced into ancient philosophies—Ludo! I previously mentioned why no one was particularly offended by me, but I also pointed out that while ancient philosophy is a treasure trove of great minds, its influence has lingered so long that it has lost all its meaning. There is only NEW, and ONLY NEW PHILOSOPHY, and nothing else! It's a shame our thinkers aren't capable of that. Not just "new" in a small sense, hollowpilot9, but UNIVERSALLY NEW.

(...) writing is a skill you learn.😁