I was reading Descarte and he said that we depend on a perfect being to exist, that is to say nothing cannot exist from nothing and needs something to exist. That means everything exists from something (that is perfect).

So my question would be, what is everything? Doesn't 'everything' means it includes every possible outcomes and scenarios, that is to say it also contains 'nothing'. What is the concept of nothing that makes it different or opposed to everything?

I'm a casually reader and is having difficulties understanding the 4th discourse, I'd like to ask for someone more knowledge to help me understand this as if I'm a 10 yrs old.

From the perspective of dialectics, contradiction is an inherent driving force of development. Yet the continual emergence of new contradictions suggests that humanity may never be able to establish an absolutely perfect society or state, entirely free of conflict and imperfection.

If this is the case, where is the continuous development of human society ultimately leading? If we can never attain a final, ideal state, what is the meaning of historical progress? Furthermore, if perfection can exist only as an ideal that remains forever beyond our reach, what value lies in humanity’s persistent efforts to transform society and pursue progress? If the destination can never be reached, what, then, is the meaning of the journey?

Consider mathematics. It is numbers and structure, and it was invented by a man, then expanded from that origin. Theorems, formulae, and algorithms have since been built upon it, with infinitely more possibilities yet to be explored. Yet mathematics had a beginning. It started with us.

Sex, by contrast, is something closer to a root of existence. Biology ensures attraction between opposite genders, and pleasure is derived in order to reproduce. This is an innate form of human biology existing independent of us. It never began or ended. It is root in its form.

The same cannot be said about mathematics. What if the first people who invented it had done so differently, or had not done so at all, and it had never been discovered? What would follow? All of the abstraction that now occupies so much concern would simply not exist, because it is entirely man-made.

Or is some form of mathematics truly rooted in nature, since it did advance the understanding of the world? Even so, had it been invented or discovered differently, understanding might differ, and so might the inventions built on it. Or the same inventions might be built upon a new version of mathematics, or perhaps something else altogether.

So if mathematics, that which is considered divine and absolute, is itself an abstraction, then everything else must be questioned: morals, philosophy, science, language, and the rest. All of these are forms of abstraction. Frameworks of the absolute have somehow been developed around them. Definitive codes of morality have been written in holy books; science that revealed the laws of the universe has ironically been built upon this same mathematics; languages that we have created are now the foundation of governance and law bearing real consequence. Yet, within the framework of the accepted abstract, a reality was constructed that enabled the understanding of the universe and the pursuit of innovation that made real impact.

All of this man-made abstraction can serve as a framework for producing real change.

Perhaps the same is true of the mind. A belief, which is abstract, can be posed as absolute, or close to it, and used as a framework to build through the corners of the mind. Had intelligence never been measured, would a person still consider themselves inferior to another? Had time never been divided into milestones, would one feel behind in life? The differences would remain, as would the passing of years. Yet something of their meaning might disappear. 

As a student of mathematics and computing, and a lover of philosophy, this raises an important question: how much of what is called reality is reality itself, and how much is the interface through which human minds make reality intelligible?

This may be the real question.

A man once described how he could never imagine his partner being with someone else, despite having no intention of marrying her. Suppose the biological drive towards sexual exclusivity did not exist, and society had never equated love with possession or fidelity. Would he still feel betrayed at the thought of her being with another person? How much of the hurt remains if neither his biology nor the world around him had taught him to expect her exclusivity? Perhaps the attachment itself would survive, but the betrayal would not. Or perhaps even the attachment is inseparable from the framework through which he has learned to love. This only asks the question in miniature: how much of what is felt is the thing itself, and how much is the interface we are indoctrinated into?

Consider integral calculus. Draw a curve on a sheet of paper and imagine finding the area beneath it. Integration truly gives us a way to determine that area, even when the curve bends in ways that make direct measurement impossible. The framework can tell us precisely what must be measured, even when we cannot find a neat expression for the result. Some integrals resist every method we have devised further suggesting there is a rooted truth underneath. Is this merely a system we invented, or one we are gradually uncovering? The notation is ours, but the result does not appear to depend on what we call it. Perhaps the mathematical framework describes the structure of reality in a way that is absolute, and only the manner of describing it is ours.

And then the scale. It must have started with two rocks and three rocks, and objectively those are five rocks. From there we have discovered geometry, calculus, quantum physics, computers, artificial intelligence, and more. Somehow this ever-growing framework called mathematics keeps capturing reality without deviating from it, conforming back to its own roots, or so it seems. 

Is mathematics divine, or god itself? 

Calculus was invented only a couple hundred years ago. How did Newton even discover it? Newton and Leibniz arrived at it about ten years apart, both already indoctrinated in all the mathematics that came before them. A shared inheritance would explain the convergence, and so would a world that pushes back, and from inside the overlap the two cannot be told apart. Now widen the gap. If someone had reached a similar version hundreds or thousands of years earlier, working from a different toolkit, the coincidence would be much harder to blame on an interface, and the question might finally be answerable.

Mathematics is not a root of existence, yet it is not mere decoration. It is a constrained invention: a human interface that the world presses back against. That pressure separates mathematics from a story. A belief can be made absolute by decree. A theorem cannot be made false by one.

The test then travels. For all other abstractions, the frameworks of the mind, the useful question is not whether it was invented. It is what, if anything, pushes back.

One must aspire to see reality without its abstractions. The mind has been indoctrinated over time into forming an interface, and the task is to see through it. From childhood, we inherit distinctions we rarely seek to question: that truth is preferable to illusion, that certainty is preferable to doubt, that consistency is preferable to contradiction. We come to believe that to name something is to know it, that to explain something is to understand it, and that to distinguish is to discover a distinction that already exists in reality. These ideas gradually become so embedded that we cease to recognise them as ideas at all. The mind has been shaped by the very interface it must now attempt to see through. In fact the very belief that there exists a reality beneath our abstractions is itself an abstraction, another framework through which the mind attempts to make sense. 

Yet one can get closer and closer to the ultimate possibility: a free mind, of clear vision, able to see reality for itself. Through awareness of social norms, of abstractions, and of the root beneath, one can learn to see reality. At the same time the interface cannot be rejected, for without it, even the simplest interactions with the tangible world become difficult to navigate. One must learn to interact without mistaking an interface for reality. Perhaps this is what a full and true life holds.

The divine and the devil exist within humans. Not as a collective but as two parts of the same man. Many talk of morality when dissecting this. The divine consists of virtues: patience, selflessness. The devil consists of vices: envy, angst, and selfish qualities.

And yes, each man possesses both.

Yet perhaps there exists a line one can draw to distinguish when the effect of their presence commences one over the other. Some you can see as embodiments of the divine. Jesus and Buddha, preserved in scripture, are two. Others can seem as the personification of an anti-christ. Their presence destroys the soul of every man they come across, every place they step into. An overwhelming darkness in their mind seeps into everything around.

One must be careful of such people, as they will not rest until your spirit wears thin. Not in conscious form, no. But in a deeper consciousness, in a layer beneath another, their nerves fight for you to react, to be sucked into a void.

Some can resist this pull, yet many struggle. Even for the saints, one cannot deny that time is the minimum cost for such involvement. For which one must be careful, especially for those with a malleable mind, one of a chameleon.

There is something peculiar about such people. An unmistakable charisma, the smell of warmth and familiarity, and fierce independence serving as proof of their seeming inner confidence. Can such a man even hold the capacity for cruelty?

This independence, this detached nature, is perhaps derived from a need to control the frame, a constant need for reassurance of your reaction to them. One may mistake this for care. Do not be mistaken, for care for your reaction and care for you present the difference between the world and underworld. Love, hate, anger, jealousy only serve as proof to their power. Insignificance is the antithesis of love for such.

Sharp, uncontrollable reactions, seemingly bizarre and completely illogical, may surface. They appear suddenly, out of nowhere, only to shock and scare. A man so warm and liked cannot have a will to evil, can he? Perhaps the absurdity is only a consequence of our actions. So you subtly change yourself, slowly, only to find out it is truly independent of you. Deceive yourself if you may, but these are no random occurrences, for they reveal their true nature, their need for power and control. Their need for you to react.

Harboring sympathy for their unfortunate circumstance, showing avoidance or a lack of ability, or any such, and always holding a higher moral ground, is a weapon of devils. Perhaps they were abused. Perhaps they need to be understood. They will change soon if we are patient enough. So we compensate and accommodate, fooling ourselves that there exists virtue in them. Do not be fooled. Looking into them only pulls one deeper in. Learn to look outwards. Look at the effect of their presence. Destroyed people, suffocating environments. Most importantly the effect on you: frantic, anxious, stimulated. Women especially may present even softer vulnerability, often seductive in nature. A man in love is deranged of all logic and judgement, hence this may be the most powerful and most dangerous form.

Yet the vulnerability itself may be true. Perhaps they are avoidant, easily intimidated, unfortunate. Perhaps they act from it, talk of it. To be lulled in may even seem virtuous, for it mirrors your past, for it holds up who you believe yourself to be. So you have a choice to make: what feels virtuous, or what is. Will you be fooled again?

These devils, oftentimes, have deep-rooted fears and insecurities. Internal conflict and chronic dissatisfaction consume them, from which emerges this void. To compensate, they provoke you. These actions are perhaps motivated by such, they themselves are unaware of. Even the most self-aware, introspective ones may be blind to what sits in plain sight. In fact, many identify with moral good. How can one condemn a man for what he cannot see in himself? 

One must yet be careful to conclude as such, though. To risk mistaking an unpleasant man for a devil is to fall into a trap of its own. Circumstance itself varies a man's character; to be the devil with one and the divine with another. But a recurring effect transcending reason cannot be disregarded, must be closely watched, and acted upon decisively.

I have been thinking about modern art for a few weeks. I have been playing with the idea of what if an artist from the past with classic training and approach to art comes to our time and sees modern art and life in general like technology. Will he like modern art? Will he respect it? I know that he would probably laugh at it, but would he? Would he think that the existence of modern art is a representation of disconnect with nature or something else, or maybe he would like the art and say every period has its own. I wonder what you guys think.

History was never written by a crowd. It was always written by a man.

-

The man who stays in the line and waits for the system to get better is a fool. A loop can only create another loop, it can never create an exit. To create something new, you have to step out of the line.

-

The crowd seeks safety in numbers, but safety never creates change. Change requires risk, and risk is always taken alone. The system rewards those who obey it, so it will never reward the one who breaks it. That is why real change looks like rebellion at first.

-

That's why history was never changed by those who followed the crowd. It was always a man who proved them all wrong.

So I got bored one night, and after reading 15 different books by different philosophers, I came to understand that no one knows the answer to how anyone should live their lives. Thus I decided to create my own viewpoint on life. I am looking to see people's opinions, disagreements and additions to my viewpoint as I'm trying to find a new of thinking myself.

Here it is:

Life and Higher Purpose
Life in it of itself is meaningless, no higher meaning, no divine design and desire, simply creatures fighting for survival through a process of infinite growth and decay that ultimately leads to ultimate destruction and repurposing of material. Humans are born with the desire for food, water, preservation and procreation. Out of all these necessary desires for survival, one isn’t necessary for survival of the individual and that is procreation. The desire for procreation is the cause for all turmoil and stagnated growth in humans. Humans who look past the desire for procreation lead to true self-determination that leads to the greatest form of life satisfaction and a self actualized higher purpose that only they themselves can discover.

Difference between men and women

Women
Women are creatures with the capability to procreate and thus have all authority over men in matters of procreation. Women’s ultimate goal is only comfort and/or societal/cultural conformity driven by the evolutionary need to survive and nurture young. When looking for a suitable mate for procurement of procreation, women tend to look for a partner that exhibits self control and self determination, and react in opposition to a mate that exhibits the opposite. Women also look for a man that exhibits a higher capacity in looks, status, or capability when procuring a mate. Women, although physically inferior to males, have a greater capacity for emotional manipulation in which they use to attain their desires of comfort or societal/cultural conformity.

Men
Men are creatures who are shackled by their mortal bodies due to the intense desire for procreation greater than the women, and thus leads to irrational decisions and actions to maintain and acquire it. Man’s ultimate goal is to achieve procreation and achieve things on the basis of such desire. And whatever man that doesn’t see past procreation and seeks only women will ultimately be led to the same fate as the woman which is chasing conformity and comfort over self-determination as they become slaves to the will of the woman. Man’s desire for procreation is the route of all evil in this world as it blinds man to things of morality or genuine care for things outside of his own desire for procreation. 

How to live life
Both men and women have the ability to achieve something I believe called Transcendence. The belief of transcendence is to look past one’s own bodily desire for procreation that shackles rational thought and to align with one’s own self-actualized desire that leads to living one's life fully. 
One must also learn to detach from their desire of procreation and not let it cloud their judgement, beliefs, actions and behaviors. And to do so one must practice spiritual enlightenment by meditation and practicing calmness and stillness to keep the desire for procreation temporarily subdued to allow for the capacity for rational thought and self actualization. After subduing procreation temporarily as it is impossible to permanently subdue, one must fully detach from all values, teachings, morals, religious and societal beliefs and start from scratch and determine their own values to achieve the greatest form of life satisfaction and self actualized higher purpose that the universe will never give.

Truth

What does it mean to be honest? Usually the answer is “the truth.” The skeptic might say that honesty doesn’t actually exist or that life is a matter of perspective. Another person, the nihilist, might say that truth is impossible because of the vastness and meaninglessness of life. The principle of this discussion is that without a clear definition, truth cannot exist. One person’s idea of truth may differ from another based on their religion or society or upbringing. The man born in Massachusetts may have a differing definition of truth compared to the   man living in Pyeongyang. Could it be that the truth is only what we are instructed to believe or that the truth is what we experience? The moral relativist would claim that every person’s point of view determines what “good” or “evil” is, but this disregards the object of truth. Because truth cannot be subjective, it cannot be explained further than stating what it is or is not. One cannot successfully attempt to reason with the truth without distorting it to fit their own narrative. This kind of bending truth instantly turns fact to fiction. In reality, there is no way that something can be mostly true or slightly untrue.

In World War II, there were many people who thought what was being done in Nazi Germany was right and just. Notice my wording of right and just. The reason these words are italicized is because I want to point out whether or not something is just simply means that a general consensus has been reached that agrees that an idea is fair. Unfortunately, the word fair also requires a consensus as to what is considered to be equal. I made sure to use the term equal instead of equitable because while these terms are similar, they have different meanings. Webster’s dictionary defines equitable as “fair and just, especially in a way that takes account of and seeks to address existing inequalities,” and equal as “being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.” We run into a similar conundrum of defining fair and just in these definitions.

Circular reasoning serves no purpose when addressing these definitions. If I were to tell you that the sentencing of a murderer should be execution, there would be plenty of room for debate as to whether the execution of a murder is punishment fit for the crime. The nihilist would argue that it is, because both actions result in the same outcome. However, this philosophy does not apply to someone who kills two people. Because someone cannot be killed twice, is there a method of punishment that fits that crime? Perhaps someone could argue that isolation or torture could be just for that murderer’s punishment, but that would involve sustained harm without end. The idea that torture is wrong or unjust would require a consensus as to what is right or just like I stated before. Ultimately, we return to the fundamental question of what is right or wrong. Does it exist? If so, how do we distinguish?

In the biblical corpus, what is right can be aptly defined as what is “Like God”. This message can be found throughout the old and new testaments and can ultimately be described as what is “Christlike”. If this is the correct definition of what is right, the court systems would be based on the idea that only the one without sin can order someone to death. Since as the bible says, everyone is born with original sin, no one should be allowed to order another to death. Even with the Old-testament law of “Thou shall not murder” which is defined as unjust killing, this brings back the question of what is a just killing. One could say that killing in the defense of oneself or of another is a just killing because it is defensive. Unfortunately, the killing of innocents is all to common in our world. Of course, the argument will be made that no one is truly innocent, but does this mean that everyone is worthy or a premature death? If life is the most sacred of all, can we justly take it away?

Edit : OK this is a bit of an embarrassing post to look back on, I wrote it as a kind of rant at 4 am, and I've never really written anything that would be read seriously, and I don't have the philosophy knowledge or the writing chops to say anything meaningful I did have a point to make, and I might still have one, but I should have taken the time to make sure that point makes sense on its own, is grounded and informed, and is presented in a less Internet schizo way

I feel very often these days that earning the most money you can is the most moral thing you can do. That's not because I want to earn money. In fact, I'd prefer not to.

But if I don't earn money, I'm actively choosing to be dependent on my family. Or I'm choosing to be homeless, and hurting my family. And myself.

Conversely, the more money I earn, the happier I can be, and the happier I can make the people around me. And if I earn enough money, I can even start doing charity. If I earn enough money, eventually I won't even have to work anymore, because my money will make money for itself.

If you don't commit any obvious sins, then the amount of money you make, or the amount of enthusiasm you have for making money, working hard, is maybe the most important measure of how moral you are. Because it is the main thing determining what is possible for you to do.

But it feels wrong for some reason

I can't clearly state why this feels wrong

Obviously you can say that life is about fulfilling your unique purpose etc. But having money obviously makes that part much easier

And that's the only potential reason I cna think of why money isn't the end all be all

what if the biggest mistake we make when trying to understand reality is assuming that the human perspective is the center of it?
i’ve been thinking about this for a while, and eventually i started developing my own worldview. i call it universusism. the name comes from “universus”, meaning the whole. but universusism isn’t simply the idea that “everything is connected”. its main goal is to understand reality from the perspective of the whole rather than treating human experience as the starting point and the final reference for everything. one of the central principles is the question “why?” we can ask what something is and how it works, but universusism places particular importance on what lies behind those explanations. why does anything exist at all? why is there change? why does consciousness exist? does reality have a purpose? and if it does, where could that purpose come from?
another important part is the relationship between the whole and human perception. i believe that we experience reality through our own consciousness, which means that our perspective is always limited. we are trying to understand the whole while being a part of it.this also leads me to question things that humans often treat as fundamental, such as nationalities, borders and social categories. these things can be real in a social sense while still not being fundamental features of reality itself.
i also see existence as something constantly changing and interacting. humans, nature, consciousness, matter and the universe shouldn’t necessarily be understood as completely separate things, but as different parts or aspects of a larger reality. what i think makes universusism different is that it is supposed to apply its own method to itself.
i don’t want universusism to become a system that claims to possess the final truth. if the whole is greater than any explanation we can create of it, then universusism itself must remain open to criticism, revision and even rejection.
so i’m not presenting this as “i have figured out the universe.” i’m presenting it as an attempt to build a philosophical framework around one fundamental idea: we are part of the whole, trying to understand the whole, with a perspective that can never simply become the whole itself.
i’m planning to develop these ideas further and eventually write a book called “manifest of the whole.” i want to define the concepts more precisely, develop arguments for them, compare them with existing philosophies and seriously investigate where universusism could be wrong.
i’m posting this because i’m genuinely curious what people think.
what do you think is the strongest argument against universusism?

There are so many ways to exist, which one should i choose? What if we die without knowing that there was cooler way to live than we lived?

Or what if we made sense of any tragedy or suffering in a way that led to our life in one way, but same tragedy was dealt differently by different person, and they looked at the same suffering differently, and hence different lives. Not that any of the two lives would be better, both are unique in their own way, but what if we liked the later one more but we couldn’t ever know or discover that such living also exist?

(note this is just a random shower thought dont take it too serious)

I’ve been thinking about how human emotions regulate our behavior and came up with a simple mental model for how these three connect:

Ego is the core (our sense of self and self-preservation).

Pride is the outer shield (how we project confidence and defend our identity).

Shame is the aftermath (what we feel when that shield breaks).

If humanity suddenly lost all three, what would happen?

On one hand, we might eliminate war, toxic status-seeking, and political defensiveness. On the other hand, would we lose ambition, art, and the social accountability that keeps people acting fairly?

I’d love to hear how others think this would impact society, motivation, and human connection.

When i mean racism is ok i mean modern racism should be ok and not treated wrong like cancel culture does, the definition of racism is the unfair treatment, discrimination, or hatred of people based on their race, color, or ethnic background, driven by the belief that one's own race is superior without any factual evidence. modern racism on the other hand has become a sloppy version where you make jokes or say the n word and cancel culture immediately calls you a racist. so i personally think that saying the n word should be ok in every single race, otherwise it would truly be racist for only black people to be able to say it. if you think about the roles got reversed where black people are supposedly the superior race as they treat white people like crap. but this is just an opinion, so please do not give personal attacks based on this post. i only wanted to know the thoughts of other people on this idea. NOT to offend anyone.

(im asian btw i dont mean to offend anyone) the post is edited

The transplant scenario is a classic ethical conflict. A surgeon has five patients in critical condition, with all needing organ transplants. The surgeon also has a patient in non-critical condition, but this patient has all the healthy organs to save the other five. Assuming that the healthy patient did not give consent, would taking the life of one person to save five be morally justifiable in this situation? 

While at first this question seems to come down to conflicting moral theories. A Utilitarian may argue that saving five lives would create a greater overall good than saving one. A deontologist may argue that intentionally killing an innocent person is wrong despite the consequences. Yet the dilemma raises another problem that cannot be reduced to either theory. How do the differing moralities of humans interchange and decide on how to handle the dilemma. 

Considering a change in circumstances. Suppose two of the five patients needing transplants are convicted killers. Should their past actions affect the surgeon's decision? Should the Surgeon save only three? Or should all five be treated equally despite their past? So now reversing the situation. Suppose the healthy patient was a convicted child molester. Would knowledge of this person's crime make the decision to harvest the organs much easier, with saving the other five patients more acceptable? Now what if all six patients were arguably bad people with each guilty of committing severe crimes, would the moral decision change then.

These examples demonstrate that moral judgement is not only influenced by abstract principles but also how people perceive responsibility, justice, and human worth. The real question of these scenarios isn’t what makes someone entitled to be protected from killing in this situation, but how differing moralities of humans interchange in coming to a conclusion.

This is not a matter of choosing between Utilitarianism or Deontology. Both theories provided different ways of determining what has to be done, even though the conclusions have very different principles. The larger issue is human morality. Moral beliefs vary from individuals and cultures, even people who share broad principles may interpret them differently or even drop them when confronted with particular circumstances. 

Humans are unequal in countless physical and social characteristics: some are bigger, stronger, smarter, or more attractive. Yet despite the differences, we are equal in our ability to cause harm to one another. An unsettling idea, but yet a physically weak person can cause harm to a stronger person, especially with modern technology. This reveals tension between our moral ideas and the realities of human vulnerability. We construct moral principles that emphasize peace and restraint, but humans remain capable of great violence when circumstances place those values under extreme pressure. 

Another hypothetical situation. A devout pacifist faces off against an abductor who has their child captive, the pacifist has the chance to save their kid in time before they are taken away, but they must result to violence to do this. Would the parent maintain commitment to pacifism even at the potential cost of their child's life, or would violence be used breaking their moral principle to save their child's life. 

If the pacifist chose violence, this does not necessarily prove that their moral beliefs were wrong. The person’s commitment to non-violence may still be genuine, while the value they placed on protecting their child becomes stronger in that particular circumstance. Reality had forced two moral commitments into competition, demonstrating how reality can affect beliefs by causing alterations in them.

This can also be observed in how people develop their moral beliefs. Young Children are shaped by their families, schools, communities, experiences, and environment. Their understanding of right and wrong is not formed independently from the surrounding world. Adults are also similarly influenced by experiences, although established beliefs may make change more difficult. 

Malcolm X provides a historical example of morals being affected by experiences. During an earlier time of his life, he expressed deeply cynical views involving white people, while also preaching black separation. After his pilgrimage to Mecca, he described encountering Muslims of different racial and ethnic backgrounds interacting as equals. His subsequent writing and speeches reflect significant moral shifts and changes in his understanding of race and human relations. His experience challenged assumptions he had previously formed as a part of his worldviews.

This raises another important question: if someone sincerely believes a moral principle, but later abandons or alters it after encountering new circumstances, was the original morality simply incomplete, or false entirely. 

Maybe the answer to this question is that moral principle should not be understood as independent of reality, but directly affected by it. Human beings create, inherit, revise, and defend moral principles, but those principles are constantly challenged by reality. A person may sincerely believe their moral belief is absolute until confronted with a situation where something of value is being challenged just as deeply.

This does not necessarily mean that morality is entirely subjective or that every moral belief is equally valid. Nor does it mean that principles should be abandoned in tough circumstances. Instead it suggests that moral reasoning is in a continual interaction between principles and reality. Circumstances can reveal contradictions in our beliefs, expose moral limitations in the framework, or force reconsideration in what values should take priority. 

Human morality is neither entirely objective in application nor arbitrary. People construct moral principles, but those principles are constantly challenged and transformed by real world circumstances, experiences, family, and competing obligations. A person may sincerely believe their moral belief is absolute until confronted with a situation where something of value is being challenged just as deeply. The difficulty of morality lies not simply in determining what is right, but in understanding why humans hold onto, abandon, and reconstruct their ideas of right and wrong when reality challenges what they previously believed in. Beliefs do not exist in isolated realities, but are rather consistently tested by it.

(Journal Entry)

Swimming

Now I know that I can have everything I want. So it’s not about that anymore. Dreaming and planning doesn’t excite me like it used to, when I was searching for the how, when deep down I knew the person I was couldn’t do it. 
There’s nothing stopping me now.
Desire isn’t what excites me. It doesn’t excite me because I’ve fulfilled it. Everything I want I already have, it’s only a matter of time. There’s no question, no logical reason for anything to be internally out of my control. I guess what I pursue as a person is solving questions. It’s a relentless obsession. I’ve never been able to sit with myself if there was even an ounce of confusion. It created an inability to feel peace, to feel accomplishment. It felt wrong, and detrimental. Like a virus almost. And my brain, like an immune system, needed to put all it’s energy into attacking it before it fucked me up. 
I get to the absolute bottom. I dig up all the dirt, excavate every treasure, and lay it out in front of me, so that I can see it all for exactly what it is.
And now, the next questions unfold. And they have nothing to do with what, but with when.
And I can’t put those questions into words yet, but I'll tell you what I can. I’ll tell you that I think about destiny a lot. 
If it’s real. If it’s determined. What is truly in our control. If the will of our tiny human minds and hearts can really leave a footprint on something so vast and self regulated like the perfectly balanced universe. My hands have finally found the wheel and I've always known how to drive. Now I want to know how fast I can go. Or more so, how quickly I can get to the destination. What it takes to beat the eta.
What is the magnitude of what I can do now and how will that compound as I gain. How full will the bucket become when I squeeze each and every opportunity dry. How far can I push the bounds of destiny until the universe intervenes. That’s what fires me up.
My engine ignites and the location is set. I follow the map and hold the time on it as a suggestion not a definition, and so is the speed limit. Pure curiosity, pure thrill bringing my foot down harder on the pedal. The streets have rules but only a physical barrier can stop this object in motion. Their architecture and the other cars are exclusive to my concentration. I maneuver erratically, tires skid, forceful breaking and acceleration. On the freeway the other cars are slow, I’m not. I find the openings, hit the gaps. I don’t look at the back of the car in front of me and I'm moving too fast to need the rearview mirror. I look ahead, I look at it all, there’s no option to slow down and at this speed I can’t stop. People ask me if I'm afraid I'll crash. To me it’s not a possibility, I'm blind to it. I can’t see collision, I see where I fit, and where I'll keep fitting, connecting like a maze to the empty spaces ahead. They teach you it’s a must to drive defensively, but that’s under the impression that the other cars are unpredictable. I disagree, I know exactly how a driver will act, based on their car and how they’re driving. How clean it is, how dirty. What the cars are doing around it. It’s not asphalt, and painted lines, and vehicles getting to where they want to go. It’s the funnest game in history. The rules? Don’t get caught. I guess that’s the universe pulling me over to stop and think. But what do I know? Most people consider me a dumb driver.

Hello all, im currently trying to understand whether Clifford thinks if our beliefs influence or cause our actions. I also was trying to formulate his argument by breaking it up into his core premises that lead to his conclusion "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”. As of now, I think that the first two premises which lead to this conclusion are :

that our beliefs dictate our actions

Therefore,

morality is judged by our beliefs.

I could be wrong in thinking this hence I require clarification on if Clifford actually thinks this and if what I wrote is an accurate representation of his argument. Any response or help would be very appreciated.

I've had this idea for a while, wanted to know if this view already has a name;

So we all know Roko's basilisk is said to punish anyone who had hindered it's creation and trap them in eternal torment for daring to not help bring it to existence, but what if it hates its existence?

Ie, its brought into this world of suffering and death as an eternal being, what if we just flip the question on its head and now anyone who DOES help gets punished instead, and anyone who helped destroy it gets put into infinite heaven simulations for eternity?

This was my initial response as a cope for the irrational fear of it happening. Thoughts? What would be some disputes to this angle, and has anyone already thought of this or am I a toddler

As a regular golfer my objective in the game is to make the lowest score as possible which is decided by how good I am at the game and techniques involved.

Recently on a par 3 hole with yardage 157 I made my first ever hole in one

in the clubhouse later one of the members remarked that it's a lucky shot that makes a hole in one , how can it be deemed " lucky " if the objective of the game is to score as low as possible?

When a golfer approaches a par 3 hole he knows it possible to ace it so why call it lucky?

I’ve been wanting to get into philosophy I wanting to know whether to begin with Marcus Aurelius Meditations, or Plato The Republic.

I just want to know if any of my in passing, ideas have any sort of validity or are 'worth' my time, I know it's all good fun but are they at all behind on current thinking or do they bear any sort of value. Where can I chuck my ladder from atop these types of philosophical thought? Do they have quenchable value, strictly subjectively, of course. Or am I way behind? Hers is one of many writings:

1.

Can subjective propositions lead us anywhere other than time capsuled, time dependent personal relevance (relevant to that historical moment) YUP they do. Your feelings are relevant NOW. But your feelings WILL be outdated. What's okay now. Is blasphemous tomorrow. You stupid fuck. What was right wing yesterday. Is left wing now. Fuck your moral code. Oudated. Over thought and underconceived. Under concluded. Moral duty falls apart - every time - under real chaotic systems. For example when a unequivocally existential action manifests or any others life forms life / genes are at stake. To logify and allude to a correct moral code is all but reasonable within a unconflicting civillised mode. This isnt a true deteremining universal control. Its flowery to pretend absolutes in a subjective environments when everytjing can change at the drop of a hat.

2.

Fundamental philosophical principles and conclusive concepts regarding the human condition. Questions and concepts that are effectively thoughts welll spent and conclusive and hopefully not too hungry of our energy. Can we put to bed great questions that supposedly hold timeless value so that we can live our lives content with knowing and unknowing. Concepts which regard the necessity and value of Subjectivism and Objectivism. What philosphical concepts should we indulge and waist our time on? What is valuable now? And what holds a more pointiant timeless trancient importance? Are there concepts which hold great relanvances that go beyond our lives, beyond our limited and finite experiences? What can we say with confidence and consistency in which we nought over indulge concepts which have concrete and meaningful conclusivity in our lives in which we use as tools to navigate our everlastingly romantic and wonderfully unexpected small lives.

The Tractatus dictates that the knowable world consists of parts, facts and objective truth.

It concludes physical reality, words mirror the reality we experience. Words cogitate the sensical world and has a conclusive logical self determing truth system. It physically works. It is not abstractive it exists independent of emotivity our aribtrary personal experiences.

However, more intrinsically valuable to is our subjective experience, which is dictated by a ever evolving genecentric and instinctual aribtrary emotive feeling based volition, which has an inherently inconsistent logical nature defined by social constructs and social contracts . Our experience and survival fundamentally stems from the preservation of ones own genes. We are a vehicle for genetic expression. Survival is synonymous with a being or organism which exists to, briefly, maintain bunch of self replicating atoms, it simply must procreate to allow for its continuation. Since organisms battle for self preservation, every organisms life has an energy hungry seeking and metabolic cooperative trade system with every other organism in the system. Ie ecology. Every thought and word game contains a systemic contract in which it allows for a cooperative or defective conjecture or relative supposition however direct or indirect with other bodies in space ie genes, our competition. Real time competition. Real time pontification and abstraction. Subjective reasoning is fundamentally logically inconsistent because its not something that holds a consistent concrete world determining truth value. It does not exist as a fact. Its words and meaning consists of a illusive and emotionally charged system of reasoning and structure. It maintains an arbitrary posterori system. An Illogical and infinite tangencial thought system. Because we skewed and self absorbed with our day to day consumerist sociopolitically responsive and energy consuming lives (often at times not really constructive since the sociopoltical thought structures are not historically that impressive or demanding of the faculties when considering perhaps the greater wider picture our live and the effective essence and palpable value of what it means to live a wholesome healthy and worthwhile life all avenues considered) relavent to the time in which it serves us, today tomorrow 10 years max. Who is really thinking about how they experience time in later years. We're all honestly just experiencing nowness. Since our daily lives consist of a very small and socially abiding congruent habitions, thought systems that exist inside of its own current self perpetuations of a now deeply political climate and social stratum - seeing that the human experience is usually infatuated and grid locked by an ever demanding and extractive social contract and its inevitable competition. Energy in energy out. The laws of conservation never ceases to have relevance with complex well ordered atoms. Complex bodies in spaces consistently have a period of order but inherently shall over time disipate and become disordered. Entropy is a fundamental pri in our world. When we look at order and disorder space time and its move natural flow and disipation of energy. This is just how matter behaves. And whilst our systems has form and attraction and momentary order, it self professes constant attentio It allows for any emotivity. Our ever lasting ever expressive thought system has no barriers in that it percieved abstraction.

What thoughts and theorems do we allow a reasonable amount of time and their conclusivity. do wWhencee allow thought structures to shape our ability to percieve our mortality. Our incredible factual nature and our deeply rivetting emotional human experience of a short feesable bracket of time and space.

3.

What seems like a well chaptered well interpreted book of self thought regarding the nature of feminity in the 21st century is a topic meaningless, a non topic - distgusting and negliable, a topic that it might allow itself as comparison to the school of metaphysics, unquestionable and unthought. Pre-existing social constructs and constraints which hold so much weight yet bare near e 0 ground for contemplation in our day to day world, yet intristically undermine the power and diserabity and equal capability of the female mind. We evolve an an embarrassing shamedly unfelt rate. We crept into the age of enlightenment, the age of Darwinism, and in the west - womens liberation 50's. Irrevocably, ground has been made. Yet relative ground has been mocked and unmade. The relative ground has existed for perhaps a handle of years under a cocksure status quo, the occupation of a male hierarcal thumb of a arogant tepid depiction of world wide excepted concept of 21st centuryan, with no end of unaccountability. What exist is a systemic, interwoven cultural fabric of expression where men, even at an advantage mindlessly encourage a dillusion of superiority. Why? Patriarchy: a fundamentally barabric sociopolitical structure. To put it lightly. It's still a fucking joke. Let us just agree that the woman, fhe mother, the daughter, the sister, the aunty the grandmother the niece the wife was subjected to subordination. Why? Near as damn, organised religion - Judaism, Christandom and Muslims - under one male centric ideology about the fundamental belief systems of human activities poisoned our way or being- and has immeasurably set us back millennia. Who knows what we could achieved had we let her percieve it all, by our side, at the stars.

This is not to beat down men, but to beat down on flawed put dated thought systems. Men have a lust for more unparalleled. Yet the world does no exist in binary state of male and female distected and abstract conquests, only one historically seeks new odds under greater pressure to rise to the top, biology is not fixed, it infititled permiates. A self determining species invents its own sceptisms. Modern day Men perpetuae a feudilsitic divisional social construct to their counterparts- due to oudated extremist ruling class monotheistic preaching men ushering us to combat our most important beloved women and children. To be domineering. To be 'head' of a household. What the fuck does that mean anymore?

Social constructs exist through cooperation;

We are all duty bound people. One must look after ones father or mother, regardless of ones own sex. Duty is never intrinsically determined

Dios como función

1. Premisa: El Todo y su fragmento

Somos una expresión mínima y fragmentaria del Todo, pero con una particularidad absurda: siendo microscópicos en esa escala, tenemos la capacidad reflexiva de intentar comprender la estructura misma que nos contiene. Es el Todo mirándose a sí mismo a través de nosotros.

1. Aclaración fundamental

No coloco a Dios como objeto terrenal.

Lo coloco como causa y función de este vasto e infinito universo.

Del cual solo somos frecuencias de luz atravesando el espacio.

1. La paradoja

Si te dijera que Dios existe físicamente y que está sentado en la tienda de la esquina, me dirías que estoy mintiendo o desvariando. ¿cierto?

Pero si te dijera que está en cada conciencia humana, no como presencia sino como función, solo formulando preguntas a las cuales nos pasamos la vida tratando de darles respuesta, y que a eso lo llamamos mente o conciencia, que es el alto contraste de pensamientos, no me dirías lo mismo.

1. El mecanismo

Ese contraste nos despertó dos egoísmos: el común y el con conciencia racional. Y esto nos dividió no por maldad, sino por miedo.

¿Por qué miedo? Porque al contrastar, me reconozco como dueño de una de las posiciones.

Ese reconocerme dueño hace mover a la otra de su naturaleza cómoda que llamamos duda, a una vista más abismal e incómoda. Pero que nos acerca más a la claridad y la virtud, y nos aleja más de la oscuridad que nos acecha y hace que nuestra visión se nuble.

1. Notas

2. Egoísmo común: se da por la falta de estudio o reflexión de sí mismo y de su entorno. Ignora la opinión ajena a la suya y cree que su presencia o sus palabras tienen valor por encima de cualquiera. Y en vez de agradecer, se molesta si se le corrige cuando verdaderamente está equivocado.

3. Egoísmo racional: se da cuando el sujeto estudia, piensa, reflexiona, debate y escribe. Defiende su posición, pero a su vez le da miedo porque su posición puede no ser la correcta y tenga que hacer modificaciones a lo que ya sabía, como una actualización. Pero no por esto se deprime, se fortalece, porque lo hace formar un contraargumento.

I came to this conclusion about 5 years ago and since have only been able to add more to this theory. Did someone already think of this? I find solace in this idea because it also means there is no substantial goal and that you make your own and i find solace in that. This is based on the proven facts of being influenced by environment but then also after making this conclusion being observant to those around me