What is saving the world when the villain already changed it?

I am huge comic book fan and because of that I read a lot of reboot events. And in that I seen events that I wanted to use as examples of how it is handled:

Flashpoint: Flashpoint was a reality morphing event in which at the end 2 characters know the reality changed: Flash and Batman. In that is not a apocalypse hellscape they decide to not change it.

Invincible Reboot: This a event Mark the hero is put in a world by a cosmic god entity at the start of his heroes journey, and can in theory do everything a lot better, and save a lot of people, but he choices not too because to him this reality takes away someone he is not sure will exist again, his daughter.

House of M: This event the world is turn into a paradise like world. But the heroes rebel because they know it was caused by someone, be damned if they have a family created by this reality or not, or a loved one had return. Because it isn’t ‘real’

So with these examples in mind I want to ask, is it a hero’s duty to return the world to ground zero? Can one be content in a altered reality? What makes a new world’s life more or less valid then the old ones?

“is it a hero’s duty to return the world to ground zero?” If this is what people expect from you, Yes. But if you are the only one who doesn’t want this, then this might be selfish.

“Can one be content in an altered reality?” As long as it is not seen as something bad, I don’t see any reason why not.

“What makes a new world’s life more or less valid then the old ones?” Your achievements. If you are poor, a rebooted world where nobody is poor would be a new chance. But if you once were poor and worked yourself up, then all would be for nothing.

This is a nice topic tough. I am currently playing a video game about deciding your own destiny. A villain changes reality to make everyone happy and live without pain. The heroes stop him because they believe humans can’t evolve without experiencing pain. However you can also decide to live in this new reality. Both will lead to a good ending.

It’s one I been toying with as a concept. Like what do you do with the lives created in the new reality, do just expect they mean less then the people in the old reality or do expect the new people matter more

Are there any real dangers from the common misconceptions of philosophies? If we continue to learn, won't it simply correct or turn into a different idea. Example: nihilism. Does misinterpreting it actually do anything? I don't think so.

Depends if the philosophy is self protecting, like it proves itself true and any other thought false

Two questions.

Is pay walled content allowed here?

Also, is it fair to accept a philosophical idea would have absolutely zero relevance or persuasiveness* for portions of the population? Say it's an idea likely catalysed by a biological urge which is then interpreted at, say, a figure who is then philosophised about?

If so, for this idea to work you would need to be biologically similar (half the population, plus or minus 4 to 15%), but also you would need to have those similar figures in your life. With fewer and fewer of these factors, the idea catalysed by these life experiences would have less effect.

Finally, could an idea become better* if it weren't so clearly personal?

Yes.

Most ideas can eventuate into something dangerous, we only really continue to learn if these ideas are not absolute and flexible to change. Basic scientific method stuff, reminds me of high school...

> Does misinterpreting it actually do anything? I don't think so.

Interesting question and it makes me wonder if I answered your first question. Probably not? Nihilism has a best case of everything is meaningless, so let's party. Assuming this is even ideal, surely there's many other ideas that lead there convincingly?

Is nihilism pragmatic to you? As in, does this make you happier? If not, flexibility might.

what you learn is the only thing you can offer.

One of my friends said this not so long ago during a debate over a topic and hasn’t left my mind since. At first i was arguing against it, and as the argument kept going, i came to agree with it more and more. I wasn’t satisfied with that since my friend has a tendency of feeling like they can never be wrong. I wanted to see if anyone can create an argument to that statement. I would really appreciate it and i’d love the input, it doesn’t necessarily have to be an argument you can just give me your thoughts. Anything will help!

I am not nihilistic. But you make a good point about the happiness. If it makes you happy, I guess it doesn't matter too much. The only argument against it is that something like nazi fascism is a big no.

Flexibility... A lot of OG Nazis didn't end out too well.

Question.. Basically everything has a reason for it occurring or nearly. Why did your gf leave you? You was an idiot, Shame … Why do we drink water? To keep ourselves hydrated. But when it comes to how the universe began and people say the big bang. What would be the reasoning?

I think an important factor in what allowed humanity to survive is that while we are smart, on average we are not too smart, and if we were more intelligent we would have gone extinct.

If you look at a lot of the geniuses, scientific, mathematical, philosophical, whatever. A lot of them did not live happy lives and they were obsessive and often self destructive. Add to that the fact that depression and other mental illnesses often come along with great intelligence and that a lot of people especially throughout history life was on average more of a negative than positive experience.

If humanity was more intelligent, I think it would be too miserable to survive. I'm not only talking about historical suicide rates, but also just the symptoms/ suffering that come with being a genius that historically have been seen in people like Isaac Newton and Picasso.

I think there is a goldilocks zone for intelligence in order for civilization to come about. Not intelligent enough and you can't do things like agriculture and science and mathematics needed to build society. Too intelligent and everyone gets the problems of the suffering genius.

Another Part of the way this works I think is that there exists things called "thought sinks". Basically these are concepts and ideas that intelligent beings run into and are attracted by in a similar way to how animals are attracted to shiny metal. These concepts and ideas seem very important and like they must be figured out, but ultimately lead nowhere sometimes ever and sometimes just in the immediate term. Chasing them means you aren't productive and don't focus on things more important for survival.

Society can afford to have a small percentage of its population study these things. The less technologically developed a society is, the smaller the amount of people they can afford to study these things. If more people than that study them, then the society will decrease its ability to handle emergencies and generally survive.

I think almost all of academia fits this category of a thought sink. Science for example gives ample rewards but it takes time for those rewards to come into being. If everyone is a genius then everyone will want to figure out how things work, but you can only afford to have so many scientists.

Interesting that humans need to have all the answers. Why can't we accept some unknowns? Not saying, I'm any different, though.

For me this is an ultimate question of, whether you believe in god, God, other deity or in science. In the first case, the reason for universe's existence is self-explanatory, it is that deity responsible for it. As to why, it is impossible to know for us. An ant cannot and will not understand humans, and so we cannot hope to know the intentions of the being capable of creating universe. Since there was no communication (or you can believe there was, and accept religion) we must accept uncertainty.

On the other hand, if you reject existence of all-powerful, all-knowing being, you end up with Science. And Science bases on proofs and facts. But not much is really known about big bang. This is just a leading theory, but I think that nowadays, scientists tend to say we live in multiverse, where we are but one of infinite number of possible universes. But why does this multiverse exist? Seems to me like this is just adding another step on the ladder.

Long time ago, people believed that there was just one continent. Then, they discovered others. After that, they discovered another planets, another galaxies, local groups, clusters of galaxies, superclusters, and finally we ended up with observable universe. But that is just the limit of our current technology. As we see, historically with the invention of new technologies, we increased the size of our "universe". What I want to say is that, we cannot hope for Science to give us all the answers.

To sum up, the way I see it, we must accept the uncertainty. But that does not mean we have to stop looking for an answer. You can also do a further reading on Pascal's wager. I am not convinced by it, but it can give you an alternative solution to your question.

One of the beautiful things about philosophy is that we can determine whether an argument is a good argument if we can argue against it, but still find out the original argument is stronger than its antithesis.

We have vilified intelligence in the past when we find a correlation between genius and madness in the likes of Van Gogh, Lord Byron, or even autistic savants who likes to focus on certain aspects of life at the expense of having little to no social relationships; like a PhD candidate who writes a lengthy dissertation on Kant.

But as an antithesis, there are lots of high functioning people who have led a full life and still commit to these ‘thought sinks’ that make them who they are; I have in mind here Psychopathic CEO’s who are addicted to control but own a sex dungeon because they just want to be submissive, or a modern day Sherlock Holmes that is more like a Benedict Cumberbatch than a Jeremy Brett; or more recently, a Wednesday Addams type of genius who I believe does exist among us today:)

I Will most likely get banned now, but religion also have a language for this, as reincarnation. But they also have a philosophical approach to wholeness, and seeing reality in a meta physical way. Gnostic tekst for example evolve around quantum fysiks. I’ve been flagged for this language before but: in a religious way, Plato’s cave are a principal conscious analogy. Outside are a wholeness goal. Like the story of Jesus, the fish analogy and so on!

I'd like to post here a meditation I've been doing.

I participate on a study circle online for about 8 years, and it always bothered me how there are people there who know the circle and study with it for about 20 years and , yet, they seem like didn't understand what is the main point here and how the other points relate to the main. This difference actually became the study topic that I got more interested about. I tried many hypothesis, about lack of knowledge, lack of culture, about luckiness, love, about amount of free time, accumulated hate, or envy, or boringness, about vocation, even castes (this idea really bothers me, though, something like predestination on the capacity of understanding).

Then today it appeared to me one that I'm posting here because it showed me something about philosophy itself.

My memory is pretty bad, so since I don't trust it, and I'm damn curious, I save data on my computer or phone. I photograph things, and I got really full of files, then I have to organize it in folders so that I may recall it when I need in the future. Well, that's a primary form of categorizational thought (like, in the most developed way, Aristotle's work and Plato's technique).

Then I realized that this may be it. I mean, since I collect a lot of data and try to categorize them, eventually I have a map of how things are conected together. Like on the study circle I'm into. There are a lot of groups, I look for all of them, and then I got a sense of the story of the place, how the pieces fit together, who is who, who is smarter, at what point, how his/her point relates to the work of the teacher we follow, and so on. That gives consciouscness of "whole", of "unity", plus the parts I have documented, even though I did it without really planning to get this result.

I also do it about college and so on. In my country the best colleges are public, so "free" (you know, "free enough"). So I actually frequented undergraduate classes from different courses, got acquaintance with researchers, and once again, documented all of that, just because my memory was pretty shitty. As a result, and that's the point I wanna get as for a contribution to the community, this gives a sense of "whole" also on the production of knowledge.

Of course I don't have more knowledge than any of the researchers, but at the same time this gives me the skill to have a sense of unity of how the knowledge is produced and spread on society. That is something by itself, and I'm starting to think that this is actually what could be called philosophy in the classical sense.

I mean, philosophy nowadays is also an academic practice, so this means the subjects studied are based on a curriculum. But this curriculum itself, let alone the rest of the curriculum or the relation of these knowledges to society, isn't the topic! So it creates a difference between philosophy as a college grade and philosophy in the classical sense.

I don't know how to develop this thought further. Just found it interesting and decided to share. If someone would like to share views about it, I'd be glad to read.

Thank you for your ideas. I really understand you when it comes to uncertainty about the unknown. That is quite the reason for me being an agnostic.

I think the introduction of virtual reality and the capabilities it will bring for the future will play a part in how we see life as it is… Why do we make virtual reality games? For the experience i would think. Even if that game had say suffering involved lets say, wouldn’t that make it just more realistic. If there is a god i would think that he intended for this and for us to experience just life itself, whatever it throws at you.

All human beings are evil. This ranges from tyrannical figures to saints. It is a spectrum. No one does anything solely for others. There is always something for them to gain.

People spend time with another person to make themselves feel better. Or they do it to avoid the potential backlash of said person. Buy a gift for someone to make them happy, which in turn creates fulfillment in oneself.

Humans do not do anything that doesn't constitute personal gain, even if it is minimal.

There is also a saying that goes something like "give a man a mask and he will show his true self." I believe this to be all too true. A person will take advantage of this and do as they please. This can range from stealing a pack of gum to robbery to even more heinous crimes. It is just a spectrum or scale of how evil an individual is.

This is just my personal philosophy. I'm young, being just over 20 and kinda a pessimistic person. I bet this idea will change or evolve with age and wisdom.

What sort of society, according to Baudrillard’s conception of hyperreality, wouldn’t be hyperreal? Is it possible for any modern society to not be hyperreal?

All human beings are evil.

All human beings are good.

I believe both these statements to be true, even though they may sound contradictory.

Grotius in De Iure Belli AC Pacis, first page, cites indirectly Thucydides - is anyone in the light on where it this to be found in his History? I need direct quotation, that is a page number. Who else is obssessed with Thucydides?

Which would mean humans are neither since they cancel out each other, no?

I try not to think of it as a net-net equation with a final computed result.

But more like they have both evil and good qualities that co-exist with each other.

Indeed.

Augustine’s Privation theory of evil might suit you well.

I don’t believe you will have an exact map of unity from your collection; it’s naive optimism. Perhaps a child’s rendition of a map.

That’s likely due to the fact that I am now a Nihilist and Anti-realist.

However, there is a big danger irregardless:

There was a old ambition in scholastic monasteries that one single person could become master of all the studies: Theology, Philosophy (though it technically just theological tools at this point), Law, Medicine, etc.

When the enlightenment finally came knocking on their big oak doors, that ambition faltered, because their finely interweaved premises and conclusions were - strand by strand - proven to be incorrect, and the whole web eventually just collapsed.

You risk the chance of creating a fantasy map pointing to the locations of apparent trolls under bridges and dragons in caves; you risk being shown up when the map’s constituents, and their relation to one another, are proven to be inadequate or totally wrong.

——

If you really want three things which can help you go forward, though:

Firstly, critique your paragraph above and the premises that made you write it. You have to remove any bad meat before you let the rest mature.

Secondly, study Siemens connectiveness theory of learning which “emphasises the idea that knowledge is a series of interrelated webs from not only social interactions, but experiences, digital observations (commercials, websites), or even organizations. In the end, the interconnectedness of all of the knowledge leads to learning.”

Third, recognise that learning is not knowledge; that coming up with a theory of learning and having understanding is not the same as having a genuine absolute accurate map such as knowledge.

Thanks for answering. I didn't know about Siemens. I'll answer you part by part, but don't take it personally. If you still enjoy the discussion, we may go further.

>I don’t believe you will have an exact map of unity from your collection; it’s naive optimism. Perhaps a child’s rendition of a map.

That's actually the weirdest part of knowledge itself. Just like every science, although we don't have the full version of the knowledge, as we point to describe a reality, it becomes "truth enough". Euclides, for instance, didn't have the whole map, but those apriori objects (I call them mental objects), once the mind notice it, becomes a thing on its own.

For instance, we have the unity of an author. I can read all the works of, say, Dostoevsky, and, if I don't try to imagine there's a unity there, the pieces won't show up, even though there is one. If, though, I bet on this position, for each line I read my mind is also looking for broader connections. This decision of attention changes everything. It doesn't matter if it isn't perfect, it points to a reality (or this mental object, if you'd rather).

​

>There was a old ambition in scholastic monasteries that one single person could become master of all the studies: Theology, Philosophy (though it technically just theological tools at this point), Law, Medicine, etc.

I don't know if this is quite the truth, though, but if you could show me examples, I'd love to read about. I know about the Enciclopedias, like Isidore of Seville, but after scholastic there were still Diderot and Hegel's encyclopedias. But what was regular back then, though, was the study of the 7 Liberal Arts, that is language, math and physics, the "trivial" arts of natural reason. I have this theory that the institution of liberal arts, Mortimer Adler's Great Ideas Project, Aristotle's Lyceum and Plato's Academy actually had one same principle, that is to provide an image of the "wholiness" (and how knowledge was produced at the time, the state of the art). You don't have to know everything in order to foresee and learn to deal with the fact that all the laws all the sciences study actually points to the reality, which works with the perfect version of such laws simultaneously. Knowledge is just a way to grasp some partial understanding of it in order to improve life (including curiosity).

​

>When the enlightenment finally came knocking on their big oak doors, that ambition faltered, because their finely interweaved premises and conclusions were - strand by strand - proven to be incorrect, and the whole web eventually just collapsed.

I'd like an example.

​

>You risk the chance of creating a fantasy map pointing to the locations of apparent trolls under bridges and dragons in caves; you risk being shown up when the map’s constituents, and their relation to one another, are proven to be inadequate or totally wrong.

I don't think that's a possibility, but I will take that in consideration. I don't think that can happen because it's not like I'm trying to understand everything and create a super final science which is bigger than everything else and puts every knowledge on it. Knowing one single science completely is impossible, since the documents produce are way more that what takes a human life. Let alone all sciences, let alone all the ones that don't exist and may exist, for instance, in 1000 years. But there are 2 points:

1- There is one "apriori object" that only appears once you try to catch unities. I call it "intelligence", but I don't quite know how to call it. It's actually the principle that is in common with what I said 2 topics above. Dante's divine comedy, for example, or Goethe's Faust is actually about that. Also sufism, which is inspired by Plato. The cosmos back then was used as an image to express how to acquire this skill to deal with unities, that is, intelligence. So Dante's work express it, either by showing the ascension in the planets (Paradise) and by showing how intelligence can be broken by our heart, that is, our sins are what makes us afraid of actually being honest with the knowledge we really have. For example, we use general phrases and ideas all the time "knowledge is x", "you are y", "John is a z person", "this country sucks", "the chinese culture is a", "men are stupid". Language can't grasp singularities, it's way, way general. To grasp the "ratio", the relation between the general and the singularity, you have to be bold to break all your past impressions and test the object as it shows, then reason it over and over again. If you have a grudge against something, you won't be able to do that. Those are, in traditional language, the effect of our sins. If you believed someone you love betrayed you, your anger won't let truth speaks even if the truth is the betrayal didn't happen (that's Otelo from Shakespeare).

2- These sciences do are connected. So the new scientific objects are born from this fact. Once you grasp this "unity of knowledge", it is possible to think with way more freedom, because you can literally create small "apriori objects" to gather new evidence for what you need. There's a great advantage on that.

​

>Secondly, study Siemens connectiveness theory of learning which “emphasises the idea that knowledge is a series of interrelated webs from not only social interactions, but experiences, digital observations (commercials, websites), or even organizations. In the end, the interconnectedness of all of the knowledge leads to learning.”

I admit that, from my experience, I don't trust very much about the topic when it's spoken by a scientist. Because the training to be a scientist means focusing way too much on a object. That makes our intelligence generalize not only the object (like physicists who think everything is physics, or linguists who think everyting is language) but also the understanding through specialities, but not through wholes. (EDIT: which usually means speaking of interdisciplinarity, which is compounding a new object rather than trying to foresee the set of knowledge as the object itself). The regular folk, not-scientific, that is, the religious thought, tends to do the opposite. Although one without the other becomes easily wholiness stupidity, or speak through metaphors and applying them to facts that don't fit, the opposit becomes easily lack of comprehension, and in my country that created in humanistic sciences a great crisis. They want to transform a society that don't understand instead of understanding it and helping it to be better what it wants to be.

But I do am very thankful for your reference. I read some about it before answering, but I'll add it to my files to investigate.

An interesting take and one I used to hold myself. I would possibly counter that human beings, being rational creatures, have the unique ability to recognize rationality rationally. A bit Kantian in nature. We use rationality to assign transcendent value to other rational beings. Given this type of thinking, it is possible that humans can be good out of value logic rather than any personal gain. Respecting beings of value given their intrinsic value and nothing else. However, this explanation maybe insufficient given fallibility and lack of genuine access to eternal agent existence (I think therefore I am). This is not really a refutation but a possible alternative.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Asking yourself questions (which would contain a string of questions related to it) and answering them honestly to yourself? If that is what you mean to say, it's called philosophizing, the outcome and methods and all of those things are different for each philosopher. "Everyone has their own pathway to truth." And BTW It's not limited to philosophy either.

Human beings have the capability of good and evil, that's a better way to put it, how and why they tend to use these capabilities defines them. It's what the religions have tried to say, when you are free of this good and bad, of these differences. That's when you see everything as they are. You become a mirror and by reflecting everything (as they are) inside yourself you know their truth. It's a rather easy concept yet human beings keep struggling to know it.

[deleted]

Ahh yes, I know what you're talking about. It's the best form of answering for the person who has to answer, and the best way to find the answers for the person who asked the question. Now I'm not very good with the terms used for these, I know how they work though. And you aren't wrong, socrates did do this with a bit of difference. Now if you want to know the term used for it I don't know anything about it, but if you're interested in the work process, I'm your guy.

[deleted]

It's a mixture of philosophy, psychology, mysticism, literature... And it is a great way of teaching/learning, when one does this the person who asked the question and also answered it, would be hit with a realization which seems to be the truth of that person, the more this realization hits you the more you know/rise into different dimensions of reality/life. It's a blissful experience to have. The teacher's job is to simply ask the right questions (that the student can't ask bcz of lack of clarity) and lead the student to what they want to find.

Why did Camus think that people have an innate desire to find meaning in life (and did he, or am I misinterpreting something?)? Where is that idea coming from? Are there no people that don't ask themselves that question, "what's the meaning of life"?

First of all, what do you define evil as?

Let's take people who do good acts to make themselves feel better, i.e. to boost their confidence or self-value. What makes that evil? If this act benefits everyone maximally, isn't it actually the highest good (since it hurts no one)?

Why must complete altruism be the only good?

Can complete altruism even be achieved? Is there any virtuous act that I can commit without affecting myself in a good or bad way? Can I commit an act that benefits others while not affecting myself?

Going back to people who act in terms of non-materialistic confidence or self-value. Someone who volunteers because helping others makes them feel happy. Assuming that they were given your mask (or the Ring of Gyges), wouldn't they continue to commit acts that help others?

On a sidenote, I would recommend reading on Epicurus. He shared your belief that humans are hedonists, but challenges you in your ethical conclusions from that belief.

It seems to me you're equating personal gain with evil? Why?

My post regarding the Philosophy of Alexander Dugin was unfortunately removed without comment for apparently not being about Philosophy 😢

Anyone else have this issue?

The Nazis were not evil?

Why are all human beings evil? Why are all human beings good?

Are you able to explicate what you mean by this “intelligence” a little more?

Yes. So, even animals can think and measure. Actually, to a certain point, even plants do. But they can't perceive they're perceiving. That skill is the center of human intelligence. This is where words (and symbols) come from. And from words, all cultures, including sciences.

But I usually divide the perception of perception in 4 skills. One is this skill itself, which we call getting counscious about something, an object or an idea. Then there's 3 things you can do after it (actually more, but 3 major): analogy, go up and go down. We do these 4 things naturally, because, well, it's inherited in our culture. But the more conscious about them, the more intelligence.

Analogy means getting that information and relating to others; go down means getting the information and thinking it in details; go up means realizing that information as part of a set. That's Plato basically.

When a writer or a musician gets a motif to compose, it's going down. When someone sees a bunch of phenomena and realizes a pattern, he's going up. When someone points the direction to get to a place, or when you see someone telling an experience and you sympathize with it, or when you're reading a metaphor or story and apply it to another situation, you're doing analogy.

That was basic lunch for the biggest writers. Dante's treatises on Convivio talk about it. Also Plato's dialogues are that all the time. But we lost the track of this broader meaning of culture, and focused only on scientific production, which is basically only go down. We're not creating new objects (going up), just applying the methodology to new cases (it could be analogy, but mostly just going down).

There’s all kind of a double negative question, but there are people who don’t ask the question what is the meaning of life. Tons

Schopenhauer & Synchronicity

I am reading Schopenhauer's Parerga & Paralipomena (translated by E.F.J. Payne). I am going to put forward that the essay, simply titled (😉) Transcendent Speculation on the Apparent Deliberateness in the Fate of the Individual. is a precursor to Carl Jung's notion of Synchronicity. This isn't to say many other authors didn't do this, or this topic regarding Schopenhauer hasn't been exhaustively discussed previously, but I was taken aback by Schopenhauer's tentative, almost apologetic tone. Because I just ploughed through some 200 pages of Schopenhauer's vitriol towards his contemporaries, the switch in delivery was very noticeable.

I'll try not to cloud this issue with misrepresentations of Schopenhauer's main philosophy, but forgive me if I do & try to look past this to my point regarding Synchronicity.

I'll use S for Schopenhauer from this point on. S was a determinist very much immersed in the Newtonian view of cause & effect, indeed very impressed with the scientific advances made in his lifetime. As a self-professed Kantian he agreed in main with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He regarded perception as the basis for knowledge & further that our perceptual apparatus provided a "template" to organize & filter these perceptions. Space, time, & causality were a priori, in other words, built in conditions for our perceptions. These 3 conditions could not be overcome & science was a systematic discovery of the consistencies of our perceptual world - not an unraveling of the mysteries of the universe.

S posited a loophole: we have a unique experience of something within ourselves. He called this the Will. He comes close to ascribing this to our experience of emotions. Although unaware of Darwin's theory of evolution, S also argues that other life indicates a advancing development of perceptual ability & complexity in general.

Despite arguing the the Will is unknowable, S tells us quite a bit about this Will. It is the foundation of the universe, the basis for life, an incomprehensible presence outside of space, time, & causality. Here is where one can point out this is similar to Carl Jung's collective unconscious (or other accounts of psyche, élan, spirit, noosphere, etc.)

S fought the hook he caught himself on - a hook made of the deterministic universe of Newtonian physics & an unknowable basis for this universe that was not deterministic. Here is S fighting the hook in his essay: "Although the ideas to be given here do not lead to any firm result, indeed they might perhaps be termed a mere metaphysical fantasy, I could not bring myself to consign them to oblivion …"

In the essay S examines historical accounts of coincidences within individual lives that challenge the concept of causality. S, of course, predated Quantum Theory, so he didn't have this avenue to explore & possibly make a convoluted argument to account for these mysterious coincidences. He instead is forced to give arguments of cause & effect chains beyond our perception or understanding, but the fact remains he presents circumstances which could be viewed as synchronicity including daimons, psychoids & archetypes. S mentions fate, destiny, second sight, soothsayers, & so on. S really goes out on a limb here especially considering the thrashing he gave. earlier in the work. to Fiche, Schelling, & Hegel.

I'll forgo a quote where S gives an account of one of these coincidences. I'll go out on a limb myself & state the reader has experienced such occurrences themselves, so such a quote would be redundant. Instead here is some of what S thought about this:

"... a subjective connection that exists only in reference to the individual who experiences them."

"Now those two kinds of connection exist simultaneously and yet the same event, as a link in two quite different chains, …"

"It is the great dream that is dreamed by that one entity, but in such a way that all its persons dream it together."

I felt a mental shove to post this. I have been reacquainting myself with Jung as well as Schopenhauer. So here is a possible synchronicity for me: in his essay, S references a work by Jung-Stilling (1740 - 1817) called in translation, Theory of Pneumatology. Given that I was reading about Jung & S, this reference stood out. Surely this wasn't an ancestor of Carl Jung? It bothered me so I did some searching online & concluded there isn't any relationship. But it was a meaningful connection to me. Blame this event for this post. 😊

[deleted]

Im currently reading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietsche it is a very good book.Only 2 pages in and I learned quite a bit about the soul,ego and soon religion I took a better approach to reading it.Before I simply read it as any other fictional book but I was wrong.Even two sentences of text can reveal so much knowledge that it can be overwhelming. So i take my reading paragraph per paragraph underlining any words or concepts I'm not aware of and looking them out.

Atm I realize I am still uneducated about religion so I am watching Lets talk about Religion YT channel to catch up on it.

You will have to forgive my lack of response, but I have been struggling to do so:

I found your initial response and your answer to my ‘intelligence’ question lacking in formality and cohesion. I notice on your profile that your native tongue may be non-english, though I don’t wish to presume.

I decided to browse a few more of your comments on your thread on the Atheist board and I noticed a similar problem. I think your system needs formalisation if it is to be acted upon by yourself and expressed to others.

That is not to imply its foundations are lacking and the underlying ideas not solid, I expect they are accurate; it’s just they lack proper articulation.

From my unhealthy re-re-re-reading of your threads, comments and replies, I think it is clear that the primary focus of your philosophy is that of Epistemological Realism: you hold that there is a reality we can actually grasp in knowledge - you also hold that the increasing accuracy of our models - whether small or big - is proof that there is an reality. Like an arrow drawing closer to its target; the direction of travel implies an existent reality to aim towards, referred to as Laws.

I noticed a lot of people were downvoting your ideas, and if my theory above is correct, I believe that I may have some resolutions for you: terminological and development.

———

So, the former:

I think the word which might be better suited for using, for this apriori object, is “Intelligible” - as a pre-condition of this Intelligence. Because, existence needs to have an essence and ability of comprehensibility to, thus, be perceived. This should allow you to avoid misdiagnosing your metaphysical kernel with the agency of thought, assuming it does not have it, while retaining its structural properties. It also allows you to express your Realism. If you feel there is no differentiation between intelligibility and intelligence, perhaps Logos would suffice, though the draw back would be a religious theme.

For your Going Up and Going Down the terms often associated with those concepts, I believe, are Holism and Reductionism. - if these are right, they will be easier to understand.

I suggest finding a different word than Analogy for “getting that information and relating it to others” - the word itself is used for ‘comparison by similarity’ and pointing to a direction would not really apply here. It may work idiosyncratically in your own nomenclature, but likely not for expressing your ideas to others, which is important for dialectical growth. As for the definition of ‘Analogy’ itself, information is kind of always nested in its relation to another thing, so it is superfluous in this regard.

Here is a book I particularly love:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Thesaurus_of_English_Words_and_Phrases_C.html?id=tZ6LGOnMZ7YC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you scroll through the preview of the book on google it will give a list of words, a thousand or so, all of which will be useful.

———

As for development:

Similar to a hourglass passing sand through a small channel from one chamber to another, I believe your terms and theories - the initial chamber - has led you to the channel of a proto-realism. It is now your responsibility to re-enter into a broader chamber of epistemological study, interact with the ideas there and formalise your ideas in relation to the already understood terminology and history, so others can comprehend you ideas more thoroughly. Then travel through another chamber of clearer philosophical articulation.

If this is not the case in your native language, I definitely believe this is the case with English.

——-

Don’t know if any if this is alright, you clearly have interesting ideas, but your weakness is expressing them.

My posts are removed sometimes for mysterious reasons. For example, the one I posted just above yours was removed from r/philosophy & stated it would be okay in this open discussion thread.

So apparently there's a limit for the size of the answer. I'm tired of writing, you may die tired of reading. I also lost the bold I use to emphasize some things, so this may be even worst. Anyhow, since we're here, I'll post it as this online notepad.

https://www.invertexto.com/dialecticofeternity

I won’t and did not tire, lol - though it was a handful.

So, I am counselling my response.

Your ideas remind me a lot of mine, in essential structure - that of Return - before I transitioned to becoming a philosophical pessimist.

However, I don’t want to be further presumptuous by implying understanding, and so I will get back to you in either the next few hours, or next few days.

I’ve been pondering the meaning of life and had a realization I found quite interesting. The function of humor is an inverted expression of life’s meaning.

One of the leading theories on the mechanics of Humor is the Benign/Violation Theory which proposes that humor arises under the condition that a benign situation and a situation of violation occur simultaneously. A benign situation is characterized by order and predictability, whereas a situation of violation is characterized by chaos and unpredictability. Thus, humor is the coalescence of Order and Chaos.

A framework for the “meaning of life” can be structured from the themes of chaos and order as described by Jordan Peterson and the description of the ego’s domain by German philosopher Max Sterner. These themes come together to form a rudimentary definition of “ordering the chaos of one’s domain”. Essentially, finding solutions to the problems one cares about in no specific manner. While all existence contains a blend of chaos and order, life’s meaning is determined by the separation of Order and Chaos.

I posted this but it got taken down as not being substantial enough (I think) and would appreciate any help as how to make this a main post. Thank you

Hey I solved Humanity Philosophy is Obsolete and I also solved Theoretical physics because that also was a problem by definition. Ok thank you, go fuck my-selves. Lol. Go team go lol. Also I parted the Heaven’s for Taylor one the 1st day of seven without a green screen. (Pussys) go fuck my selves.

If no one ever brought up this question I would never ask myself, honestly.

The only thing I'm interested in is good and evil. Not the meaning of life. There is no physical meaning that I can see. But I guess now that the question has arisen. I'd like to know.

So are you saying that because there is something to be gained from helping others, there is no way anyone can be good. That's sad. I think that being good is taking the time out of your day to do kind for things people, and yes this can still benefit you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't good.

Technically a perfectly selfless act would be to give your life for a stranger. There is no personal gain because you dont know the person or what they're gonna do in the future.

I guess that's why Jesus is seen as the perfect man. He died for the world. For people he didn't know.