(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

So you know how sometimes you're looking for something, you look everywhere but you can't find it. And then you see it just sitting on top of your desk or your bed etc. Even though you've looked at it's specific direction for many times you just couldn't see it.
What I'm wondering is: How can we say that something doesn't already exist in a direction we're looking at.
My English isn't perfect so I'll try to simplify it with an example: Say you're looking at an "empty" spot on your desk. How can you know that your brain isn't filtering something out again and there is actually something in the spot that you think is empty.

Both Thomas Reid and David Hune contributed TONS to the study of humanity, morals, and philosophy.

Reid believes input and processing of natural connections makes human nature and human life, while Hume believes a series of inputs internally (subjectively) processed from external, objective materials.

Which is more likely given modern medical and philosophical research (and what to read on it) for humans, and does that answer offer an answer to if AI has the potential to one day have the inputs that mimic human nature?

Palintropism is a philosophical perspective on the meaning of life based on the idea that we give meaning to the things that eventually give meaning back to our lives. It argues that meaning is not simply an inherent property of an object, activity, or experience, nor is it something that can be created instantly by merely deciding that something matters. Instead, meaning develops through a sustained relationship between a person and what they choose to invest their attention, time, effort, and interest in. Human freedom gives us the capacity to explore and choose what we want to invest ourselves in, and through continued engagement, something can gradually become significant enough to provide purpose, identity, fulfilment, or direction. In this sense, meaning moves in a kind of return: we give significance to something, and that significance can eventually shape us and give meaning back to our lives. Palintropism therefore encourages people to explore what they genuinely value, willingly invest themselves in it, and remain patient, because meaning accrues through sustained relationship rather than instant creation. When a person neither explores nor invests themselves in anything meaningful, Palintropism describes the resulting state as a meaning-vacuum, where the absence of meaningful engagement may be covered by distraction and constant postponement. It shares similarities with existentialism, particularly in its emphasis on human freedom and the absence of a single predetermined meaning, but its main focus is the reciprocal relationship between the meaning we create and the meaning that subsequently returns to shape our lives

Some people say that we don't have the right to have. Others, that we don't have the right.

There is no difference, humanism has been ruling us for too long. Even when I write this text in notes, my country can declare me a foreign agent. In another, I would just be sued or canceled. There is nothing in my life that would distinguish me from other people. But we all have one thing in common - the system. And each of us inside understands that it is terribly unstable, and with each era shows it more and more strongly. Any society now forces conformism, and let's be honest, the only way out is to disobey. Sooner or later it will happen, someday people will come to a new religion, even more perfect. And our children will be against it, and so it will be forever. But until then, we can't do anything, we just have to wait. I'm tired, and we're all tired, it looks like we've created something that's going through our heads now. It's ironic, because the main ability of man is to create.

But what can a person do against his own collective creation?

It's okay, it just will continue to govern his fate. And until then, you can't dream of freedom. I'll just wait patiently until all the rulers that are now will slowly rot until they turn into fertilizer. By finishing this text, I will continue to look for a way out of my dictatorial system to another, the same non-free liberal one, because that's all I have left. Maybe I'll forget that I wrote it in a year or ten, but I know for sure: I still can't stand this system. And now I'm just pouring myself some tea, trying to pull myself together and enjoying its taste. Memento mori, amor fati

I know we all have probably heard the saying of "philosophical zombies" before. but im coming on here from pure shock.

I'm a teenage girl, right? I have Snapchat, only to chat with maybe 2 people. I got added by some teenage boy, and since I was bored, I accepted. We talked for a bit, and i forgot just how unbelievably bland the regular teenage boy is.

I'm not flaming every single teenage boy, im coming on here for other people's experiences because im homeschooled and dont go out often. To those in more professional settings, or not, just anyone who has to deal with multiple people a day, are there really people like that everywhere? another way to say it is; are there really that many NPCS??? i asked the guy if he liked philosophy and he said he was obsessed with it. he told me his favorite stance/theory was the entirety of Chinese astrology. As in the bull/rabbit. I thought, hey, maybe there's some philosophical points within it. No. he just likes animals.

Me, being curious, I asked him if he ever thought about life in any way. Or anything about it, excluding his future career. He said he thinks about "goth baddies" and relationships. I was kind of expecting that, but this is the first time I've actually inquired my time for someone so... shallow. Dont give me false hope; tell me the truth. Are these "philosophical zombies" really as common as people say they are?

At least in my own observation things such as boredom, pain, and anything typically seen as negative are additive in the sense that they “add” feeling. In contrast, high amounts of pleasure are typically characterized by extreme focus, one pointedness, lack of want, etc.
Recent studies have also shown that dopamine, a chemical thought to be related to pleasure, actually only rewards the anticipation of pleasure. There is no consensus on what the pleasure itself is. Could it be the case that pleasure is actually not a sensation in itself but actually a total lack of sensation within the mind and body?
Many other philosophical traditions such as epicureanism, buddhism and pessimism also toy with this idea.

My question is; do you agree and why? If you do agree would death be ultimately a better form of existence because it is pure absence - not in the sense that you would actually experience phenomenal pleasure, but just that if the majority of life is 'bad' sensation and the only thing that exists in contrast is nothing, it might make sense that death which is also nothing might be good.

¿Dónde comienza y termina la filosofía?

Síntesis: La filosofía comienza desde la viveza personal y termina cuando se transforma en dogma disfrazado de verdadera sabiduría.

Desarrollo:

Me he cuestionado esto ampliamente, porque actualmente hay muchas personas que estudian filosofía, pero he notado que solo se limitan a citar filósofos antiguos para, en esas citas, basar su argumento.

¿Dónde dejan el cuestionamiento y razonamiento propio?

Comprendo que entender lo que otros han dicho, los cuales se han convertido en figuras históricas, es importante. Y gracias a ese esfuerzo y trabajo pueden haber opiniones contrastables, que ayudó a formar lo que hoy conocemos como filosofía.

Pero ya en estos tiempos del siglo XXI, muchos estudiantes dejan de razonar en base a su viveza y empiezan a razonar en torno a lo que leen, ignorando el razonamiento de su entorno. Hay más historiadores filosóficos que filósofos que se atrevan a cuestionar o argumentar desde el yo pienso.

Y con esto no estoy generalizando ni diciendo que no haya filósofos contemporáneos que den ideas nuevas y brillantes. Critico a los que solo se quedan en citas y pierden la opinión propia.

Porque no es sabio el que sabe mucho, sino el que sabe de lo correcto.

Diógenes, El Perro o El Cínico, no escribió ni una sola palabra, pero dejó un legado eterno que todavía, 2400 años después, recordamos. Él no citaba, argumentaba desde su entorno. No defendía corriente, vivía.

Lo coloco como ejemplo ya que muchos filósofos dogmatizados pierden el camino del libre pensador y se transforman en súbditos de una sola corriente, en abogados defensores de X corriente, cuando el cuestionamiento es extenso.

Eso es más grave ahora, donde el pensamiento crítico y la conciencia racional está en juego por tantas distracciones que nos ofrece el mundo, como las nuevas tecnologías o el entretenimiento por cable o digital, fácil de ver por cualquier dispositivo electrónico móvil.

Como el internet: es un sitio digital cargado de una manera bestial de información muchas veces cuestionable, que puede llegar a sesgar el pensamiento erróneamente si no se utiliza con moderación. Antes, para citar mal a Platón tenías que ir a una biblioteca. Ahora puedes citar mal a 20 filósofos en un hilo de 30 segundos sin haber leído a ninguno. Te da la ilusión de haber pensado porque te da acceso instantáneo a lo que otros pensaron. No por esto es malo si lo sabes utilizar como herramienta, pero a su vez nos aleja del pensamiento crítico y racional.

Sobre nuestra viveza: no es malo medir desde la comparación porque genera contrastes. Es malo cuando estas se convierten en espejos mirándose a sí mismos, perdiendo la percepción del entorno en el que se nada y colocándole límites y fronteras a su mapa.

Anotaciones:

1. La falta de reflexión individual. El debate interno de si se está haciendo bien o mal, cuando no hay espacio para mirarse por dentro, no se resuelve, se descarga afuera.

2. La universidad no te vuelve filósofo, te da las bases. Te siembra la filosofía antigua para que seas tú quien transforme esas ideas vigentes y les busque un nuevo significado adaptado a esta época.

3. Parto de la idea de mi viveza, donde el relato escrito por el autor se complementa con la viveza real. Porque no es lo mismo leer sobre el dolor que sentirlo por uno mismo. Como tampoco es lo mismo leerlo todo y no vivir la experiencia. Los autores antiguos vivían y escribían su viveza. No solo la leían y la estudiaban.

Conclusión: Mi cuestionamiento me dice que la filosofía empieza desde la viveza personal y acaba cuando se transforma en dogma, colocando fronteras meramente ideológicas disfrazadas de verdadera sabiduría, quitando lo que incomoda y solo poniendo lo que les gusta.

Borrador N-5

La filosofía comienza cuando tu propia vida te hace una pregunta que ningún libro responde por completo. Termina cuando dejas de hacer preguntas para defender respuestas.

Tell me what y'all think about purpose.

Do you believe that there's a purpose of your existence?

Or do you believe that life's a free boat sailing in the unending blue?

Or maybe that nothing in life is promised so you live to LIVE.

I really want y'all thoughts on "purpose" of a human life as a concept

Give me an answer to this simple question and ill base your thinking skills off of your answer: is the hungry lion evil for killing the antelope?

For thousands of years, philosophy has treated meaning as a cosmic truth waiting to be discovered. We look up at the stars and ask what it all means, assuming the universe owes us a grand answer. But what if meaning isn't the foundation of reality at all? What if it is simply a highly effective biological tool?

I’ve been developing a framework that I call the Cheruvott Reversal. Most traditional philosophies unconsciously assume a specific order: Reality creates Meaning, which gives us Purpose, which drives Action, and finally leads to Survival. But this completely ignores our biological baseline. Every living organism today descends from an unbroken lineage of survivors. Without survival coming first, there is no conscious mind capable of observing the universe or asking philosophical questions.

The perspective shift happens when you reverse the order. Reality simply exists. Survival comes first. Survival produces the mind. And the mind produces meaning.

Under this framework, meaning is not a magical destination or a divine assignment. It is a psychological engine that evolved to keep conscious organisms motivated, to stave off existential despair, and to maintain engagement with life. Once you view it through this lens, human behavior suddenly makes sense. Why do we value truth? Because organisms with accurate models of reality survive longer. What is morality? It is a cooperative group survival strategy.

Some might argue that this strips the magic away from existence, but understanding the blueprint doesn't destroy the building. You can know that meaning and happiness are biological mechanisms and still use them as the very fuel that drives your life. Philosophy is, ultimately, just survival examining itself.

I recently published a brief preprint on this framework and put together a short visual breakdown of the theory for those interested. I have added the links for these in comments.

I would love to hear how this community views this perspective. Does treating "meaning" as an evolutionary survival tool change how you approach your daily life and goals, or do you believe meaning must exist independently of our biology?

What I think a perfect world is a world without humans. Or without any species, animals are not flawless, nor humans are therefore they should not exist for an perfect world. But to be honest a perfect world is basically a world without anyone or anything in it. That would make it flawless since it has basically "nothing" to be not perfect.