[removed]

ONLY the sith? :)

Philosophy of trolls maybe.

That doesn’t seem terribly helpful. I mean just hating the artist whatever, but why would I want philosophy to help people avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.

Ya because you lacked perspective too solve humanity, o by the way Nathan Johnson solved Humanity from an oblonged head guy on a wall with a stick. Hi that was me Adam, that’s was Humanity’s first 5th Dimensional artwork of me controlling myself while looking at my other self while painting a picture of myself. It’s called a conducive environments and a sexual sporic reproduction at 100% brain development. Don’t believe me? Go fuck myselves.

You can’t escape context. It’s become popular in western society to self-reflect while attempting to remove oneself from any contextual reality. As in, “Who am I if I’m suspended in a vacuum free of the bounds of history, evolution, time and space?” In my opinion it’s an ego issue wherein people are not willing to accept that there are real things they cannot control about themselves or the context they exist in.

You don't choose sides, you objectively belong to one according to how your income is generated. Almost everyone is a worker (forced to sell their labor for a wage) and therefore socialism is in their direct interest in terms of power and organization.

If you live off of stocks, renting out surplus housing etc, i.e. if you live off the work of others rather than your own, so then you're a capitalist.

You don't shut out any solutions by shutting out one or the other. Capitalism is the cause and socialism is the solution, if child labor, starvation, disease or climate change is something you're concerned with.

If you own stocks or outright run private businesses that depends on this exploitation to fund your extravagant lifestyle and you don't give a shit what happens to nature during or after your life, then capitalism is the means to your end and socialism is the problem.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Some of the Platonic forms only make sense when you consider that their language didn't really consider adjectives to be a thing.

"Hot" or "Large" or "Red" were considered something loke incomplete nouns that required other nouns to finish them. "Hot sand", "Large tree", etc.

Only then does it make sense to talk of forms of "The hot" or "The large"or, "The good"

If their language treated adjectives as we do, they may not have started to consider "The Good" a thing.

“Team capitalism” isn’t incompatible with government programs. Communism is incompatible with private ownership. It sounds like you’re a capitalist social democrat.

I find people are best served when beef is served medium rare.

How does that fit that definition of a pursuit of philosophy?

Ultimately, you have to ask "Why is this particular thing a problem that requires a solution?"

That's where your unspoken subjective preferences come in.

Or, that’s simply human nature and philosophy, like the scientific method, is an attempt to account for human error whilst seeking a currently undiscovered truth.

And every philosopher has a different perspective about a question that it's so beautiful and inspiring to realise different answers to the same question that can exist and be justified too What is the correct answer one of the many perspectives which has majority of support, all the others just remain as a philosophy associated to that question

Always? Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

>Any exposure to philosophic theories inevitably lead to choosing a side, a team, a theory; then good old confirmation bias kicks in, and then a lifetime of debate with all who disagree lol

This is extremely common, but not necessary. I've read Adam Smith, Fukuyama, Marx, Hayek, Rand, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, and Zizek and I still haven't decided if I'm a capitalist or a Marxist and probably never will. Every writer I mentioned above gets some things right and others wrong (though not in equal measure).

While it's true that I'm not "disinterested" in or "detached" from the issue of the ideal economic system, I'm not dogmatic about solving a problem. Some problems are best solved through government programs. Other problems are best solved through private competition. The way i see it, once you commit to team communism or team capitalism, you've shut yourself off from half the possible solutions.

I follow a belief I call perspectivism which holds that all philosophical ideas or theories are perspectives which we can be used as tools to further develop other theories and come closer to truth. Since every perspective acts as a lens that can show more sides of a given truth. There's no reason to be a hold out of one position or the other, instead every position can be used to discover something new. I see all philosophical ideas as cognitive tools that can be used to dig for deeper truths and there is no real reason to hold a position of one over the other.

I get that. Also, I’m not a math guy. I’m an author. I’m sure my clever alliteration of the cafes of carracas and Boulevards of Bangkok was one of your wastes of space.

Okay. That's fair. I will say that many of the other categories you lost will be predominated by people unwilling to scan through that much nuance. This is a dilemma I know well: I write curricula for proof-based math modules, and the balance between showing enough steps not to lose anyone and not so many that even otherwise enthusiastic students feel their eyes glaze over is a difficult optimization problem. I only meant that I might have struck a different point on that spectrum in service of that balance.

First, I’m not insulted. I do not consider myself great, but I’ll say that 99% of the population thinks the Bible is crap that they don’t understand, so I’ve been aware for a while most people aren’t going to get me. I’ve found my biggest sin is expecting people to read at all. Anymore, if it ain’t on TikTok, it ain’t going viral.

Second, reasonable consumers of philosophy were only part of the intended audience. Concerned parents, superhero fans, movie critics, lay religious people, lots of folks. Actually, I wrote it kinda hoping it would be read by some producers at Warner Media and originally posted it on Superhero boards. It didn’t take root as well as it did here.

It’s also a part of a larger continuity of blog posts on my blog that are heavily theological. Basically defining why Satan hates God so much: he is a libertarian who thinks nothing determines the universe.

So as I said, what to you is filler is someone else’s insight.

Sorry, my bad.

Nonononono. Stripping away all cultural and emotional context from a thing is the patented way of getting to the truth of it.

I'm pretty sure there are whole pages that are both redundant and devoid of content. Just words for words' sake. Like, I don't mean to insult you as the author. I was having a side conversation with someone else who thought your paper wasn't even connected to your thesis, and I said, essentially, "there's some content there, but you've really got to hunt for it." But no, I don't think there are reasonable consumers of philosophy who would have their knowledge or insight positively added to by most of the sentences in that paper.

What to you is filler is somebody else’s insight.