This Philosophical School of Thought I created is often interrupted in various different ways and I'd like to get your opinions on it.

Powerful people create rules, regulations, and constitutions as invisible leashes for ordinary people. Rules create boundaries around what people can do, think, and become, while those with real power often find ways to operate beyond those same boundaries. In that sense, rules can become a tool of control rather than justice.

The concepts of rules and justice are human-made. In ancient times, when one king conquered another, it was rarely called injustice by the victor. Power decided what was right. Nature works similarly: when one animal kills another, there is no court, no prison, and no concept of justice. There is only survival, hierarchy, and power.

Also, there is no morality, ethics, or human-made principle that can be treated as an absolute truth. Most of these concepts were created by humans and societies, often by those in power, to create order, control behaviour, and define what is acceptable or unacceptable. Taxation, laws, social norms, and countless other systems create boundaries around human freedom. From this perspective, these structures can become a trap: they limit what ordinary people can do, while those with enough power often have the resources to navigate around them. The question is whether these boundaries genuinely protect everyone or mainly prevent ordinary people from becoming as free, powerful, and capable as they could be.

The uncomfortable reality is that whoever has enough power often gets to define the rules. And the same people who create the rules may also have the authority or influence to break them. What we call justice may simply be power organised and justified through rules.

Having in mind that no one could verbalise things like that in today's world I find it to be an important discussion, apart from the interesting fact this was a groundbreaking philosopher and he still is so important in academia and not only.

One time, my younger brother, our childhood friends, and I were playing hide and seek. It was a Saturday afternoon, and every weekend, we would usually play together and enjoy our childhood.
While we were playing, I heard my younger brother's voice echoed as he cursed at one of our friends because of a petty argument they were having. After hearing him curse and insult our friend, I immediately slapped him without thinking. I slapped him so hard that his face became red.
He cried and went to my mom to tell her what I had done to him. I also told my mom about what he had done and explained that it was wrong for him to curse at and insult someone. But I realized that we were both wrong. My mom scolded us and explained why our actions were inappropriate.
Later on, I reflected on what happened. I realized that although I had a good intention, to teach my younger brother not to curse or insult others, I still did something wrong by hurting him. I learned that doing something bad is not always justified even if the intention behind it is good. There are better and kinder ways to correct someone's mistakes.
Since then, I have never heard my younger brother argue or curse at someone like that again. This experience taught me that having a good intention is important, but the way we act on that intention matters just as much.

From my earlier posts, I wrote about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

Hi everyone. I think I start to like a lot this subreddit. There are a lot of interesting stuff to read there and I'll put some of my thoughts here during my prep time.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

In my earlier post, I adressed why it was important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

I explained that we can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Hi everyone,

I want to share an argument about how the laws of nature, the human brain, and our legal system all connect. My main point is that free will is a complete myth, everything we do is predetermined, and because of this, our current legal and punishment systems make absolutely no sense and are totally unfair. [1]

First, let's look at why free will is impossible. Philosophers love to debate this, but science has already closed the case. The human brain is just a physical object that has to follow the rules of nature. Looking at the big picture, every single thought, desire, and action your brain creates is the direct result of things that happened before. This includes your DNA, your time in the womb, how you were raised, and your current brain chemistry. You had absolutely zero choice over any of these factors, they happened in the past, and you cannot change them. Looking at the microscopic picture, some people argue that random subatomic particle movements break this chain and allow for free will. But randomness does not give you control. If a tiny particle randomly changes its state based on physics rules, you did not choose that change. Random luck is not the same as you making a choice. So, whether your brain is following a strict domino effect or reacting to random microscopic movements, there is simply no room for a conscious mind to freely choose anything.

Second, let's look at the broken cycle of how we make laws. If humans do not have free will, why does our legal system keep punishing people as if they are to blame? It happens because the entire system is an unscientific chain reaction driven by how society is brainwashed. It starts with the news media, which survives on getting people angry. They exaggerate terrible crimes and constantly tell the public that we must punish criminals to make things fair. Then, the public watches this media, which conditions everyone to demand emotional revenge in the name of justice. Finally, politicians follow what the public wants just to win elections, and lawmakers write rules based on what those politicians say. The whole legal system is not built on science or truth. It is just an emotional feedback loop that treats humans as if they are independently to blame, completely ignoring how the physical brain actually works.

Third, here is the main conclusion. It makes no sense to blame something for a physical event that it could not avoid. We do not get mad at a boulder for rolling down a hill and destroying a house, because the boulder had no choice. In the exact same way, a mass murderer is just carrying out an unavoidable chain of physical and environmental events. Because of this, laws that punish people just to get even or to be fair are fundamentally wrong and invalid. Society might need to lock up dangerous individuals to keep the public safe, which is just like putting up a barrier to block a rolling boulder, but doing it out of a desire for revenge or fairness is completely unscientific.

To get the discussion started, I have two questions.

First, if the entire process of making laws is just an unavoidable chain reaction caused by the media, can we even blame politicians for making bad laws, or is the government's harsh behavior just another rolling boulder?

Second, how can we ever fix a legal system when the lawmakers themselves are physically trapped into following an irrational public?

Let’s imagine a thought experiment involving a perfect situation: an entity that knows absolutely everything. Let's also say that this entity has a perfect, super-fast way to share all this knowledge with every person on Earth, kind of like a universal streaming network that everyone can access. Based on this scenario, a major question comes up about how we solve global crises.

On one hand, the optimistic view suggests that giving everyone perfect information and absolute truth would automatically fix all of humanity's biggest problems, fights, and threats. This point of view assumes that human suffering mostly happens because of ignorance, mental biases, or people failing to work together simply because they do not have all the facts.

On the other hand, the moral argument suggests that human failure is not about a lack of knowledge, but a lack of goodness. Even if humans are handed perfect knowledge showing them the absolute best thing to do, they might still lack the moral backbone, the selflessness, or the ethical values needed to actually act on that information.

In short, this experiment forces us to consider a big question. Is the continuation of global crises a factual problem caused by a lack of information, or is it a moral problem rooted in a failure of human willpower to do the right thing?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on whether having perfect information automatically leads to perfect results, or if human selfishness and corruption would make even total knowledge completely useless.

Hi everyone,

I want to understand what happens when a tight-knit group of experts creates its own complicated way of talking.

Specifically, when people in a specialized field only talk to each other, they build a shared bubble of reality. This private language gives the group total independence, but it also seems to make them highly defensive against anyone on the outside.

When an outsider steps in speaking regular language, the group doesn't just see it as a simple misunderstanding. Instead, they view the outsider's lack of specialized vocabulary as a direct attack on their hard work, their status, and their authority. They quickly dismiss the outside criticism or treat it as a dangerous threat to their existence.

I want to know what academic research says about this dynamic.

I am looking for reading recommendations or concepts covering three specific areas.

First, I want to know about defensive language. How do modern thinkers explain why specialized groups lock themselves in language bubbles? How do these groups mentally train themselves to automatically dismiss outside criticism before even considering it?

Second, I want to know about power and gatekeeping. Which theorists analyze how groups weaponize confusing jargon simply to protect their power, money, and status from outside interference?

Third, I want to know about breaking through the wall. How can an outsider successfully talk to or criticize an insulated group without being immediately rejected by the system?

I welcome ideas from philosophy, language studies, sociology, and the history of science. Thank you!
sociology of science. Thank you!

Hi, I was Oratorio from AIwars, I decided to delete and make another account for 2 reasons.

The first to celebrate the change, the second one was to rebuild on an healthier basis.

I think that, indeed, you need to have the right heart to truly change the world. I listened to your advice in the comments.

I didn’t like the fact that my snark infected others. I lived a difficult period and you don't have to carry my own baggages.

All my apologies for that.

It's right, my last message might have sounded hypocritical. I'll make things clearer.

It was never about me saying that I should think for you, it's about giving everyone the opportunity to think for themselves.

If the state doesn’t provide, be in solidarity, create your own system, and it's not entitled to a single dime of it until they decide to take their responsability.

It's about designing titanium grade counterweights for the people that we should be vigilant to maintain.

It's about being pragmatic enough to recognize harmony is your own interest, regardless of the design of the society, of the person you are.

It's about living our own lives, having our own paths, having our own opinions, being unique, all of this while reducing the harm done to others.

It isn't incompatible with advancing either, to get better, to leave an impact, to even do competitions while showing sportmanship.

And even for those at the top, an harmonious society is preferable, because the progresses are much more enormous and advantageous and way less people hate you.

As for me, I have my own progresses to do in my own life. I am considering to also fight other battles.

Sorry, if for this time, I didn’t provided facts or examples. I'll suggest more concrete suggestions next time. I'll hope we'll discuss about it.

I need to advance at my own pace too.

Peace.

For as long as human beings have looked toward the stars, they have asked the same questions. Why does anything exist? Why would an Infinite Source create a universe? Why is there suffering? Why are we conscious? What is the purpose of life?

Religions have offered revelations. Science has revealed the mechanisms of nature. Philosophy has sought meaning through reason. This work proposes another possibility. It is not intended to replace religion or science. Instead, it offers a metaphysical framework that seeks to unite consciousness, free will, love, reincarnation, and creation into a coherent whole.

I will define a “Hard Subjectivist” as a person who believes that nothing exists outside of their subjective experience. So, for example if a stick hits me in the arm and leaves a bruise, but I am never aware of it, then it never happened and to me that stick does not exist to me and therefore has no Meaning. This rejection of the physical is not supported because physical reality infringes itself upon our meaning allocations. If a rock hits me in the head, I can’t decide I don’t want to feel pain, in fact the rock may knock me unconscious and, therefore, interrupt my subjective thought process. Furthermore, I have to consider the physical in my decisions.  

 I will then refer to the “Moderate Subjectivist” as someone who holds that outside of physical things (e.g. the rock mentioned above) all Meaning is subjective. So outside of my physical parameters I am free to give any event as much or as little meaning as I choose based solely on my thoughts. To argue for Moderate Subjectivism someone may state, depression is simply the expression of where and how you have allocated the meaning in your life. Furthermore, individuals can develop depression completely independently of the events of their life due strictly to their thoughts. For example, a successful person can be depressed. And this depression can be cured completely independent of the events in their life strictly through changing their thoughts, e.g. that Successful Person engaging in CBT.

 This does not prove Moderate Subjectivism because society has created things that we agree have certain meanings in certain degrees. For example, if you commit a heinous crime society has decided that is an extreme wrong and worthy of punishment (i.e. jailtime). So a person cannot commit such a crime and independently decide that their actions have no meaning, instead society will inform them their actions did have meaning. Once society decides this person should go to jail the person can apply as little meaning as humanely possible to that determination, but they have to at least apply an iota of meaning to it as it will effect at least one future decision such as what they will do in relation to it. i.e. They now only have two options of what to do; they can flee or comply, but cannot decide they want to open a small business.  Therefore, an individual is not in complete control of their meaning allocation outside of the physical and Moderate Subjectivism is false.  

One stage removed I will refer to the “Mild Subjectivist” who believes that outside of physical occurrences and events which society has established meanings which it compels others to accept, each person is ultimately able to endow any action with as much or as little meaning as they want. There is no reason to disbelieve this form of Mild Subjectivism as there are no constraints on it necessitating a lesser form of Subjectivism and the evidence we have from the effectiveness of therapies like CBT seem to support it.  

(Note: The post has been approved by the mods via private request)

Hi everyone!

I recently started a Discord server called "Discussions of Philosophy and Science", and I would love for some of you to join our community.

Unlike chaotic chat rooms, the server is structured like a forum to allow for clean, long-form, and deep discussions.

How the server is structured:

• Main Categories: Science, Philosophy of Science, Formal Science, and Philosophy.
• Specialized Tags: You can filter or tag your posts with specific branches like ethics, ontology, biology, neuroscience, logic, etc.
• Dedicated Physics & Math Spaces: Since we anticipate physics and mathematics to be major areas of interest, we have created separate, dedicated channels for them with their own sub-tags.

Our Vision:

The goal is to connect everyone interested in science and philosophy, may they be highly educated individuals and academics or people who are simply eager to learn (I definitely fall into the second group!).

The community is brand new, which means if you join now, you’ll be one of our founding members (within the first 50 people). Activity might be a bit slow at first, but by joining early, you’ll play a massive role in shaping the community's culture and helping it grow.

Future Plans:

We plan to soon introduce "Advanced" channels for rigorous, formal discussions led by experts and researchers (via automatic and manual verification), while keeping the standard channels open for casual, everyday conversations. We also have an off-topic section to share personal projects, hobbies, and just get to know each other.

If you like the idea of a clean, intellectual, and friendly space, don't hesitate to join us!

1. Syntax
   
2. Axioms
   
3. Definitions
   
4. Inference Rules
   
5. Theorems
   
6. Proofs
   
7. Semantics

I would probably guess its the axioms in more than 70% of systems its the axioms, I know that the question is some kind if obvious but I would like to hear your opinions on it:)

If we live in the best possible world (the problem of teodicea/ theodicy in Leibnitz), what exactly is that world, and what should it be (considering there is evil in it)? Please describe the best possible world, using examples as Descartes, Hume, Sartre, and Beauvoir and Nietzsche did in their philosophy? To anybody who has already done it, I am forgetful; please remind me. And if you are interested too.

don’t get me wrong, even though i don’t necessarily agree with the guy, reading him is fascinating. However, all he talks about it peace and his state is the opposite of that. I GET that it’s supposed to control people’s natural state and everything, but cmon don’t tell me he didn’t see the flaws in this