Two straight lines can't intersect at more than one point. No act can be selfless.

There's no way around them. Some things are just like that (at least to our comprehension), like causality.

I started reading MYSTICISM by Evelyn Underhill today in my university library (I read a total of 2-3 books in my 23 years of life; not a reader), and the abstract felt almost identical to solipsism and other related philosophies I hold.

Let's see what the book holds.

All men, at one time or another, have fallen in love with the veiled Isis whom they call Truth. With most, this has been a passing passion: they have early seen its hopelessness and turned to more practical things. But others remain all their lives the devout lovers of reality: though the manner of their love, the vision which they make to themselves of the beloved object varies enormously. Some see Truth as Dante saw Beatrice: an adorable yet intangible figure, found in this world yet revealing the next. To others she seems rather an evil but an irresistible enchantress: enticing, demanding payment and betraying her lover at the last. Some have seen her in a test-tube, and some in a poet’s dream: some before the altar, others in the slime. The extreme pragmatists have even sought her in the kitchen; declaring that she may best be recognised by her utility. Last stage of all, the philosophic sceptic has comforted an unsuccessful courtship by assuring himself that his mistress is not really there.

How does thought A lead to/cause/remind us of thought B, in the same way that we can ask, How does my action of chewing a mouthful of food lead to/cause me to have a drink? — J

Causality (necessity and response).

Now, if you ask why the universe has causality as its founding grammar, that's a different discussion.

we are limited in our ability to know these general truths — Colo Millz

This is exactly why abstract reasoning should take precedence over empirical observations.

Because, due to human subjectivity and limitations, science will always be a mirage disguised as truth. We'll never learn the objective truth or reality, and we'll never have a finalized, reasonable conclusion. But between the two, the latter is more preferable, especially at the individual level. Whenever we attempt to collectivize something, it spirals into chaos.

The pursuit of knowledge is often mistaken for the pursuit of truth. They are not the same.
Knowledge is aesthetic; it beautifies the mind. Truth is theoretical; it exists only as a limit we can never reach.

The terminal nihilist studies not to “discover” but to experience the pleasure of comprehension.
Science and philosophy, when freed from the burden of eternity, become art forms — games of intellect that reward curiosity without demanding conclusion.

It is not necessary to believe in what one studies. Belief is possession; it creates anxiety and defense. Knowing without believing — observing, testing, and discarding ideas as one does melodies — allows freedom of thought without the sickness of conviction.

Thus, the scientist’s laboratory and the philosopher’s desk are stages, not temples. The experiment and the essay are performances of curiosity, not pilgrimages to revelation.
The wise man learns as a connoisseur, not as a missionary.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Terminal Truth: On the Economy of Existence [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17378531

The first thought reminded me of the second thought — J

Thoughts are like actions. They're a continuous process. Whether one gives birth to another or spawns subsequently is not the question here. When I eat, I drink. It's continuous. My throat is full, so I water down. You can call it a reaction or a simple chain of actions.

Celebrating the works of Copernicus

"We" need a state because if it is not our state, then it is anybody's state and may become their state. — unenlightened

Why do we need a community?

Your cognitive sword is skepticism, propelling you forward thrusting and parrying at the devious world of deception? — ucarr

And what is your proposed better alternative to that?

whatever the "self" is — Nils Loc

Yes, we'd need a standard definition for "self".

whether you have any counter-arguments — Mijin

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality. — Copernicus

Please now clarify — Mijin

Yes, it has practical benefits.

But no, I don't care.

performative contradiction. — Banno

It's not.

"I'm sure everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.
"I'm unsure if everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.

there is no relation. — Banno

If you meant from the aspect of causality (butterfly effect), then sure, we're related. But if you meant uniformity like electrons, then you're missing the point.

Fried eggs, therefore, are a leap of faith. Cool. — Banno

I hope you remember the spoon scene in The Matrix.

So the true reality is that true reality is unknown... — Banno

Exactly. It doesn't deny, only skepticizes.

I'm pointing out your part in the conspiracy. — Banno

How am I related to the chicken?

You're now plainly trolling with irrelevant and illogical counterarguments.

still just a guess. — Outlander

Everything is a leap of faith. True reality is forever unknown. But detected patterns often show uniformity.

What's the relevance of that? — Banno

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform.

Same with human selfishness.

Individual observation isn't needed to find natural law. Something we call sampling.

?

You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving — Outlander

Look.

You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours — Outlander

the core problem in Copernicus's threads is the failure to acknowledge the other. — Banno

Just like I don't measure everything in the universe but know that (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b². — Copernicus

Is it to replenish the water supply? Is he exercising? Is it to mix the poison so as to kill the town's population? Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

All serving the self. I can't see where not.

Practical tool, yes. Means to learn about reality? No. Not the TRUE reality.

Like I said, I'm a theoretical person with little concern for practicality.

You captured it yourself. My view towards selfishness. Hence I said bravo.

a father that sacrifices because he wants the best for his children — Mijin

Serving his desire and agency to protect his children.

Outside of threads like this — Mijin

Yes. My point was that words can have dumb meaning.

therefore all actions are selfish. — Banno

Yes.

Yes.

And I believe you grasped what I meant here.

That’s just evidence of AI learning on it’s own. — Punshhh

If that learning on its own goes beyond calculated prediction.

Are you sure about that, it’s not a given? — Punshhh

Yes, that's debatable.

Meanwhile back in the real world — Mijin

...people call mass "weight".

How do you understand the distinction between distance and spacing of objects if not the different areas they appear relative to each other in your conscious visual experience? — Harry Hindu

Goodness... Do you even understand what a metaphor is? This is hopeless at this point.

The very feelings you speak of IS your consciousness — Harry Hindu

Yes, thematic. I don't say this 5 cm area of my consciousness is 31 degrees Celsius hot, so to speak. That's what I said. You can't dissect it like you would your wrist nerves.

seems like you completely missed my point.

Aquinas would say that principles are not like commands shouted by a superior - they are expressions of reason itself. — Colo Millz

I see principles as constitutional amendments.

The job of philosophy is to codify morals (doctrinate) with propositional arguments and then come to a conclusion (finalized principle).

The job of the state is to put that into the constitution.

Justice should be governed by principles, not populism or logic (empirical or personal).

Perhaps I follow a particular sub-branch of the ideology, like anarchism within libertarianism.

Since Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae I–II, q.18, a.4.

Morality depends on what the will chooses as an end. — Colo Millz

Whatever that may be, it's not categorical morality (adherence to rigid principles).

If the soldiers don't intend to follow orders there's not much point being in the army. — Colo Millz

Tell that to your fellow militants. I'm a colonel and you're a sergeant and I shout "attention", you must comply. Same with principles and actions.

intention matters — Mww

Not in categorical morality, sorry.

You seem to be saying that indirect access is what provides truth where direct access does not, which is counter-intuitive. — Harry Hindu

What I said was that we can't mentally feel and touch our consciousness to dissect it for understanding. Only a thematic comprehension.

partially — Mijin

sure — Copernicus

what you described is situational (contextual) morality, which leaves room for due diligence, conscience, and judgement call.

Categorical morality is textual. Whatever is doctrinized must be followed. Much like the chain of command in the military.