right now, though, I'm reading John Searle "Mind, Language And Society". So far he seems to be making a case for Enlightenment-era realism such as Thomas Reid, contrary to David Hume, the idea that certain processes in nature must correlate or the various fields of the natural sciences and social sciences cannot "hang together" as he states. Right now I just got done with the chapter on consciousness, he asserts that consciousness is the highest or a higher level of biological brain processes just as say, digestion is for the stomach and intestines. Later on, he used the metaphor of an automobile's different contraptions all the way down to the chemical reactions of CO2 to explain that there's a biological basis for all of it while asserting that we "cannot disprove consciousness" like we can disprove the sun "setting" (he alludes to the illusion of a setting sun as the rotation of the earth around the sun to say how it disappears on the horizon), so its not something that can be reduced further than appearances.

Welcome to the forum. You should tell us about something you have been reading that you particularly like or particularly hate. — T Clark

I did not care for B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom And Dignity" because of its attempt to ground human action into non-material qualities. although I think he might have a point here and there I always thought there was more to it than that, possibly a third quality to human action beyond consciousness and the action itself.

Jose Ortega Y Gasset "Revolt Of The Masses" was satisfying though as I sensed much that's wrong with the world is more or less due to the opinions of those who do not examine their life closely.

Its not so much the knowledge of truth, but the idea that our environment that we observe, were it not real, would unravel the entire social and natural sciences and nothing could be gained from the acquisition of knowledge in of itself

My Goodreads is in my bio

Didn't Lucretius basically do that?

Honestly, we should have never strayed too far from virtue ethics as at least they were principles to live by.

I don't think that moral tolerance of other cultures should be shown, but that's just my opinion.

I'd have to get pdfs of them.

I tend to be a Cultural Relativist, one who bases Ethics of a given society pertaining to the culture.

I don't really think it should be up to a personal choice on who or what they find reasonable, esp. if it pooled among a group democratically and those who find it unreasonable are screwed. I'm no utilitarian, but those who create the contract should be of higher value than those subject to it.

The issue with the current hegemony lies in with liberal institutions , whether right leaning or left leaning (it doesn't matter) of social media who dictate what can and/or cannot be said. Since I oppose liberalism in all its forms, restoring free speech would require most of these institutions to sell their assets to a public domain, such a state appartus, to avoid any sort of bias in either side with a mixed delegation of people from many walks of life and across the board in terms of ideology to ensure no "tyranny of a majority" exists. However how this arrangement comes about depends how much faith one has in the general macrocosm of humanity.