I would ask simple questions:
1. Why does one human wish to be more powerful and have more wealth than any other? — universeness

Are such drives/motivations, 100% connected to our 'survival of the fittest, jungle rules, beginnings?'

If so, then what does the notion of 'civilisation,' really mean to humans?

2. Do you think 8 billion humans, fully co-operating, could achieve more than 8 billion humans competing under the control of an elite global few?

3. Can the human species find common cause, when we consider the scale of the universe and the resources available within it?

4. Consider unfettered capitalism in permanent action, forever unchallenged, what would you predict,
would be the main result of such a permanent global system, for our species?

I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works, but [ ... ] — Gnomon

Btw, DJT will be stricken from some key state ballots due to provisions in US 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 because of the findings of J6 Committee and subsequent state & federal indictments, so the fat old orange fascist fuck won't be able to run again in '24 (though he'll still be a player / spoiler of some sort.) — 180 Proof

And on and on and hosanna. That is to say apparently gaslighting seems to be the answer. — schopenhauer1

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

rationality itself is god — plaque flag

In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as ... — ucarr

... positing a creator in place of evolution.

So there's an existential decision to live in a beautifully impersonal way, which I understand as maximally social. — plaque flag

I want to be us and not just me.

I want to strive heroically against my own petty finitude, toward the relative infinity of Feuerbach's species-essence.

a kind of horizon — plaque flag

Reality apart from human personality is a useful fiction. — plaque flag

What is this reality ? — plaque flag

Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.
— Wiki

Becker and others make the same point. Life has a horrible aspect, and we meet it with narratives and symbols that mitigate that horror. The first heroic task as a child is ceasing to shit one's pants. A 'spiritual' being is a cultural or sublimated being — plaque flag

What does the game of philosophy always presuppose ? — plaque flag

The living breathing ontologist has a certain kind of personality. To what degree is philosophy a personal quest for honesty that leads toward a self-consciously critical and fallible conversation ? — plaque flag

Does the true scientist (I include, controversially, a person like Husserl) take science personally ? How else could it be taken?

I don't think it's an accident that we understand one another and ourselves as total characters, nor do I think literature is far from ontology.

I'm saying for my own self, not quoting scripture, that the ego is and must be flesh. No doubt a mystic can claim otherwise — plaque flag

What can the philosopher offer ? — plaque flag

We probably have passed the point of no return in some ways ... — universeness

What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence. — "EnPassant

I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof, c2008

Has our civilization evolved to the point where philosophy can be dispensed with? — Pantagruel

[H]as philosophy moved from being an "outlier" to a superfluous branch of study?

Does philosophy still contribute?

When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing?

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. This is not a matter of discovery but of creation. Nietzsche takes the exhortation to become who you are from the Greek poet Pindar. For both Plato and Nietzsche philosophy is a form of poiesis. Their knowing is creating.

Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation. — Fooloso4

Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
— 180 Proof

Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, ... — Quixodian

... or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't[

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent. — Banno

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. — Sam26

There's a vested interest in materialism ... — Quixodian

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka