The point being that to apply the word "state" to these ancient governments, when you clearly meant it in the modern sense, is wrong because they are not what we understand states in the modern sense to be. — Benkei

I affirm and reiterate:

- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.

What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.

Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric.

In your conclusion:

This:

- Roman roads -



Are not the same as this:

- Victorian era roads -



For the sake of your image as an "administrator" and "philosopher" and for the sake of discussion, leave this topic. Good day/ Good night.

Here is where we find for the first time the feeling of "nationalism" I belong to x State because my identity, culture, customs, language were born here — javi2541997

It is with this nationalist mentality that the great civilizations of the Classical Age were structured - Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Aksumite Ethiopia, and the Han Dynasty -.

It is really functional when you project the ambition and purpose of an entire mass of people, in an abstract and complex concept like "the nation" or "our lands". You justify your actions in favor of strengthening the State in "good" causes for "the benefit of the structure that maintains the population".

But I think it is just another trap. — javi2541997

It is a trap, and good one.

Nowadays, this same trap has been transformed into a much more complex and rigid form through the use of the sum of:

Nationality + Religion - or in the case of the Western World, "Ideologies "-.

Yes, probably today we will not die in our works for the conditions or lack of rights — javi2541997

Yet, because I assure you that the objective of the current job market is to use you as much as possible.

A perfect historical example of what I say here, occurred during the reforms of "Diocletian" in the Roman Empire:

"Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armorers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary."

When the economic and labor freedom of the population no longer favors the institution of the State, this is totally annulled and made hereditary, since a stable economy with its stable wave of workers is much more beneficial to the State than a prosperous economy.

Today, what we see are the initial symptoms of this future, which had already occurred in the past.

Nevertheless, this is organisation is so secret that we cannot clearly put historical information on the table and then prove it. This is why is full of truths and myths/legends. — javi2541997

It is very likely that nothing that makes up contemporary Masonry is a legacy of the original.

As I said, and you reiterated, this group no longer has traditions, values and even secrets that have depth and historical substance.

If we ask a current Freemason why his order acts the way it does, it is with certainty that I affirm:

"- He would know nothing to answer".

The spirit of the salon is further from Max Stirner than from Jessica Fletcher ... thankfully. — Miguel Hernández

If the Salon is not capable of bearing a plurality of extreme ideas. Let the bartender no longer give anyone free drinks!

Masonry — javi2541997

Well, the original "Freemasonry" was composed of the elite of the Jewish temples of the province of "Judea" of the Roman Empire during the Classical Age. Its secrets are generically understood - as there are not many reliable records on the group's internal knowledge - as being of architecture, which were considered as divine gifts by the Romans - it is hypothesized that the "Walls of Theodosius" of Constantinople - which defended the city for more than 1,000 years - was designed and built by the Freemasons themselves -.

However, it must be taken into account that contemporary Freemasonry is the culmination of more than 1,000 years of Christianity, together with the 18th century Enlightenment thoughts, and almost nothing of the original one.

I would conclude that the secrets and specificities of Freemasonry have been so diluted for so long and for so many different cultures, that it is impossible to truly know its dogmas and its own internal culture, as much as the current Hermeticism.

The "state" is a 15th century concept. — Benkei

The point is that you are still wrong because in practice, humanity has established itself over 5,000 years in the form of the state.

Even the first historical "Empire" - Akkadian Empire - 2334 BC to 2154 - in practice, acted as a state in the modern concept. They even had borders - that in the future, kings as "Gilgamesh" would try to reconquer and become the "New Akkad" - as the medievals tried to re-establish the "Roman Empire" - -.

The empire of Akkad:



Your mistakes in focusing on the details of the terms simply to strengthen your arguments simply exist because your historical knowledge is weak.

"There is no such thing as a "philosopher", without first having a man who knows his own history"

They changed the way of thinking but not the role since the Roman Empire. — javi2541997

I fully agree, however, the culture of power stratification is much older than the Roman Empire.

In ancient Sumer, in its earliest period - 4500 BC - the city-states of Ur, Eridu, Kish, among others, were established by a "clerical" elite.

It seems to me that the bureaucratization and extension of the State as an institution only became what it is today, so that the structure of society, which kept the minority elite in power, could continually preserve the political power of this same elite as society expanded.

The change was only noticeable in the "means" used to maintain the structure of the State, which, in its most primordial form, is "submission to the metaphysical" - the Bronze Age - which evolved to a "belonging to the State" - Classical Age -.

The abstraction that sustained political power seems to me to have undergone a "transformation" into the "Middle Ages" because "metaphysical submission" and "belonging to the State" merged into one new concept - religion.

The fact is that, the main error to be corrected - the slavery of the Individual -, contemporary humanity is incapable of correcting, given that it is the offspring of more than 5,000 years of complete distortion of the human nature - Egoism -.

Therefore, the only duty of the contemporary individual is to conceive the description of how this error can be corrected so that in the far future, humanity - the synthesis of the thesis - our era - with the antithesis - the near future "dark ages" - - might be able to develop and exist in such a way that the individual is the maximum of society - the Government itself.

I disagree. — Valentinus

Honor is one of the noblest principles that a logical and rational conscience can get. It is no accident that the ancient Greeks focused so much on their traditions.

A man without honor is the same as an irrational animal.

We have intelect, and we have the consciousness needed to know that we have intelect, therefore, we shouldn't act only by our instincts.

Apollonian vs Dionysian, or as we label it:

"Ancient Greece"

And he more or less accepted that he was guilty as charged. — Valentinus

"Honor" is a concept that is currently unknown.

They use the term "people of color" a lot in the news over the last few years, but usually it is in the context of African-Americans. What makes the terms "people of color" different from "colored people" which is more derogatory? And isn't using a racial term that so directly emphasizes skin color a particularly divisive category? I'm a white guy and it just seems a bit offensive to call one or two groups of people "people of color" when all along I never thought of myself as albino. Aren't we all "people of color?" — TiredThinker

In summary:

"The more divided a population is, the greater and easier it is for the government to control the masses, as they are therefore much more busy hating eatch other than focusing their resentment on the real oppressor - aka, the State -."

Race today is yet another argument used to advance the political agenda of different parties.

Yes, "people of color" is a racist term, but that only becomes relevant when that term no longer favors the narration of such a group.

Current racism is as perverse as the Nazi era one.

Its only difference is that today, people justify their actions in supposed "good causes".

Reviewing it now, they don't look that different, do they?

Elites always have been one of the troubles that we the citizens have to face in the government. When you deposit your vote in an urn you think you are doing it to change the government for better. Nevertheless the reality is so different. We have to face some interests or powers that are literally occult from our eyes.
Exactly in this point we can point some classical organisations as Elites: richest, lords, masons, etc... — javi2541997

The problem is that you see yourself as a "citizen", which projects the image and the consequence that you belong to a nation-state.

The elites who remain in power with political power only remain because the "individual" has been dominated by the structure.

As I had already said: - It is a fact that current humanity is not capable, even if one tries, to end the State, because to end the State they would have to destroy, consequently, an entire society already established of 5,000 years.

It is a situation for future individuals to win, we are already doomed to the future "Dark Ages".

"belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existence" is a useful definition when the word is used FORMALLY.

The Roman Empire is ancient, because it is in the distant past AND it no longer exists. The Papacy is not ancient because, even though it is, what--1500 years old [becoming more significant after the collapse of the RE around 500 AD]--it is still very much in existence. The League of Nations is not ancient. While it no longer exists, it was founded only 100 years ago. — Bitter Crank

Well said. :100:

Athens was a polis. — Benkei

Pella -the capital of Macedon - was - using your bious views - a "Polis" too:

The "Polis" of Pella



You don't know what you're saying.

It is rather limited if people do view history as if people in the past were always in worse conditions. — Jack Cummins

Ordinary people have no significant history knowledge for their lives. The masses are living in a constant present which is a full plate for their sovereigns.

There were difficult periods, such as th, but there were great civilisations in the past, especially the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians. — Jack Cummins

The point is that, with the advent of the philosophy of Hegel and Comte, the view that, scientifically and technologically, humanity has witnessed an increasing "progress", which has been happening since the beginning of civilization, has become the norm. If humanity is accompanied by a "growing progress", then all humans in all societies that came before us are more primitive than we are. This thought may seem seductive, however, if analyzed the history - which, both Hegel and Comte based their thoughts on to refute it - of Man, it is proofable that the human being does not exist in a constant "progress", much less will reach a "technological singularity" in the future - here, I'm refuting Hegel -.

Humanity moves through time randomly. The advances in the most diverse areas of knowledge, most of the times are made indirectly and without any focus on "progress" or "benefit of humanity" or "for the State", but for the individual will of Man.

Hegel constructed a whole thought centered on the "historical absolute" which was projected in the physical world through the State, more precisely, the "Prussian State". His philosophy ends with the argument that "History has already played its part in human existence", therefore, we currently live in a "post-history" period.

This - as it was refuted less than 10 years after his death by his young pupils - is completely erroneous. Hegel had ended up letting his ego run wild to the point that he had completely ignored his tripartite argument of "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" simply because his nature needed him to be at a "peak point" of humanity.

Little did he know that his period had gone from being the synthesis of medieval germanic Christian society, to being the mere thesis, which would eventually result in the new synthesis - our period -. Therefore, it is visible that we, at this very moment, are the thesis of a new historical cycle.

With all this being put, the point is clear that the core of history can only be Man, and the center of Anthropology, History.

Therefore: History = Anthropology.

If history and anthropology were the same disciplines, why would we teach them separately? Doesn't history teach more than just about humans? — TaySan

History, taking into account that it is independently developed by different cultures and different contexts, is part of anthropology as much as anthropology seems to be part of history.

How can we study Man without studying his history and vice versa?

But is due to about how complex the society is. — javi2541997

The fact that, throughout human history, we have been debating how to sustain the institution of the State, is clear proof that, when it was conceived, the concept had not been structured so that it could function in a society with billions of individuals.

Humanity reaches points - during history - in which the individual develops the power to emanate, independently of the State, the Government, however, the elites pre-established by the State always end up using collectivism, because with collectivism, you destroy individualism and maintain the structure intact, which keeps them in full control of political power. When this battle is fought, society stagnates and begins to degenerate. In the Bronze Age this had happened, with Rome it had been the same, and today the same is about to happen.

The individual's goal is not revolution, because revolution simply destroys one state for the sake of another. Insurrection is the only means capable of attacking the root of the problem - political power.

No political power, therefore, the individual power is absolute.

The means of egoism are its own ends.

- can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, humanity was not even able to conceive of this abstraction - I'm sure I'm the first to do it - Max Stirner got pretty close with his "Union of Egoists" but his concept was flawed - - much less it would be able, in the current way in which its entire existence was built collectively and negatively, to act, successfully, so that this Government could be emanated.

I believe that it is impossible, in this historical cycle, for humanity to reach such a level of existential independence.

My philosophy is descriptive because my purpose is to register such thoughts so that a future humanity, which will be the synthesis of the contemporary historical cycle, has such thoughts described, and that finally, we could then act in such a way that the Government can manifest itself.

It's a good idea, but we haven't got to the point where can fully comprehend it.

“Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices”. — NOS4A2

But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals.

The government shouldn't be the cause. It should be the end.

Athens had a democratic form of government. Athens wasn't a state. — Benkei

Athens was a city-state.

Honestly, your presence, in trying to refute my thoughts, ends up just strengthening all my work about egoism.

Here, I present to you people: - A Negative-Egoist!

That who only exists to bathe himself in his own resentment over being egoist, and not being capable of accepting his true nature!

I wish one day we can say we are allowed to live in individualism. — javi2541997

The Western world has been in love for more than 2000 years with the distortion of the concept of "individuality".

True "individual" died when the State was born, since the focus of society was no longer the Unique, but rather the citizen - aka, the concept that represents the individual as being intrinsic property of the government. Thing that it is not -.

Karl Marx — javi2541997

A prime example of a negative-egoist; someone who does not accept his nature and resents it, however, as there is no escape from egoism, he ends up developing a whole altruistic abstraction that morally justifies his actions.

"Communists are those who deceive themselves, or even truly believe, that their deeds are done for a higher cause. The Egoist is superior in all ways by the mere realization that his existence is simply based on self-realization. Without any need for "greater causes", "afterlife", etc... The cause of power is power, and the end of power is, also, power."

I am a Hobbsian. — Tom Storm

The fact that you categorize yourself as a follower of someone already shows that you are incapable of the originality necessary to conceive and understand the concepts that I have here presented.

Formulating:

Egoism + Success = Government
Egoism + Perversity + Any Other Categorization ( Success, Experience, Etc... ) = State

If the individual is not able to contain his irrational instincts, he is no longer able to be self-governing, and therefore unable to emanate the "Government".

but I am a bit troubled by your use of the word, 'perversity'. — Jack Cummins

In summary:

"If you have any conscious thought of bringing harm to another individual for your own sake through the "Government" I describe here, this is" perversity"."

Perversity here, understand not only as being something attached to reason. All kinds of perversity - sexual, idealistic, physical, rational, irrational, etc... - are considered something that turns that individual no longer capable of conceiving and participating of the "Government".

At the moment, it appears to me to be rather abstract. — Jack Cummins

My philosophy is completely descriptive. It seeks to project an image that has been painted through years and years of historical, anthropological, philosophical, and psychological study, for itself.

How it will be understood, used, criticized, refuted, etc... is of complete and total unimportance to me.

"Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

Not sure I follow this. Can you express this via an example in action even if theoretical. — Tom Storm

You, through your egoism, create and already have a pre-established purpose: - Self-realization.

You seek with all your strength - but without creating detriment to others - to have the maximum existential success.

You go, and you get it. With your success, during the process of achieving it, indirectly, the lives of other beings will be positively influenced in some way. And this, consequently, will make them reach the same levels of individual success as yourself, and that will influence other individuals and so on.

Ex:

"You just became the very first individual who discovered agriculture. Contrary to what has been done in history, where this knowledge was used as a political means of power to create dominance over other individuals, which would create divisive concepts such as "hierarchy", "civilization", etc ..., you use your wealth and its success as a motivational and technical example of what to be followed, without seeking to have any conscious influence on these individuals."

In short, if you, without any kind of perversity, seek to succeed, not only you, but everyone else will succeed. This fact would eventually result in a society without "government", but at the same time, it would be its own immanence of government.

I would say selfishness, fear, balance and moderation into the nature of humankind. Every citizen wants to be "free" but how free? This is when the government appears.
The system of "rule of law" will limit us in the behaviour inside of the state. Therefore, the government wants to put limits in our nature. — javi2541997

Interesting the fact that you interpret humanity as having to be ruled in order to function in "community".

However, I do not see the human being as someone of a "collective" nature, but instead, of "individual" nature. The entire human experience in civility had been forged along the path of establishing society through the Government, and consequently, the State, which, in the long run, ended up having its duty reduced only to keeping the population under the "Status Quo".

If we allowed humanity, governed by its egoistic nature - here, see "egoism" as individualism - to establish, independently of a leadership and its apparatus of political power - the State -, we would eventually come to the conclusion that the "Government" is not a "Is", but "something that is being", resulting from the successful individual interactions of humanity.

Concepts such as "freedom", which is completely subjective to the individual's will, would not be necessary in such a government because they would no longer comprise any political power.

You are only considered "free" because there are those who benefit from your freedom, just as there are those considered "non-free" because they are beneficial to the establishment of political power.

Individual power overrides the need for political power.

We may be talking about the top of the hierarchy of power, especially those who make the decisions. — Jack Cummins

I'm not - with this publication - talking about people and their finitudes, but about the concepts behind human actions in midst of the finite. Existence is a direct consequence of the "Ideal" - aka, Egoism -.

The metaphysical remains still; it is static. We, as individuals, must try to approach it.

This statement presumes that success in interactions is bilateral. — simeonz

If we take into account that "success" equals emotional and material "well-being", there is no reason why it cannot be achieved on both sides. In the event that your realization negatively affects - directly or indirectly - others, this is no longer egoism - the point that I defend with my publication - but, egotism.

Therefore, an individualistic success brings with it the indirect consequence of the success of third parties.

Humanity, as it is currently structured - in thought, philosophy, technology, etc... - will never create an interstellar civilization. Many despise the vastness of space, but its name truly names what it is:

- Space!

This empty greatness, where, until now, we are the only gifted ones capable of experiencing existence, seems to me an ambition of negative egos; of minds out of balance and degeneracy.

We have already glimpsed the external too much. It's time to turn our gaze inwards again...

I am not going to be a security guard and escort them out, if they found their way in here they can find their own way out.

And that goes for anyone that thinks that this place should either live up to its name or change it. — Sir2u

Some people don't recognize a joke when it falls on their head. — Sir2u

To anyone who feels dissatisfied with the forum I have a word of advice.

The exit door is the same size as the entrance door, should not not have any problems passing through either. Just do everyone else a favor while passing through. — Sir2u

Well done! Now you know what you have to do!

If happiness results in sadness, why be happy? — synthesis

Philosopher Philipp Mainlander - 1841 to 1876 - had stated in his only work, "The Philosophy of Redemption", that, as a consequence of existence itself, Non-Existence is the end result - aka Death -, Man should embrace death and therefore, not to be happy, as this would only be an attempt to fight the inevitable, which would create disgrace and anguish in the life of this individual, therefore, not happiness would only facilitate his acceptance of eventual eternity.

Schopenhauer - 1788 to 1860 - states that the search for happiness brings suffering, and therefore, Man should avoid both happiness and suffering.

My point with these two explanations is to show that the concept of "happiness" is completely utopian; metaphysical. It is a false hope to disgrace the miserable and exacerbate the strongest - if used as purpose -.

Man seeks a concept which he already experiences part of it without knowing.

It is not by chance that Man can only be happy, but not be happiness.

"The Philosophy Salon" — Sir2u

@Baden @jamalrob, this is a name much closer to the reality of the "forum".

The debates here are identical to the discussions of the "Die Freien".

On the grounds of what do you think that our philosophical resistance is not futile in the long run? — baker

The substance of history, that is, the cyclical conclusion of the expression of Egoism through Being, proves that those who live for the future, eternalize themselves in the existence of those who live for the present, and therefore, they become the essence of existence.

"The same ones who are stoned today, will be worshiped as saints in the future by their own murderers"

You speak of the fall of civilisation of Rome, but there may have been civilisations and cycles long before this. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and for that very reason I made it a point to make it explicit that this had already occurred - the complete societal collapse - twice in the history of mankind:

"The Bronze Age Collapse";
"The Fall of the Roman Empire".

The point of me, for the most part, focusing on Roman society, is that it was the foundation of everything that would come to structure contemporary Western society.

The Bronze Age, in a way, had very little influence on the West - of all existing civilizations during the period - Hittite Empire, New Kingdom of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Mycenaean Greece - only the "Achaians" - aka "Greeks" - left a legacy that would last until today in the West -. Classical Greece, and all its culture of values and principles would emerge as a direct consequence of the collapse.

Atlantis — Jack Cummins

Well, the only "historical" record we have of a Greek "Atlantis" comes from Homer, which is not considered a historical "reliable" source because his own sources came from traditional oral tales of the Greek people during the "Greek Dark Ages" - that precedes "Classical Greece" -.

If we took his description - quoting Homer: "The great and majestic metropolis of Atlantidae, is at the western end of the Pillars of Hercules. There are many tales of this great and splendid city; the same one that consists of three great circles, with each ring being divided by a large ring of water. Many adventurers tried to find it, but so far, none have been able to return." -, "Atlantis", would be a great metropolis of the period, most likely a Phoenician colony built on the coast of modern-day Morocco or even on the coast of modern-day "Mauretania". The peculiar part and that historians are attached as evidence of "Atlantis" being a simple myth, is its architecture:

"three large circles, with each ring being divided by a large ring of water."

If the city, for convenience, was one of the largest cities of the time - doubtful -, it would have between 75,000 to 100,000 inhabitants.

Being built in one of the most arid areas on the planet, in an era where human knowledge of architecture was simple, and in a period when humanity had collapsed as a whole - the "world" at the time was the Middle East - it is very unlikely that such a city could have been created.

Most likely the recorded tales of Homer were actually about the great metropolis of "Carthage", off the coast of Africa, west of mainland Greece, which had been "mytholized" by the Greek peoples who were born and lived after the collapse of the Mycenic civilization, and which was hardly affected by the crises that devastated the Middle East.

So all our philosophical resistance is futile. — baker

In the short term? Yes.
In the long term? Maybe.

I don't know you but I'll pick "Maybe".

"That modern secular individuals are prone to cling on to beliefs about science, in the same way that their ancestors turned to the gods, carries no judgment on the value of science as a method but simply highlights the human motivation to believe." — Pantagruel

:100:

An interesting point of view but the way I see it, the world's technology is known to only a small segment of humanity, there maybe, at the most, only a few million (scientists, technologists, machinists, roboticists) of us who can, if forced to, rebuild the technological infrastructure from scratch and I haven't even mentioned those involved in the supply chain of raw materials; the rest, the majority, know next to nothing about technology. The chances are, if a global catastrophe does occur, those who survive will be technologically illiterate and hence the stone age scenario is a real possibility. — TheMadFool

"Back to the Stone Age" is not a reality as we have already gone through cataclysmic situations of complete societal break and still, we endured. The "Middle Ages" itself is an example of how much we are able to go back and - eventually - recover - Rome, in 117 AD - under the government of Trajan - had a population of 2.5 million inhabitants. In 520, after the Gothic wars - under Justinian - the city shrinked to the population of 10,000 inhabitants and only reached the margin of 1 million, after the 19th century -. The culture, morals, principles, values, were totally distorted and disregarded - along with the collapse of Rome and we - humans - lived in a simplistic relationship of master and servant - feudal system - for more than 1500 years - 1700 years as in Russia -.

I believe that technologies like the "Internet", the "Car", "Electricity", etc ... will be lost and forgotten for hundreds of years - the heating used by the Romans in their homes during the winters had been completely lost by medieval people, however, bureaucratic concepts and classic philosophical concepts were maintained and even extended during the medieval period - but eventually, some will be recovered, and new ones will be invented.

The Stone Age will only be reached if a conscious effort is made by humanity itself to reach it.

in short, asteroid impacts and nuclear holocausts bring about their effects suddenly instead of gradually like how it happened in the past. — TheMadFool

Well, the "meteor that killed the dinossaurs" in reality, only caused the beginning of the extinction. The complete extinction was only achieved 100 thousand years after the impact. So I don't think it is immediate.

terms of harmony, equilibrium with one's environment, we get an F. — TheMadFool

The terms you have decided to use are completely subjective. I am 100% sure that they would love to live as "Gods" - we, in their eyes - in our era.

"Evolution" is not something abstract or relative, but something rational, logical and pragmatic.

It appears that, the way I see it, a certain level of destructive ability or power if you will, once attained and used, the past and the future are identical. There's a reflection symmetry between the past and the future, the line of symmetry being the ultimate world-ending weapon or event if one takes into consideration such things as giant asteroids. In our case, according to some, nuclear weapons have the power to, well, "...send us back to the stone age..." i.e. at the moment we unleash all atomic weapons, the future will resemble the past, humanity's future would be indistinguishable from its past - stone age. — TheMadFool

The most plausible scenario for a future "Dark Age" would be an economic collapse along with a cultural and political collapse that would consequently affect technology - drastically -.

This had already happened twice in the past of mankind - during the "Bronze Age Collapse" and, more recently, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" - and even so, we continue to endure, and strangely, technologically we have only been advancing.

Hegel and his "Theory of the Spirit of History" - where the consequence of reality and the history of humanity, is bringing to light some "transcendental" rational objective - seems to be correct in terms of technology:

We have the thesis - Roman society's technology -;
The antithesis - Germanic Christian society's technology - Middle Ages - -.
And the synthesis - contemporary society's technology -.

It is very likely that we will recover, but not in the next 500, 600, 700 years, but in the next 2000 years.

I only doubt that we will ever again use "petroleum based" technology in the future. We'll find another way, or we'll never recover.

And yet they rule the world. — baker

Indeed, they do...

religions — baker

Religion, and all its structure - based on a empty concept - God - - seems to me to represent a human need to justify its instinctive actions and feelings. It is built by rationality to justify irrationality.

The dogmatic view of certain religions kills the individual and transforms the herd's view in such a way that their actions, reactions, and emotions are almost made unconscious.