Perhaps take an intro course? You might be able to find one online. Coursera has some good offerings.

Read anything that challenges you.

The difference is that right wing incoherence is actually based in the ignorance of historical belief, and is a compromise to accommodate that - in the context of freedom of speech and opinion. — counterpunch

Clever argument, but it doesn't hold up in the face of current political realities. As you're well aware, a plenty of people on the right believe that, for example, COVID is literally not real and Joe Biden somehow stole the election. Bringing up this kind of thing fifteen years ago might have been strawmanning, but it isn't anymore-- this is a significant portion of people on the right, including (apparently) some people in the US Senate. There's something more than a "free speech" compromise happening here. This is deceit of the masses by a demagogue.

The left's incoherence is both deliberate and dictatorial - like for example, how facts matter when talking about climate change, but don't matter when talking about gender — counterpunch

Well, yes and no. At the very least I think it's unfair to claim that facts just "don't matter" re: the left's views on gender, as @TheWillowOfDarkness brings up. Plenty of leftists acknowledge the relationship between sex and gender, the influence of sex hormones on development, etc. A person born male is probably going to feel like, and present as, a man. The question is how we address those for whom sex and gender feel mismatched.

That said, I am frustrated by, in no particular order: 1) The fact, in many places, people are allowed to take puberty-modifying hormones with little screening. 2) The fact many leftists refuse to even entertain the idea that the large amount of young females who feel non-binary or genderless might indicate a problem with some of the expectations of womanhood, and that transitioning is not always the right option. (I was among said group of females.)

What is it with every conservative or moderate constantly bringing up 1984? ;) I've always thought we lived in more of a Brave New World.

I'd ask you to consider COVID-denialism and the events at the Capitol and the disturbing popularity of Q, and weigh those against some of the left's apparent doublethink. I am not convinced that the left is in any way more "deliberate and dictatorial" than the right.

In the absence of additional details about you, I'd recommend reconsidering the idea that it's no longer "your time." What makes you say that? Your time for what? I'm talking out of my ass here because I'm 22, but to me it seems like many people max out-- in terms of intellect/character/whatever-- between the ages of, say, 40 and 60. I've always looked forward to that stage.

If you're talking more societal issues and the devaluation of certain classes of people, there's certainly a discussion to be had there.

EDIT: I see you mentioned health issues. No, nothing selfish about what you want at all. I mean, if it came down specifically to treating you, as an individual, for your ailments vs treating a younger person for their ailments, maybe considering "selfishness" would come into play. But even then the problem wouldn't be you. No reasonable person would fault you for not wanting to suffer.

@McMootch

This doesn't seem too complicated to me. In general, English pronouns refer to perceived gender. One's views on the relationship between sex and gender don't change the rules of pronoun usage, they just change how gender is perceived by the user of said pronouns.

Ships etc. are an interesting exception to this rule-- they remind me of the gendered pronouns of other languages that have objects as their referents.

@Gus Lamarch

All right, then. From this poem I believe we can conclude that, to Engels and also everyone else, Max Stirner was an absolute madlad.

In all seriousness, what I find interesting about this piece is that its tone seems simultaneously critical and exalting. I can't tell if the lines that follow "Stirner full of dignity proclaims..." have a sense of overt admiration, reluctant admiration, or strong contempt delivered via irony.

I'm hardly familiar with Stirner and his ideological relationship to Engels, so take that as you will-- though off the top of my head, I assume they quite disagreed with each other. Enlighten me?

@elucid

You may already know this, but the "human robots" you're referring to are commonly known (by arbitrary thought-experiment convention) as "philosophical zombies." :)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

I've always thought the concept missed the mark a little, though it's fun to think about. The fundamental question is whether such a being could exist, as opposed to what it would mean-- socially, etc-- for such beings to live among us. Personally, I don't think p-zombies are possible. Consciousness isn't a special substance separate from the human body. It is part and parcel of our wiring.

Not sure if you can find it online, but there's a decent story called "Sibling Rivalry" by Michael Byers that is basically a fun-to-read and drawn-out version of the p-zombie thought experiment. One sibling is a "synthetic" human, and the other isn't.

Whether or not one feels oppressed by something is not the only indicator of whether that thing is right or wrong, no?

Or did I misunderstand you?

I empathize with your suggestion, but I think it's the wrong area to try and force progress.

The dissolution of truth is a natural consequence of a struggling society and of an "empire" at risk of collapse. In the contemporary US, this presents itself as an unprecedented denial of objectivity-- mostly on the Christian right, in my opinion, but in certain sectors of the left too. We need to address the underlying issues that cause this dissolution of truth as opposed to delineating a Science Party.

While I think that the lost art of objectivity is generally better-preserved on the left than on the right, I could not name a certain "chunk" of the political spectrum that I think would undeniably fit the Science Party.