Complete gibberish. — Lionino

The argument is based on model theory. The original phrasing is probably even more impenetrable:

(In this context, we can use "models" and "universes" interchangeably.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem

Löwenheim–Skolem theorem

In mathematical logic, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is a theorem on the existence and cardinality of models, named after Leopold Löwenheim and Thoralf Skolem.

The precise formulation is given below. It implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and that no first-order theory with an infinite model can have a unique model up to isomorphism.

As a consequence, first-order theories are unable to control the cardinality of their infinite models.

Specifically, for arithmetic theory, there are several ways in which to prove the existence of alternative universes ("models"), the simplest of which is in my opinion Godel's incompleteness theorem:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic

In mathematical logic, a non-standard model of arithmetic is a model of first-order Peano arithmetic that contains non-standard numbers.
...
From the incompleteness theorems

Gödel's incompleteness theorems also imply the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic. The incompleteness theorems show that a particular sentence G, the Gödel sentence of Peano arithmetic, is neither provable nor disprovable in Peano arithmetic. By the completeness theorem, this means that G is false in some model of Peano arithmetic. However, G is true in the standard model of arithmetic, and therefore any model in which G is false must be a non-standard model.

The arithmetical multiverse contains an infinite number of universes, one of which is the universe of the natural numbers.

Any first-order theory that can express a Godel sentence, i.e. an unpredictable truth, will necessarily be interpreted by a multiverse and not a single universe.

Free will must by definition be a Godelian fact. It must be essentially unpredictable. Otherwise, it is not free will to begin with. If the theory can predict it, it is not free will.

Another episode of Yankees trying to lump themselves in with Europe by pretending a shared "civilisation". — Lionino

As a European myself, I consider the Americans to be an obvious Anglo-Saxon offshoot. They undeniably share their pre-colonial history with the British isles.

The less religious a country is the better it is doing. — Lionino

For a relatively short time, atheism allows to increase national income. However, it works until it doesn't anymore.

Instead of investing in producing the next generation, they have to import it from people who did. It is a short-term gain that will eventually cost them more in the long run. In fact, it will even cost them everything.

Similarly, you can increase company profits by not spending on the maintenance of the factory. For a while, profits will indeed be better. A car company can cancel all design work for new models. For a while, the company will indeed be more profitable.

With atheism, the struggle against the absurd will sooner or later begin to dominate society, in their vain attempt at avoiding the inevitable, i.e. collective suicide.

The French just had an election on Sunday. The only issue at stake was their impending collective suicide. No children means immigration. Immigration means that the French are getting replaced. It's game over for them, but they will not accept that until they will have to.

But the atheists who strive to build a new objectivity, a postmodern wisdom, a new language game, are just as full of shit as the theists seem to be to you. — Fire Ologist

If you compare both systems, i.e. religion versus atheism, you can still see different emerging properties.

Nietzsche actually understood what the emerging properties were of a society based on atheism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead/

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant

Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and so he didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, but rather that our idea of one had.

Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us.

Nietzsche believed that the removal of this system put most people at the risk of despair or meaninglessness.

For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe.

Indeed, atheism is on the march, with near majorities in many European countries and newfound growth across the United States heralding a cultural shift.

As many atheists know, to not have a god without an additional philosophical structure providing meaning can be a cause of existential dread.

In my opinion, the emerging properties of an atheist society are best described by the absurdist philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless.

The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

In line with what Nietzsche predicted, western civilization is now in a constant rebellion against the absurd, frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide.

Hence, it does not matter that both religion and atheism would in fact be preaching bullshit, because not all forms of bullshit are equal. Unlike religion, atheism is known to be a dangerous, society-terminating form of bullshit.

The danger of collapse we face today is on account of overuse of resources and neglect of the biosphere — Janus

People who do not keep traditions in the West are rapidly dying out and being replaced by people who do keep traditions.

Well, that is what they are complaining about in Europe.

That is what is at stake in pretty much every election on the continent. It is not about to biosphere but about immigration. They do not want to make children but they also do not want to get replaced by people who do.

What if the positivist are indeed partly right, but they won't get the answer they would want to hear? Hasn't this been obvious starting from Hilbert? He got answer, but not those one's he wanted to hear. — ssu

If a positivist hears an answer that he does not like, he will typically ignore it and just carry on. Hilbert may grudgingly have accepted proof but not everybody is Hilbert.

Positivism and scientism are ideologies. It is not possible to prove them wrong. You cannot win a debate from a Marxist either.

become slaves to tradition — Janus

Tradition reflects survivorship bias over centuries or even millennia. People who did not keep them, did not have any progeny, and disappeared in the course of history.

The fact that tradition actually matters, is something that western civilization will handsomely prove by collapsing and disappearing.

So, keep an eye on the imploding birth rate and the rapidly aging population. Just for the hell of it, keep watching the ongoing shit show.

does this not imply that I have free will? If so why not ? — kindred

If the physical universe is completely predictable from its (unknown) theory, then there is no free will.

If it isn't, then it means that there is more than one universe that interprets the same theory. The existence of inexplicable truths such as free will therefore implies that our universe is part of a multiverse.

The universe of the natural numbers is replete with inexplicable truths. Therefore, it is certainly not far-fetched to believe that they also exist in the physical universe.

If the theory of the physical universe contains a copy of Robinson's Q fragment of arithmetic theory, then the physical universe is guaranteed to contain inexplicable truths and to be part of larger multiverse. So, a copy of the theory of the physical universe would reveal the answer.

In terms of religion, if free will exists, then there is also a heaven and a hell. Conversely, if there is no heaven or hell, then there is also no free will.

Run that by me again, please. — jgill

Most mathematical truth is not explicable, even though we have its theory.

Most physical truth isn't explicable either, even if we had its perfect theory, which we don't. The most perfect theory of the universe would only explain a very small fraction of its truth. Hence, if the goal is to explain all of the facts in the universe, it is pointless to look for the perfect theory of the universe, because the goal is unattainable. There simply is no instrument conceivable that could do it.

all this Chad swagger — RogueAI

I am technically not a Chad. My looks are average (or even below). Not that it matters, because I am not a fan of casual sex.

then fold when someone asks you about what is good in life? — RogueAI

The place is already sufficiently infested with personal attacks without even mentioning anything really personal. Why not talk about ideas and criticize those, instead of talking about oneself and invite a flurry of ad hominems?

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness? — RogueAI

It is if you're entirely devoid of sensibility and scruples. You can 'believe in' honour simply by throwing a few pennies at a minstrel to sing about it. You can have all the peasant girls you want, because they don't have honour and you're immune from the law. — Vera Mont

Well, since @Vera Mont desperately wants to "prove" things about me, it is undoubtedly preferable that I do not answer the question. By the way, I am not a member of the local Estates-General. So, I don't see why I would be immune from the law.

You mean we left some with their heads still on? A serious oversight, that. — Vera Mont

European nobility got largely wiped out during WWI, at the western and eastern fronts, and not so much during the French Revolution. The Russian Empire is a bit special in that regard. I don't know what percentage of Russian nobility got executed after the communist takeover.

So I agree with your rejection of positivism, but not for your reasons. — Wayfarer

Empiricism (as embodied in the principle of testability) is just a temporary stopgap solution in science. What they really want, is the complete axiomatized theory of the physical universe. So, what they really want, is provability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.[1]: 6  Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[2][3]

At this level, science and mathematics will be merged into one. They actually want to get rid of empiricism and testing and science as we know it today. However, in absence of the ToE, they simply cannot.

Hilbert was relentlessly preparing the ground for proving the completeness of the ToE, as soon as the ToE would finally be ready -- back then, "any time now".

In the positivist vision of the future, there would simply be no need for empirical testing of ToE-based mathematical statements about the physical universe.

Quite a few people still believe that this is attainable. If you tell them that it is not, they will just ignore it. In that sense, sending people to the moon with Apollo 11 was a fantastic gimmick. It fueled the masses with the hope that something like the ToE would arrive very soon now. Everybody would be able to go on holiday to the moon. Positivism is also an important political program aimed at boosting the credibility of the powers that be.

What made you think this? — Tom Storm

Because the heartland of Europe has been staunchly socialist for over a century now.

Before WWI, the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) was the largest party in Germany. The PRS (Republican-Socialist Party) in France was also in power. Labour was already the second largest party in Britain.

They hadn't decided yet on whether they were going to be nationalist or internationalist. It is the outbreak of WWI that forced their hands and made them opt for nationalism. In Italy, Mussolini left the socialist party after their refusal to join the war and created the Nationalist Fascist party (PNF), which was socialist but which rejected internationalism and chose to be staunchly Italian nationalist.

How did you arrive at this? — Tom Storm

One difference, of course, is that socialists mostly opt for indirect control of the economy -- what the Germans called "Gleichschaltung" (coordination) -- over the generalized direct state control that the communists prefer, but the most important difference is that when push comes to shove, the socialists will rally behind nationalism, while the marxists will stay loyal to internationalism. This is why they hate each other. The Soviets hated the nationalism of socialists such as Mussolini. Because it was such an attractive and popular alternative in Europe, the Soviets saw it as the epitome of evil.

You're saying that if we rely solely on pure reason to determine the meaning of life, we will conclude that life has no inherent meaning? I wonder if that's the case. I'm not big on pure reason and I came to the conclusion that life has no inherent meaning simply by how it feels and looks to me. — Tom Storm

Unless you explicitly allow for spirituality, this conclusion is simply inevitable. The march towards the absurd is relentless. There is no stopping it. It does not have to be the result of a conscious choice. The absurdist conclusion will be reached even entirely subconsciously: life has no inherent meaning.

Seems to me you could make this same argument and simply replace 'national-socialists' with 'socialism' or 'identity politics' etc. — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Socialism is either nationalist or internationalist.

When the shit hits the fan, every socialist will have to make a choice.

The extreme left knows this -- They are internationalist -- That is why they will not hesitate to violently attack and destroy the socialists who turn out to be nationalist. The extreme left in Europe is currently very nervous because they know that they failed last time to stop the socialists who swore by nationalism. That is why I expect Antifa to spectacularly grow in the nearby future.

The armed militia of Ernst Thälmann's KPD (Communist Party of Germany) were simply too late. They were also not decisive enough. In 1933, Germany was going to be either internationalist or nationalist. It were the nationalists who managed to successfully eradicate the internationalists, just in time, before the internationalists would otherwise have managed to do the reverse.

Any examples of those people come to mind? — Wayfarer

Positivists are like that:

https://g.co/kgs/3yTBNh7

a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof

(and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism)

.

In fact, it may actually be ok to reject metaphysics and/or theism but not for positivist reasons.

These people really exist. David Hilbert was one and he even wanted proof for positivism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program

Statement of Hilbert's program
...
Completeness: a proof that all true mathematical statements can be proved (in the formalism).
...
Gödel's incompleteness theorems, published in 1931, showed that Hilbert's program was unattainable for key areas of mathematics.

A lot of people simply ignore Godel's work and continue to behave as if positivism makes sense. I cannot readily pinpoint anybody in particular but I know that the false belief is widespread. The problem is certainly not imaginary.

But there are truths not derivable from the axioms. — TonesInDeepFreeze

People who believe that pure reason is the only source of meaning will never accept this, no matter how often you hammer it into their heads.

Even if we had the axioms of the physical universe, most of its facts would still be inexplicable. Stephen Hawking already pointed that out, but apparently nobody cared:

https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.

With the overwhelming majority of facts inaccessible even from the perfect axiomatic theory of the universe, it is clear that the "God of gaps" conjecture is simply nonsensical.

Hence, all of this is clearly very unpopular.

I'm an antique. Truth for me is associated with proof. — jgill

If you cannot accept the true nature of the truth, you may need its false nature for your worldview. I don't know how much you are invested in positivism, if at all. A positivist will never accept the truth about the truth.

Then again, socialism without open borders is, well, national socialism. — Tzeentch

Ha! I like it when someone else sees it too. National socialism is actually the most fundamental doctrine of European so-called democracy. I've actually got nothing against it, as long as they admit it. The only saving grace of the erstwhile marxism was its internationalism.

That's why Europe is flooded with migrants who have basically no prospect of successfully integrating into European societies, which has lead to no end of trouble. The end result will be predictably tragic. — Tzeentch

All roads lead to Rome. Regardless of how they do it, failure is the inevitable attraction point of European civilization. Not taking in migrants won't work either. Without spirituality, there is no hope for the future and no incentive to make children. Migrants are not the solution but they are also not the true underlying problem either:

If only pure reason is allowed to provide the meaning of life, then there simply is no such meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless.

The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

Voting for far-right politicians, i.e. the modern national-socialists, is the national European rebellion against the absurd, of a society that will ultimately commit suicide. Anti-natalists are tragically doomed. They think that they are smart but in reality they are the most stupid people on the planet. That is even a fantastic match with the Dunning-Kruger definition for stupidity: Thinking that you are smart when in fact you are not.

Guénon — Heracloitus

This looks a bit like myself:

According to P. Chacornac, Guénon thought that Islam was one of the only real traditions accessible to Westerners, while retaining authentic possibilities in the initiative domain.

I also believe that Islam is not so far away from European Christianity as some Europeans may think.

In 1930, Guénon left Paris for Cairo, where he met with Abdalhaqq-Léon Champrenaud, and Abdalhadi Alaqhili, formerly known as John-Gustaf Aguéli, to be initiated into a Sufi order of Islam. When he arrived, his outward behavior had changed and he had completely immersed himself in the popular Islamic milieu of the city.

I certainly also recognize this very much. Muslims are generally very accepting of people who sympathize or even convert to Islam. They will certainly seek to befriend you. It is almost as if I would be worth more as a former Catholic than otherwise native Muslims. That is probably why western negativity towards Islam disturbs me so much. I know Muslims in a completely different way. They are absolutely not like their western detractors depict them.

Besides that, Guénon is a little bit esoteric to my taste:

Although the exposition of Hindu doctrines to European audiences had already been attempted in piecemeal fashion at that time by some orientalists, Guénon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines advanced its subject in a uniquely insightful manner,[12] by referring to the concepts of metaphysics and Tradition in their most general sense, which Guénon precisely defined.

There may be merit to studying Hinduism, but I have never done it. I have the impression that, unlike Islam, it is too far away from my frame of reference. I guess that I simply don't get it.

While Islam is another version of the same thing, Hinduism is something else altogether. Islam is the continuation of the tradition of the Jewish prophets, very much similar to Moses et alii. There are a few subtle and unique differences but it is very recognizable. You can actually read about Moses and think that he was actually a Muslim, because a Muslim would most likely have said and done the same things.

Hinduism? That is a lot of work. I leave it up to people like Guénon to figure it out from the outside.

I'm an idealist. I think this is all a dream. I'm guessing you're a materialist. — RogueAI

I am rather a traditionalist.

There are good reasons why European nobility behave in the way they did, and still do. For example, they value honor highly. The peasants don't. I prefer to identify with the nobles than with the peasants. There are worthwhile ideals. They truly exist, but they are not the ones of the peasantry.

We have very different worldviews priorities! — RogueAI

I was actually raised in the same worldview as yours until I understood that there are better ways to deal with the matter. Other people around the globe do things differently and I took an interest in that. In the meanwhile, I have made myself compatible with people who are much more likely to perform well in these matters.

Most people date for awhile. — RogueAI

I never do that.

I am actually lucky over here because SE Asians don't like to do that either. Why waste my time on a bout of simping to the woman? It makes you look ridiculous. I will never behave like a sexual beggar. I offer a deal, and if she takes it, we get going. Otherwise, next.

I also find "test-driving" sex a dangerous and counterproductive practice. She would be doing exactly what I expect her not to do later on: sex with someone that she has never made a deal with. Furthermore, over here, there is always a sign-on bonus involved. Why would I pay one, if she would also do it without?

Most people aren't rich or nobility — RogueAI

Yes, but it is not by copying their practices or their views that you will ever get rich.

If you behave like the peasants, then all that you will ever be, is a peasant.

Furthermore, Muslims or SE Asians are not necessarily rich either.

Even though I am very opposed to Statist paperwork such as civil marriage certificates, I don't see why there would ever be a need to have sex without first making some deal about the sex.

If you're not in love with the person, why bother marrying them? — RogueAI

At that point, you don't even know the person. In that case, how can you be in love already?

So, what you can see at first glance, is that she is young, pretty, and eminently suitable to provide you with sexual-tension relief. On her side, she (and her family) are sufficiently convinced that you will dedicate enough resources to the arrangement, given the mahr (sign-on bonus) and nafaqah (weekly allowance and cost reimbursement) that you are willing to pay.

Why do you absolutely need to have sex with her already before concluding a deal? It's all in the mind anyway. If you fancy her, you will surely be satisfied too. I don't even really trust women who agree to have sex before concluding a deal about the sex. There is a serious risk that she has been passed around in that way. I am not willing to pay five to ten times more for someone who sells expensive exclusivity but who is actually unlikely to deliver on it. In that case, it would rather have to be a non-exclusive one-off deal which is much, much cheaper.

I would never have married my wife if I had no feelings for her, and vice-versa. — RogueAI

European nobility, Muslims, and SE Asians all have the same opinion on that matter: You do not marry whom you love. Instead, you learn to love whom you marry.

Mary of Burgundy did not marry Maximilian of Austria because she "loved" him. That would have been utmost ridiculous. There were more important interests at stake than just frolicking in the hay with some pretty boy. She married him because she needed him to fend off the attempts of the French king to confiscate the Burgundian Netherlands from her after her father Charles the Bold had died in the Battle of Nancy. So, Maximilian brought over a thousand pike men from Tyrol, recruited some more in Flanders, and defeated the French king in the Battle of Guinegate. Seriously, it is not about "love". It is always about the interests at stake. Only people who have nothing and own nothing can afford to randomly copulate like the animals.

I guess it's just very, very good to be you! — Vera Mont

If you ever meet European nobility, you will quickly understand that they think exactly the same. Only the peasants believe that it is about "love". Seriously, instead of avoiding the question, "What are you bringing to the table?", it is much more preferable to address the question openly and very directly. Asians understand this very well too. It is always a relief to them that I don't talk about ephemeral feelings but about what kind of deal I propose. That is why I would never "date" western again -- which is simply a pile of bullshit -- because in the end it is never about "love".

If you've been in a position to owe - and fail to pay - taxes — Vera Mont

At that point, you don't see the tax collector anymore. Too late in the game already.

I have never owed and failed to pay taxes. The hack is to make sure that you avoid owing them in the first place.

The situation is much easier outside the West in that regard. In terms of taxation, they only pluck the low-hanging fruit. So, you are even unlikely to ever owe anything.

Even Europe is easier in that regard than the USA.

to cheat on your wife — Vera Mont

The trick there is to never make a deal in which you promise exclusivity.

The female counterpart, on the other hand, may be interested in offering exclusivity because then the sexual access that she parlays in exchange for resources, is worth at least five to ten times more. Non-exclusive sex is dirt cheap in comparison.

The reverse is not true.

As a man, you don't get five to ten times more frequent (or five to ten times cheaper) sexual access if you offer exclusivity. While men are willing to pay for exclusivity, women are not.

By default, in Islam, the niqah, i.e. the arrangement, is not sexually exclusive on the male side. It can be, but that is not about sex but about legitimate heirs. The family of the woman may insist that only their daughter is allowed to produce them. In that case, there are always other, much more important financial interests at stake.

Thailand sounds all right, but the Khmer Rouge wasn't all that long ago. Aren't you worried something like that might happen again and you might get caught up in it? — RogueAI

No foreigner got caught up in the original Khmer Rouge conundrum.

Foreigners were supposed to report at the French embassy for the next military evacuation flight to Singapore, with the trip to the airport under protection of the Khmer Rouge themselves.

It is true that the evacuation from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saigon on the Hai Ba Chung avenue was much more chaotic. That was because unlike France the US wasn't really neutral. The USA did not really want to negotiate or coordinate with the Viet Cong either.

They preferred to organize a spectacular dog and pony show with helicopters from the rooftop of their embassy in Saigon.

The USA also had entire carrier groups sailing in front of the Mekong delta and the beaches of Da Nang. What was that good for?

With just one phone call, they could have arranged protection from the North Vietnamese for the civilian airport in Saigon and organized military evacuation flights to Bangkok. They just didn't want that, for political reasons.

It is not the actual belligerents that are dangerous to American civilians overseas. It is the American government that is.

And yet, people are breaking down the door to get into America. — RogueAI

The bottom of other societies frantically try to insert themselves into the deepest gutter at the bottom of American society, because it often still represents economic progress for them.

But then again, even a SE Asian truck driver wouldn't do that. It's better to be a truck driver in Thailand than to go dumpster diving in New York.

So, either these young men are really desperate -- some are -- or else they are misinformed.

That's the situation for men. The situation for women is a bit different. If you are young and pretty, then in New York, the sky is the limit. Sugar daddies can be very generous. But then again, even that may no longer work because of oversupply.

Given this, it’s difficult to reconcile democracy and personal freedom, especially when the vast majority of human beings within these states are under a yoke of some kind, whether it be through taxation, regulation, or the myriad encroachments the state makes into their lives. — NOS4A2

Yes, exactly.

You will invariably end up having to fend off the tax collector and the divorce-rape judge.

In my experience, a democracy is never the place where you are treated best.

Elsewhere is always better.

Even supposedly communist hellholes such as China or Vietnam are more pleasant places to live in.

Isn't the proof always in the pudding?

You might be right, but theocratists know what they want and they definitely have visions of woman, family, kids, behavior, duties, education, rites, and so on. They may be dead wrong, but they really know what they want (everything comes clear like crystal to their "blind" eyes). — Eros1982

With the marriage -and birth rate gradually falling to statistically zero in secular demographics, it does not look like they are "dead wrong".

Marriage and divorce are part of what religion regulates. Hence, freedom of religion means that a government does not have the authority to impose rules that are incompatible with the religion.

Parents have the final say over the education of their children. Therefore, government has no authority to overrule the parents' choices.

Therefore, continued conflict with the Statists is inevitable.

But then again, since every next generation of Statists can be expected to be substantially smaller, the problem will gradually solve itself.

What country are you in? — RogueAI

Currently, I stay in both the Philippines and Cambodia. I am also regularly in Thailand and Vietnam, but that's just for long weekend trips. It costs peanuts to fly there with Air Asia.

What are some places in the world that fit this bill? — RogueAI

Most of SE Asia. Example: Philippines, Laos, Cambodia. Much of Subsaharan Africa. Apparently, the Gulf states: Oman, UAE, Bahrain. They are low-statism rather for ideological reasons. But then again, I do not have personal experience with the Gulf states.

The devil is in the details, though. You won't know until you try. It also depends on your personal circumstances.

For example, you need to figure out visa and/or residence or work permit. These things may also drag you into a spiderweb of statist annoyances. You can't really use the official information on the internet, because in many of these places, you can use a local fixer to arrange simpler solutions.

It has become a general belief that more democracy means more freedom. — Eros1982

My personal experience is exactly the opposite.

The more democracy, the more petty regulations, the higher the taxes, and especially, the more numerous the statist invasions into your private life. Having an elaborate democratic voting circus tends to enlarge the state apparatus and the omnipresence of its interventionism.

In my opinion, the best places to live, are the ones where the government simply does not have the means to micromanage people's lives. A pleasant country to live in, may be too poor because most people are subsistence farmers, or it may recently have been destroyed by a war.

how are you supposed to be a part of the same "demos" with these (distant to you) people? — Eros1982

I am under no illusion that the government gives a flying fart about what I prefer or want.

So, I look at a country, stay there for a while, and if it works for me, I keep living there. If it doesn't work out, I pick another country. I currently live in SE Asia. As far as I am concerned, I go where I am treated best.

What is? — Vera Mont

The middle class is indeed a vaguely defined notion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class

Common definitions for the middle class range from the middle fifth of individuals on a nation's income ladder, to everyone but the poorest and wealthiest 20%.

In that sense, everybody who works for a living, except for the working poor, is middle class. The elite live off their political power, off the income from their assets, and off their connections with the ones in power.

Terminology differs in the United States, where the term middle class describes people who in other countries would be described as working class.

In my opinion, the term "working class" is obsolete. The middle class always "works".

If you live off the hours you work, you are middle class, unless your hourly rate is so low that you are rather a working poor. I think that the definition by Friedrich Engels still makes quite a bit of sense:

Friedrich Engels saw the category as an intermediate social class between the nobility and the peasantry in late-feudalist society. While the nobility owned much of the countryside, and the peasantry worked it, a new bourgeoisie (literally "town-dwellers") arose around mercantile functions in the city.

Owning the means of production and having political power are very connected. A person who has lots of income-generating assets but has no political power will sooner or later be separated from his assets by the ruling elite, which will seek to tax it away or possibly even confiscate it.

No, it was doing fine, as clerics, crafters and army officers. — Vera Mont

The army officers were the nobility. That was the elite upper class in the middle ages. The clergy was also quite privileged and the higher ranks were also part of the societal elite.

By elite, I mean the people in power ("ruling mafia"), as well as the (business) people closely connected to them. That is not the "middle class".

And, no, the middle does not disappear; it usually prospers. Gets bigger and smaller, mostly due to the volume of commerce and definition. — Vera Mont

The middle class became inexistent at the end of the Roman empire and it was mostly gone for almost a millennium. There was barely any international trade in the Middle Ages. The core business in that era was pillaging someone else's farmland. The Vikings were indeed arguable also traders but that is not what they became notorious for.

Ah, a conspiracist and an incel. Well, you boys have fun here. — SophistiCat

What would be the conspiracy?

The more income a woman has, the less she "needs" a man. She may still "want" him somehow, but that is not a particularly strong motivation to keep the relationship going through difficult times.

That is a view that even many women share. What exactly is there controversial about it?

Furthermore, men are rarely involuntarily celibate.

There is an entire industry of professionals and amateurs that wholesale caters to men who are not interested in dating but who still want sex. An "incel" is a man who doesn't even want to pay the otherwise moderate fee of a prostitute. We all know that it is a lot cheaper than supporting a wife. You can even hire them for peanuts on sites like onlyfans. Not making use of these services is not "involuntarily". That is simply a choice. I certainly understand that choice. Seriously, sex is so easy to get and so cheap in modern society that the "involuntarily celibate" tripe is just nonsense.

the middle class dissapears — Linkey

In my opinion, that is even an inevitable biological phenomenon. The middle class can exist only temporarily.

At the foundations of sexual reproduction, there is a very simple exchange: sexual access in exchange for resources. This is also known as Briffault's law:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers.

The middle-class female does not need any resources from a male. She already gets them in ample quantity from her family, or she will figure out a way to find them by herself. So, she does not need a man. She may somehow want him, but as soon as she doesn't anymore, she will bail out. Hence, middle-class sexual reproduction tends to end in failure because they are quite unlikely to stay together to raise the offspring. Furthermore, especially in her youth, she is not even interested in a good provider. What for anyway? He would be bringing water to the sea. So, she prefers to indulge in casual fun with pretty bad boys.

Some authors state that this trend started when Reagan decreased the taxes for the rich. — Linkey

No, it started as soon as the postwar generation attained middle-class status. Their children, the boomers would inevitably start failing at sexual reproduction at most twenty years later. They predictably started a "sexual revolution". Other people describe the phenomenon as following:

Strong men make good times.
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make bad times.
Bad times make strong men.

Even though I agree that men born in the middle class are typically not made of the cloth of heroes, in my opinion, it is rather the women who truly sink the system.

The rich just sit at the financial top of society. The poor try to survive from day to do and cannot afford moral depravity because it backfires immediately on them. Western society did not even have any serious number of poor people until recently. If at some point in history too many poor become middle class, not long after that, the shit will hit the fan, because too many people will be able to indulge in sexual depravity while also having the means to pay for and somewhat delay the inevitable consequences.

Reagan, Bush, and Trump are rather irrelevant figureheads in the long course of history. Their decisions do not explain long-term generational trends. Taxation levels do not explain that either.

Society will become dirt poor again because that will finally allow sexual depravity from backfiring immediately and facilitate a survivor bias. It will allow the nuclear family to make a comeback. Bad times will make strong, hard-working men and virtuous, chaste women.

Hello

IMO those concepts are far too subtle to be introduced the first day of foundations class. — fishfry

Agreed.

What children would really benefit from, is someone to teach them hope, preferably of the most irrational kind, i.e. the stronger, the better.

The mathematics class is clearly not suitable for that, but the mathematics teacher could actually be. But then again, in that case, he is not teaching math but trying to keep the students teachable. That is another job altogether.

Adults cannot teach hope to the children anymore.

Even the children's own (usually hopelessly divorced) families are no longer able to do that. You cannot teach what you don't have. That is why the children grow up believing that there is no hope.

The culture most excelling at "scientifically" inspired hopelessness, is communist China, but the West is clearly not far behind.

Nowadays the young Chinese want to "tang ping" (Chinese: 躺平; lit. 'lying flat') and believe that you should "bai lan" (Chinese: 摆烂; pinyin: bǎi làn; lit. 'let it rot').

The Chinese youth also increasingly believe in the "10 no's" (or the 10 don't") and insist that they are "the last generation". That is obviously a completely true, self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Chinese communist party react by trying to censor and ban public expressions of nihilism or absurdism, even though these things are the natural end point of believing that only pure reason can be a legitimate source of meaning.

There is much more to the struggle with the absurd than just sleeve tattoos, piercings and blue hair. The people who are the most in need of hope, are the least likely to find any.

If someone else does not keep them teachable, then all teaching will be in vain. There no longer exists anybody who can do that.

religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair — Gnomon

Across successive lives, life is fair.

If you suffer today, you did something sinful earlier in this life or in an earlier life. If you do something sinful today, you will suffer later in this life or in a later life.

It only adds up if you are patient enough. Patience is a virtue, especially in metaphysics.

There is no pure-reason explanation for suffering.

If you insist anyway, you will fight against the absurd until you give up and call the suicide prevention hotline.

have you run a correlation with happiest countries, and places of violence or war, for example? — jorndoe

That is not the correct comparison.

You need to compare these places when they are both violently at war and then measure how they manage to cope with extreme circumstances. Do they give up? Or do they walk on foot thousands of miles from Syria to Germany, in the middle of the rain, the snow, and the winter, trying to stay alive?

A true litmus test of survival was Napoleon's battle of Maloyaroslavets. He did not want to go back to Smolensk, because he would not be able to resupply along that route. The French lost the battle and therefore knew that the situation had become hopeless. It was a true test of their resolve when they started walking back anyway.

But then again, look at how the Battle of Berezina went:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina

By 1 p.m. the smaller of the two bridges was complete and Oudinot began to lead his infantry of 7,000 men across the river and establish a defensive position to protect against the Russian forces to the south. Later that afternoon, the larger of the two bridges (for the artillery) was completed, but collapsed twice. Napoleon began to move his force across the Berezina in earnest.

The bridges were then available for the stragglers; however, despite encouragement, most of those who had fought so hard to get across the river during the bombardment chose to light their campfires and spend the night on the east bank. The next morning, the commander of the engineers, General Eblé had Napoleon's order to burn the bridges at 7 a.m. Eblé delayed the execution of that order until 8:30 a.m., at which time, tens of thousands of stragglers and their civilian companions were left behind.

The unfortunate men who had not taken advantage of the night to get away had at the first appearance of dawn rushed on to the bridge, but now it was too late. Preparations were already made to burn it down. Numbers jumped into the water, hoping to swim through the floating bits of ice, but not one reached the shore. I saw them all there in water up to their shoulders, and, overcome by the terrible cold, they all miserably perished.

Cossacks and Wittgenstein's troops closed in upon Studienka and took the stragglers on the east bank as prisoners.

These French stragglers, who in the meanwhile had become the majority of Napoleon's army, simply did not do what it took, despite encouragement. This is the precise event which eventually cost Napoleon his imperial crown.

When everything is easy, and the country is happy, you learn nothing about the people involved. Put them in difficult circumstances and then look at how they cope. Half of them may give up without even trying. The other half may still respond by taking alcohol and drugs instead of fighting to survive. It is not possible to always prevent the shit from hitting the fan, and when it does, it is not the crowd that has always had it easy that will perform the best. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked.

That's surely an issue only for the absurdist philosopher and his next of kin, not for sensible people. — Vera Mont

In my opinion, absurdism is very, very sensible, rational, and eminently reasonable. I certainly believe that absurdism is truthful. It is very good at explaining what you can see around you.

How do you know? Where is the evidence? — Vera Mont

If there were a pure-reason explanation for the existence of the universe, why would anyone be interested in addressing the question by means of spiritual belief?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/reason-the-universe-exists-is-that-it-caused-itself-to-exist/393019C8CFEBE88DD10347577702AEAD

Philosophers have traditionally responded to the question, ‘why does the universe exist?’, in one of two ways. One response is that ‘the universe exists because God created it’ and the other response is that ‘the universe exists for no reason—its existence is a brute fact’.

If there is no reason for it, then the very existence of the universe is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you insist that you do need meaning, you will have to find it in a spiritual answer.

This is pretty much standard metaphysics.

If life is deemed meaningless, then the absurdist philosophy predicts that the struggle with the absurd will culminate in suicide, which is the magnificent and grandiose apotheosis of absurdism as a way of life and especially death. All you have to do, is to categorically deny spirituality as a source of meaning, and then you are good to go.