Probably, I could not express my thought in such a way as to emphasize its content. I did not object to the clarification that Heidegger was not a substantialist. I said that the very attempt to search for who Heidegger was is connected with the search for Heidegger's substance, which we do willingly or unwillingly.

I spoke about as a general property of philosophical discourse, where even attempts to talk about becoming remain within the framework of the substantialist habit.

As for the place of the subject and where the world is heading, I ask you to wait a little, all this will happen, but later. Everyone who responded to my work gave me many new human views, and secondly, hope that what I write about ontology will be interesting to the reader. This discussion is precisely what contributes to my text becoming more academic. And this encourages me to work further.

I was truly thrilled to see how vividly and thoughtfully you all responded to my work, "The Language of Philosophy."

As I read through the comments, I had a thought: they not only added new dimensions to our conversation but, and this is the most amazing part, they affirmed my main idea far more powerfully than I could have imagined!

I wrote about how the grammatical structure of language, especially the verb "to be," pushes us to search for a static, unchanging essence. And here's what I saw in our discussion: when I suggested we move beyond this and think of being as "becoming," we all, time and again, reverted to that familiar logic.

When RussellA and Count Timothy von Icarus cited the Italian verbs "essere" and "stare" or Heraclitus, you weren't, in essence, moving away from the concept of "being," but merely finding its different forms—permanent and temporary. The core ambition remained to define "what is" or "what was."

When Joshs and frank debated whether change is possible without rest, I saw a fascinating, yet ultimately still an attempt to reduce the dynamic of "becoming" to two fundamental, "substantial" categories—rest and change. This is the search for the basic elements that constitute being.

And even when Joshs spoke about Heidegger, who, as he correctly noted, grounded "is" in the event of "unfolding," this was, in essence, an effort to find that very first principle, that "root" of our being.

Our entire discussion, paradoxically, became a living illustration of my work.

We weren't just discussing my idea—we were proving it in practice, involuntarily demonstrating how deeply ingrained our habit is to search for "substance" when we talk about being. This realization struck me so profoundly that I simply had to share it.

My observation is by no means a criticism. Rather, it's about how, without realizing it, we continue to operate within this very paradigm of searching for the primary substance. The very format of our discussion is built on this: "M. said: A is B." "K. replied: Is A really B? For example, philosopher M believes that B consists of D + E, but E cannot be a part of A..." and so on. Substantialism, objectivism—this is a reliable train that has allowed us to travel into space and communicate with each other from thousands of miles away. But have we become happier, more friendly, more joyful? And if we consider what is happening in modern ontology (Object-Oriented Ontology or correlationism) and science (the constant refinement of AI, which is increasingly used as a weapon rather than a friend and assistant, and which is developing at an incredible speed), a doubt arises: is this train heading in the right direction, or is it a direction where there will be no room for the subject?

Your comment highlighted a very interesting point that I wasn't aware of, as I don't speak Italian. With the help of AI, I was able to examine the grammatical constructions using essere and stare, from which I've found that:

Sono arrabbiato (I am angry) vs. Sto arrabbiato (I am in a state of being angry). The first sentence can be perceived as a more fundamental characteristic of a person's identity, while the second is a temporary, transient mood.

In Russian, this is expressed as: «Я злой» (I am angry, i.e., always angry) or «Я злюсь» (I'm getting angry, I am in a state of anger).

Another example: Come sta? (How are you staying/being?) is a standard greeting that focuses attention on the current moment of one's well-being. It is not a question about "who you are" (Chi sei?), but about "how you are situated" (Come stai?).

One might think there's no difference, as English also has the verbs to be and to become. However: To become in English describes the process of transitioning from one state to another. For example, "The caterpillar becomes a butterfly." This is a verb of change, not a verb of being in a state. And the verb to become is not used as a linking verb in just any sentence.

Similarly, English has the present continuous tense (am/is/are + V+ing), which describes an action happening at the moment, not a state or a quality. It is used like this: "I am writing a letter"—this is an action, not a state of being.

BUT! Let's take the greeting, "How are you doing?" Is this an action or a state?

All of this points to the following:

One cannot radicalize the assertion of being as process for the East and being as static for the West.

The existence of such distinctions in the Italian language suggests that it is natural for humans to feel both a certain sense of the processuality of being and its static nature.



As Count Timothy von Icarus correctly observes, there are indeed works in Western philosophy that discuss processuality, and I don't dispute that. I'm arguing that the very act of thinking about processuality requires a conscious effort to break free from the pattern of substantialism.

You're absolutely right to point out those philosophers. However, while processualists existed (and had a significant impact), they were in the minority. The dominant paradigm was, and remains, substantialism. To speak of process, one had to deliberately step outside of this paradigm, and that was not an easy task.

The influence of processualist philosophers is undeniable, but they were working against the current. Philosophers who thought in terms of an unchanging essence and substance had a far greater impact on the broader worldview: Parmenides, Aristotle, for whom substance was the foundation of reality; René Descartes with his ideas of the substances res cogitans and res extensa.

It is this tradition that, I believe, created a pattern of thinking that influenced European languages and, as a result, philosophy itself.



Here is what I write about the hypothesis of linguistic relativity in another chapter of my work:

The previous analysis of the linguistic structures of various cultural traditions revealed a diversity of ways of expressing (or not expressing) being and entities. This diversity, manifested in the grammatical features of languages - from the Indo-European copula "is" to its optional nature in Russian and its absence in Turkic and Chinese languages - emphasizes the variability of ontological perspectives rooted in language. However, this observation requires strict methodological reflection in order to avoid hasty or unfounded conclusions. The assertion of a fundamental difference in ontological attitudes, for example, between Western and Eastern traditions, cannot be accepted without further in-depth analysis. Language, as E. Sapir and B. L. Whorf noted in their hypothesis of linguistic relativity, can influence cognitive and philosophical categories, but the extent of this influence remains a matter of debate. Conclusions about the direct determination of thinking by language require caution, since cultural, historical and social contexts also play a significant role and language changes dynamically. Language is constantly subject to change and formation. It follows that one should not blindly rely only on the “feeling of the word”. Nevertheless, the phenomenological approach to linguistic differences, which presupposes living these differences as a direct experience, opens up new perspectives for the philosophical understanding of being. The very feeling of recognizing the fundamental differences between languages is significant for us. The value of such an approach lies not in establishing universal patterns, but in the possibility of rethinking familiar ontological categories through a change in perspective.

Thank you for your interesting and varied comments! I am glad that my work touched you! Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the discussion, but I will try to answer everyone as I study your comments.

That is, the life of the body is the actuality of our soul as a spiritual essence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would like to express my full agreement with this approach.

When I think about this, it seems very strange. The tradition that tends most towards literalism ends up also paying the least attention to concrete instantiations of the faith. And yet maybe it makes sense in a certain way. In the Anglophone context, ethics if often thought to be the main substance of the Church. But this is often paired with a view of ethics as sitting entirely outside nature as command. Likewise, a view of God as primarily will, and of notions of nature as a potentially nefarious limit on that will, would tend towards demoting nature in a way. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am a parishioner of the Orthodox Church. But I send my friends who profess Orthodoxy and do not understand it, who just want to pray a little or listen to a sermon, to a Catholic church and they like it there better. Those who have visited a Catholic church then share their impressions of the simplicity and clarity of what is happening. Those who have visited a Catholic church are happy with the lack of pretentiousness, as well as the lack of the need to stand on their feet the entire service, listening to something in an incomprehensible Old Church Slavonic language (inherent in the Orthodox Church).

And they just like it, and personally I think that in religion it is very important that it finds a response in you

Thank you for your profound and inspiring response! I sense that for you, religion is not merely a rational comprehension but also a mystical, intentional experience, which deeply resonates with my own approach.

I’d like to share another idea related to my ontological inquiries, hoping it will pique your interest. Inspired by the ideas of Kierkegaard and Heidegger, I distinguish between existence and being. Existence is a passive state, the boundaries, tension, embodiment, and relatedness to others of which are defined externally: a stone, a tree (following its biological program), or an AI (executing an algorithm). These are “existents,” which simply are. Being (Dasein), on the other hand, is the capacity of an existent to redefine itself autonomously, driven by its inner freedom and aspirations. Being is a gift; it is a unique state of an existent. For instance, a human, through cognition and choice, possesses the ability to redefine all four criteria of existence—boundedness (ограниченность), tension (напряжённость), embodiment (воплощённость), and relatedness to others (причастность к другому)—and the stronger this capacity, the fuller their being.

Applying this to the dualistic concept of the soul, which supposedly leaves the body after death, I ask: where is the being in this? Can such a soul, deprived of a body, redefine itself? Can it even perceive itself? Can it aspire to anything? Based on the texts I’ve studied, the answer seems to be no. A separated soul appears as something that affects neither itself nor the world—akin to a stone. If so, what is its being, and what is the purpose of such an existence?

This question was the starting point for my essay. If this approach intrigues you, could you share your thoughts? How do you view the soul in the context of being and existence?

I apologize in advance for any confusion in terms, as the translator cannot cope with the semantic translation

I would like if we could discuss more things together, especially philosophy! I’m fascinated by your essay and I would like to hear more about your thought process. Would you like to talk sometime? it's alright if you cannot. — Null Noir

Of course, I'm always open to conversation!

I like your approach. Earlier, in the comments, I already referred to Descartes and his pineal gland as an attempt at a simple explanation of everything, which, judging by the popularity of this idea today, sounded simple and clear.

But since I am primarily interested not in theology, but in ontology (as are you, judging by your comments) and phenomenology, I wanted to try to deconstruct the Cartesian approach to human anthropology, to look in the fundamentals. Based on the theses that I outlined in the essay, the comments on this forum, early Christianity was something completely different from what is understood by it today. It was also perhaps something different in relation to the Aristotelian approach to ontology.

Will I be able to grasp this? I do not know, but I would like to get more diverse opinions on this matter, after which I would like to correct my essay.

Astorre, your essay is absolutely amazing. More amazing than any of the answers I have recieved so far. Are you studying theology? — Null Noir

Thank you! I'm studying ontology and phenomenology. This is my first attempt to talk about theology. However, I must admit that I wrote this article based on similar questions that you asked at the beginning of the topic.

I recommend reading my essay on this topic. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16096/the-origins-and-evolution-of-anthropological-concepts-in-christianity

Thank you for this clarification. I was unaware of the history of this term and in using it I was describing older ideas. "Monism" could have been used with the same success. My questions are not about terminology but rather about ideology. I am not interested in which teaching more accurately conveys the idea or metaphysics of that time. I am interested in the justification or refutation of the idea of monism in Christianity. I am interested in whether dualism, as well as the stories of heaven and hell, are later superstructures.

I had rather thought that Aristotle was the greater influence on Western (Catholic) Christianity due to the rediscovery of his works from the Islamic world. And that Platonism was more of an influence on Orthodox Christianity through Pseudo-Dionysius and other sources. Although it’s true that Plato is writ large in all of this. But I once put this to an Orthodox father and he was in agreement. — Wayfarer

That's the whole point. I don't know why, but the Fathers of the Orthodox Church don't talk about the idea of holism at all in private conversations. They answer questions based on dualism. Maybe it's the influence of Western culture (for example, films or literature), but the idea of dualism (soul + body, with the subsequent separation of the soul after death) seems self-evident to everyone. Personally, I came across the problem that served as the impetus for writing my essay purely by chance, through independent study. As it turned out in the process of writing, my intuition did not fail me and there is something in it.

And what is your personal opinion (not necessarily in the context of Christianity) does a person consist of a soul and a body or is he one?

I think the more developed Eastern theology of the Transfiguration marks a difference in emphasis here too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thank you all for your insightful and thoughtful comments! Your comments helped me to better understand the topic and to clarify some aspects of the essay. In response to your reflections, especially on the holistic approach in Orthodoxy (Count Timothy von Icarus) and on the balance between dualism and monism (Leontiskos), I would like to share the results of a phenomenological analysis that I conducted while visiting a Catholic and an Orthodox church. My goal is to relate these observations to the discussed topic of anthropology in Christianity.

For my research, I used a phenomenological method (inspired by Husserl and Merleau-Ponty) to describe how the liturgical experience in the churches of the two faiths manifests itself through bodily perception, intentionality, temporality, and the world of the senses. Here are my observations:

Catholic church:

Bodily experience: Lightness, a sense of verticality, airiness, “going up.”

Intentionality: Direction towards the transcendental — arrows of arches, light, striving towards the sky.

Givenness of the world: God is perceived as transcendental, calling, luminous.

Temporariness: Striving towards the future, dynamics of movement.

World of feelings: Clarity, cold light, harmony.

Orthodox church:

Bodily experience: Weight, feeling of confinement, “oppressive presence”.

Intentionality: Immersion within, all-consuming presence in the sacred.

Givenness of the world: God as all-present, dense, mysterious.

Temporariness: Stopping time, feeling of eternal present.

World of feelings: Warm shadow, richness of icon painting, sound fullness (singing, ringing of bells).

The purpose of this analysis was not to compare confessions with the aim of favoring one over the other, but to try to understand how liturgical experience shapes human perception, including ideas about soul, body and spirit. These observations, combined with the literature and our discussion, suggest differences in the anthropological approaches of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

In the Catholic church, the liturgical experience emphasizes transcendence and aspiration to the divine, which may reflect a dualistic understanding: the soul is perceived as separate from the body and directed towards God, and heaven and hell are posthumous states or places. In the Orthodox church, the experience is more immanent, mystical, with an emphasis on the holistic presence of God in the world and man. This corresponds to a holistic approach, where soul, body and spirit are inseparable, and heaven and hell can be understood as states experienced already in earthly life through the body and senses.

These differences may be related to the influence of Platonism on Western Christianity, as we have discussed earlier (e.g. through Augustine), and to the persistence in Orthodoxy of a more monistic anthropology rooted in Eastern Fathers such as Maximus the Confessor or Gregory Palamas. Do you think that these phenomenological intuitions may point to differences in the anthropological views of the confessions? And can such an approach be used to further explore the topic of dualism and monism in Christianity?

Yes, perhaps this is the right word. AI suggests something like "communion." I will simply try to explain it: for a native Russian speaker, "communion" evokes a sense of deep involvement, participation, and almost mystical unity with something. In an Old Slavic context, the word may be associated with a religious or spiritual act (for example, "communion" in Orthodoxy as a connection to the divine).

In general, I identify such features of existence as limitations and Communion. In addition, there are two more features: Embodiment and Tension. I would like to discuss the main work in a consistent manner over time, breaking it down into separate essays on this forum. I hope for your "participation" in the future!

Yes

I wonder if this is at all relatable to Gilles Deleuze idea of the fundamental nature of difference? I only know about it from comments made here on this forum, but it strikes me that there’s a similarity. — Wayfarer

My work generally resonates with the ideas of Whitehead and Deleuze, but I add some additional layers to them. This slightly veers off from the main topic.

For instance, the next characteristic in my ontology is participation. Existence is possible not only through the difference of one from another but also through participation (like a tree with the soil or a beetle with dung)—in other words, difference alone is not enough. I consistently argue that something cannot exist on its own, and participation is precisely an ontological characteristic. Returning to your example—organisms do not merely maintain boundaries but exist through active participation in their environment, without which neither the environment nor the organisms themselves would be possible.

In Russian, I use the term "причастность," which doesn’t fully translate into English as "participation." Unfortunately, I cannot find a perfect English equivalent that captures its complete meaning.

I’ve probably strayed too far from the main topic.

Perhaps you might elaborate on why you think this must be so? (not that I don't agree with you!) — Wayfarer

I’m happy to answer your question, as it’s part of my broader work. I’ll try to describe this idea concisely, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

My work is grounded in a process-oriented approach to ontology. Instead of seeking a final substance of everything, I’ve aimed to identify the key ontological characteristics of being—that is, the traits that define the existence of something. One such characteristic is limitation (not in the Kantian sense, but ontologically). Something is always distinct from something else; it always exists within certain boundaries. The uniqueness of human being, compared to other entities, lies in the ability to consciously alter some of its boundaries or limits, for example, through knowledge. However, boundaries must always be drawn, even if temporarily. Without boundaries, there is nothing to contain. Something without boundaries becomes nothing (just as a river that loses its banks ceases to be a river, or a planet that loses its limits ceases to be a planet). The same applies to human knowledge. Knowledge inherently requires boundaries. These boundaries must lie somewhere between knowing and not-knowing. Complete knowledge of everything would mean the absence of any boundary to knowledge, and the absence of a boundary implies the absence of being itself.

This is a rather complex explanation of my idea at the ontological level, but I hope you find it interesting.

People continue to live despite the lack of a definitive answer to the question of meaning, finding an irrational impulse that keeps them going. Let's leave it at that

I wonder the same things… — Fire Ologist

Frankly speaking, it seems to me that the idea of the resurrection of a person as a whole looks much more inconsistent to our contemporary than the separation of the soul after death. The soul cannot be measured (although some have tried), it is difficult to prove or disprove the exit of the soul from the body, but the decay of the body looks very clear. It will probably be very difficult to believe that the dust will then rise again. Ordinary people, not interested in theology, with whom I spoke, do not imagine any resurrection after their death at all. They all talk about purgatory and subsequent distribution in heaven or hell. Perhaps the current dualistic or trinitarian approach looks simpler, clearer and more logical to a contemporary.

You pose an interesting question with a well thought out OP. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thank you for your deep and meaningful comments. I admit honestly, this is my first work on a Christian theme in my life, and reading your review I felt like a small fish in the ocean.

Indeed, the idea of resurrection was not new for that time. However, according to my information, it was not the central teaching for all of Judaism as a whole. The revolutionary nature of Christianity consisted in establishing this idea as central to the entire religion. But this is a very valuable remark and I will correct it in the essay.

Regarding the fact that Platonic ideas in that world were already gradually "growing into" the searches of progressive philosophers, I also have no doubt. But still, in my opinion, they were not a mass phenomenon at that time.

Reading your comment on the sanctity of relics, I caught myself thinking that I had not taken this phenomenon into account at all. Based on the main message of my essay, preserving the relics of saints in parts generally looks like depriving the deceased of the opportunity for resurrection.

In general, all the later superstructures of philosophers and theologians, who asked good questions as civilization developed and sought consistent answers to their questions, in my opinion lead to the fact that the basic idea itself is in complete decline. For example, Descartes was so carried away by the search for an interface connecting the soul and body that he proposed the existence of the pineal gland, which magically resolved all questions.

In conclusion, I would like to present you with an idea from the Orthodox confession about holism. Holism is a view of man as a single, inseparable, spiritual-mental-physical personality. There is no opposition of spirit and matter, but their interpenetration and interaction. As light permeates the air, so the soul permeates the body, forming a single whole. Unfortunately, I do not know for what reason, but none of the Orthodox priests I met mentioned this topic until I became familiar with it myself. Can you share with me about this area if you have knowledge on this topic?

I wonder if you would be willing to provide a rough bibliography for your ideas? — Leontiskos

There's a little bit of complexity to that. The fact is that my native language is Russian. I read books in Russian and write in Russian, and then translate with the help of translators or AI. I check the relevance of what was written using the reverse translation from Google. Bibliography is another matter. It is prepared, but in Russian. Below I will give a bibliography as the translator will translate it, but I cannot check the relevance of its translation. I apologize for this complexity but I can recommend using AI to find an analogue in English

1. Bible. Old and New Testament scripture books. Synodal translation. - M.: Russian Bible Society, 2012.

2. Plato. Fedon/State/Laws. Per. from ancient Greece. A. N. Egunova, F. A. Petrovsky and others - M.: Thought, 1994. - (Philosophical Heritage Series).

3. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against heresies. Per. with lat. and Greek N. N. Shevchenko. - St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2012. - (Church Fathers series).

4. Origen. About beginnings. Per. and entry. Art. I. D. Kuzmina. - M.: Nauka, 2000. - (Monuments of philosophical thought).

5. Clement of Alexandria. Stromates (Carpet patterns). Kn. I–III. Per. A.V. Sidorova. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "ABC-Classics," 2007.

6. Augustine the Blessed. About the city of God. Per. with lat. A. S. Demina. - St. Petersburg: Amphora/OLMA Media Group, 2008. - (Series "Philosophy of the Middle Ages").

7. Apocalypse of Peter//Apocrypha of ancient Christians. Volume 1. Apocalypses. Per., Entry. Art. and comm. A.V. Mikhailova. - M.: Ladomir, 1997.

8. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and method. Per. with nem. T.I. Oiserman and Ya. A. Borovoy. - M.: Progress, 1988.

This is a very interesting and fascinating topic for me. In addition to your conclusions, I would like to present some of my views, which I will express briefly.

1. AI does not have its own bodily way of perceiving the world. Everything that AI "knows" about us, about our affairs, it takes from human texts. Returning to the ideas of Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, AI is deprived of temporality and finitude, it is deprived of living experience. Today it is a complex algorithmic calculator.

2. I am convinced that the origins of being, which make a person who he is, cannot be known rationally. But if such knowledge occurs, the meaning of being itself will immediately disappear and it will simply disappear. If we describe the theory of being programmatically and algorithmically, it turns out that the very purpose of being is to execute the algorithm. Finding meaning leads to the loss of meaning.

Хотя я не смотрел видео, — практика

Judging by the answer, you not only did not watch the video, but also did not read what I wrote.

The author criticizes religion for the lack of a uniform approach to such concepts as life after death, achieving it, and also for the fact that in all religions there is a certain superhero who gives the truth.

I suggested a new layer: what if the idea of ​​life after death is, first of all, an attempt to justify ethics. you behave well, after death you get a continuation of life in heaven. the concept of behaving well for different times and societies has different content. hence the different ways to get to "heaven" in different religions.

I only said that as a tool for justifying good behavior, religions do not contradict each other.

For example, the Wheel of Samsara in Hinduism served as one of the ideological justifications for the caste system, explaining social inequality through karma and motivating people to follow caste duties for the sake of a better rebirth. the idea of Valhalla for the Vikings justified courage, heroism and risk for warriors. the idea of humility in the name of heaven in Christianity made it easier for the lowest classes to accept their oppression.

The list goes on and on. The main idea is that the justification through the afterlife (or rebirth) has always served for ethic

I will start off with a couple pro's I see for less gun control. — Samlw

I’d like to revisit the question: “Do citizens need the right to own firearms?” and break down the common arguments for and against gun ownership.

Arguments in favor of gun ownership:

National Security. Some argue that an armed populace could deter foreign invasions. In reality, any aggressor would account for this and likely avoid ground invasions, especially in an era of advanced technology and nuclear threats. The idea that civilians would unite and effectively resist a professional army is more romantic than realistic. History, like Middle Eastern conflicts, shows that armed rebels often cause chaos among civilians rather than successfully oppose organized forces.

Self-Defense. Owning a gun for self-defense sounds reasonable, but its practical effectiveness is questionable. Using a firearm effectively requires training and composure under pressure—skills most civilians lack. For non-professionals (unlike police or security), the risks of losing the weapon, escalating conflicts, or failing to use it in time outweigh the benefits.

Personal Freedom. Claiming that guns ensure personal freedom often boils down to “don’t mess with me, I’m armed.” This isn’t freedom—it’s a threat that can provoke rather than protect. True freedom means living without fear, not brandishing a weapon.

Deterring Tyranny. The notion that armed citizens could resist a tyrannical government is appealing but unrealistic. State security forces are designed to uphold authority, and any resistance would likely be swiftly crushed. In a civil war scenario, widespread gun ownership would fuel chaos, not prevent it.

Arguments against gun ownership:

Weapons in the Wrong Hands. No licensing or mental health screening can fully eliminate human error. A lost, stolen, or misused gun can lead to tragedy—imagine a forgotten pistol ending up with someone unstable.
Increased Mortality. Firearms amplify the consequences of conflicts. An angry or unstable person with a gun can cause catastrophic harm. U.S. statistics (13.7 deaths per 100,000 people) show a clear correlation between gun availability and higher violence rates.
My stance: Ideally, firearms should be limited to those who need them for their profession (military, hunters, high-level security). For most citizens, guns pose more risks than benefits. With over 400 million firearms in the U.S., drastic measures won’t solve the issue overnight, but that’s no excuse for inaction. Gradual steps—stricter licensing, gun amnesties, biometric trigger locks, and harsher penalties for illegal possession—could reduce violence over time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

Why Religions Fail — Art48

I watched your video, where it repeats for 10 minutes:
1. No one knows what will happen after death, since:
2. Religions contradict each other
3. All religions are based on superhero stories
4. Science does not contradict itself

I propose another question: for what purpose did humanity ask the question "what will happen after death? . "Was the answer to this question important, or did the answer to this question justify ethics?

I think the man of that time did well, because he would be saved after death. In my opinion, the basis of the search for an answer to the question that after death is the justification of ethics. Of course, good and bad actions in different societies are different actions. Hence, in my opinion, such discrepancies. You say that religions are contradictory, but I think not really: do well and you will be saved, that's what they have in common. Another thing is that a different concept is good everywhere.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then.

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control. — Tom Storm

From here we get:
Train. You can choose one of the cars, but this will not change the direction of the train. You can also choose not to board the train (denying the performance), but the easier it will be for the driver.

There is also the factor of ‘outrage fatigue’ - norms of truthfulness and decency are broken so often and with so little apparent consequence, that it becomes normalized. — Wayfarer

May I ask you to describe this concept in more detail?

What’s a current example of a big lie? — Tom Storm

Tom Storm, yes, the media has always been divided into reactionary and progressive, as in my example with Trump's tariffs. But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people.
People repeat the discourses of the media, almost no one has their own opinion. The dominance of one opinion over another is ensured by the number of invested resources.

All that worries us about politics is the result of reproducing what we are given. There is no real opinion, we just choose which train car to board, but we do not choose the direction of the train itself.

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. — Tom Storm

As long as you read more than the headline, the BBC, Sky News, and many established newspaper in my country have a largely objective coverage. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Good. I will try to give a practical example of my conclusions. For analysis, I will choose two major American news outlets Fox News and CNN. I'll analyze the news about Trump's tariffs in early 2025 to show how their filing shapes different emotions among readers. To do this, I use my proposed method of "clearing" news of emotions, followed by comparing narratives
Bare facts:
1.Trump announced tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China.
2.Tariffs on Mexico and Canada covered by USMCA agreement delayed
3.Tariffs have caused volatility in the stock market, and some experts have expressed concern about a possible recession.

Fox News Feed: Positive Tone: Tariffs are described as part of a "Make America Wealthy Again" strategy to bring jobs back to the U.S. Mentioned is "Liberation Day," an emotionally charged title that evokes a sense of patriotism and liberation. Trump support: Trump's quote that the United States will become "so rich that it will not know where to spend money" underscores optimism and confidence. Risk minimization: Although market volatility is mentioned, the emphasis is on Trump's long-term strategy, compared to China's "100-year perspective," which creates the image of a visionary leader.

Emotional effect: Pride in US economic independence, confidence in the success of Trump's policies, minimizing anxiety about economic risks. Readers are likely to feel supported by Trump's actions and optimistic about the future.

CNN feed Negative tone: Tariffs link to consumer and business "angst," as well as "stock market decline." It is mentioned that the cost of tariffs is "passed on to consumers," emphasizing the negative consequences. Skepticism: It is mentioned that Trump "did not rule out a recession," and his statements about US wealth ("let's become so rich") are presented with irony, without emphasis on success. Criticism: It points to "uncertainty" in trade policy and its potential harm, which increases the feeling of instability.

Emotional effect: Anxiety, uncertainty about the future, doubts about Trump's competence. Readers may feel uneasy about the economic impact and distrust of the administration's policies.

Comparison
Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems.


Perhaps in the first message I vaguely formulated my position. I will try to clarify the points:
1. The news flow today is overwhelming
2. The reader does not have time to compare each news in different sources
3. The media take advantage of this, adding an emotional color to naked facts
4. The reader simply trusts the preferred source, hoping that they should not lie there
5. The media constantly maintains an emotional background when presenting each news
6. Bare facts from the news gradually erode from memory, but the emotional background is remembered
7. When it comes to a citizen's decision (such as who to vote for), they choose feelings over facts.

In conclusion, I would like to mention the "Big Lie" in a report compiled during the war by the US Office of Strategic Services when describing Hitler's psychological portrait:
"His basic rules were: never let society" cool down "; never admit mistakes; never allow thoughts of the presence of positive sides in the enemy; never leave room for an alternative; never admit guilt; each time concentrate on any one enemy and blame him for all troubles; people would rather believe a big lie than a small one; and if you repeat it often enough, sooner or later people will believe in it "

It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff. — Tom Storm

I agree that different publications and people cover events in different ways, and the audience often chooses sources that correspond to their values. This confirms my thought: perception is formed not so much by facts as by the emotional context that these facts accompany. You mentioned "a network of intertwined nonsense and propaganda" - this is a good way to describe how the modern information environment works. But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis.

You asked if this is a new problem or just a continuation of the old yellow press methods. I believe social media adds a new dimension, as you said, not because it's fundamentally different, but because of its speed and scale. The emotions caused by the news spread faster and more widely, intensifying the effect. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes.

To explain the idea on a neutral topic, consider the urban legend about how the father of Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, allegedly saved the young Winston Churchill from drowning, and in gratitude, Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. This story, full of drama and incredible coincidences, lives on emotions - a sense of gratitude, fatefulness and admiration. People believe in it and retell it, despite its absurdity and lack of evidence, because the emotional charge overpowers common sense. It's a wilfully neutral example, out of political context, to show how emotional narratives take root and spread. You can read more about this legend on Wikipedia.

Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue? — Tom Storm

We should find time to research the things that are important to us. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players.

The essence of the problem is that we find ourselves between two evils:
On the one hand, there are large media that create and support metanarratives, often driven by financial or political interests.
On the other hand, bloggers who do not create these narratives, but only relay them, selecting facts to confirm their sincere beliefs.

None of these sources are neutral. We simply change who we trust, but do not solve the problem of engagement.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media.

You will see that the fact itself will be the same, but its emotional superstructure - context, intonation, accents - will be radically different. It is this superstructure that shapes our attitude and consolidates opinion. This will confirm or refute the idea that emotions from news are more important than the facts themselves.


P.S. With your permission, I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion

I think the conservatives pander to the working man with the short term gains like diesel price capping, and from what I have been told, greater subsidies for farmers, and things like that but long term I would say not. — unimportant

My intuition is this:
Farming, like heavy production, is such a fundamental process. They are not created in one day or one year and are calculated for a long time. It's painstaking, slow work that doesn't like swings and change. For this category, a dynamically changing world is a challenge.

I will share my experience. Once, I was in a state in which everything can change in one day. I had the opportunity to organize the cultivation of hops. But I gave up on the idea because the horizon was opening up for a decade to come. The lack of solid soil under my feet due to my uncertainty about politics - became the reason that I did not make a choice in favor of farming

Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

I propose the following turn in the discussion:

Will the elections of sixteen-year-old voters, subordinated to school, algorithms, and the whispers of the media, diverge so radically from the opinions of older voters, entangled in the same web?

maybe the point is that young minds require less effort to influence, more easily succumbing to the discourses of power, or are capable of increasing turnout?

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions?

Aren't we, by arguing, weaving that very web, mistaking its next knot for a riot?

We all know we are all stupid — I like sushi

Since we understand this, maybe it's better to give the right to vote to those who consider themselves smart at the age of 16? :lol:

What do you think is the best age to allow for voting. — I like sushi

I will share my experience. At the age of 15-16, I was very indignant at the fact that my vote was not taken into account in the elections, because as it seemed to me then, I understood the world better than these "idiots" around me, who are 40 or more years old. After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45?

Finally, at the age of 88, with some medical problems,I have begun to understand this conjecture — jgill

I want to share my experience. Speaking of purity, when I chose in favor of going to university or not, as well as in favor of marriage or not, I probably did not choose at all, but simply acted within the framework of the discourse that was laid down by society or my parents. I didn't think about why I was doing it at all, but somewhere in the depths of consciousness it was kind of spelled out.

Gaining greater subjectivity, gaining responsibility for their family or children, "existential" thoughts themselves began to appear more often. For example: I actively played hockey at that time, the style of my game was very aggressive, I liked to use power techniques, actively fight in the corners, but when my wife became pregnant, the style of my game began to change by itself: I became more careful and prudent, and instead of going ahead, I began to prefer to give passes.

After that, over time, perhaps it was by the age of 30, the changes became even greater: I wanted to do something promising, because it would not work to be active all my life. Thoughts began to appear about moving to a city with great opportunities and doing business, as well as investing, since employment is possible only if you are constantly active and healthy.

Of course, raising my children today, I do not tell them about these abstractions of the finiteness of being, but simply instill in them what I think is right, so that it becomes their own ideas.

From here I come to the fact that although in my youth I did not think about much, my parents may have thought about it, instilling discourses in me. I remember how my father kept repeating that youth was ending quickly (how I did not understand him then!)...

So, yes, maybe we don't have to be aware of our limb, but it may be embedded in society's discourse for such cases.

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

I just wanted to tell you that even if consciousness is fundamental to all bodies, then the statement and recognition of this fact has no practical benefit. Since it does not matter what the object "thinks" that cannot affect anything (neither his own body nor other bodies)

If, for example, to know what a stone thinks about and then somehow influence its thought in the interests of a person, then this would absolutely not change anything, since the stone is not capable of an independent act.

If you manage to somehow control a fly or other organisms, then this will primarily be used in the struggle for power of some over others. And even if we assume this hypothetical scenario is real, it will not bring to good.

Each experience of the ‘present’ is finite in that the meaning contained within it cannot be logically derived from the previous present, nor be used to deduce the following moment of time. — Joshs

Thanks for this clarification. It is very nice to get it from a professional in the field of phenomenology. Starting the topic, I focused on a wider range of readers. The consequence was to simplify the description of Heidegger's ideas. Heidegger's lyrics are both attractive and frightening, as they are written in a style that makes you not only understand, but feel his ideas with your own skin. This always causes a certain difficulty of assimilation and, I confess, perhaps I do not fully understand all its meanings.

At the same time, the idea of ​ ​ temporality and being-to-death remains attractive for my research. In this idea, I see Heidegger's attempt to describe the very inner tension that makes a person act.
Decomposing temporality into a sense of possible one's own death and ignorance (the unknown of the purpose of existence and the consequences of any choice), I tried to express this "inner tension" in simple language.

This is non-algorithmics, in my opinion gives being a special status that distinguishes us from machines

The mark of higher consciousness (as distinguished from basic what-it-is-likeness) is the ability to introspect your own thought process. — SophistiCat

I agree with your definition of higher consciousness as the ability to analyze your own thought process, to introspection, conscious control over logic and critical revision of beliefs.

However, I would like to clarify the terminology to avoid possible misunderstanding. When I talk about comparing a person with an "algorithm" in the context of "fully knowing the reason for your Being," I do not mean rational, conscious human thinking, which, as you correctly noted, is capable of self-reflection and criticism. I use "algorithm" in a broader, metaphorical sense, implying a complete determinacy of existence - a situation where Man would completely "read" his final goal, his fundamental "program" or ontological source.

My central idea is that if this "program" were absolutely knowable, then a genuine existential choice would become impossible. This is not a question of whether the algorithm is aware of its steps, but of whether it has the freedom to deviate from its predetermined "essence" or create it anew. If our life course, our "ultimate goal" or the source of our Being were absolutely known to us, then each of our actions would only be the fulfillment of predetermined instructions, even if these instructions were incredibly complex and multivariable. In this case, where would there be room for the very "tension" that stems from uncertainty and the threat of loss of oneself with a genuine, unpredictable choice?

You correctly notice the colossal role of the unconscious, intuitive, emotional in human decision-making. And perhaps it is this "ignorance" about our deep determinants, about the very "program" or "source of Being" that we cannot "count," that allows our Being to retain its authenticity. This is what makes our choice not just a rational calculation or execution of instructions, but an act of creation arising from an internal, to the end unknowable depth.

That revelation shaped my life, and still does at age 88. — jgill

I was emotionally impressed by your response. The continuation of the formation and search for oneself by anyone at such a venerable age is a new experience for me. I will move somewhat away from the main idea of ​ ​ the topic, but I want to tell you the following.

The very formation of oneself - that is, giving oneself a certain form, rethinking one's own limits, boundaries in the act of establishing one's own self, unlike non-self, is a true act of being instead of a static existence, according to my dissertation, which I am currently working on.

I admire your continued self-determination, despite the age that many others would consider the basis for calming down and simply contemplating the world.

Now regarding your position on the limb. You write that she "played no role" in your decision, and you call Heidegger's concept "absurd." This is an important point, and I would suggest that it be considered not as a refutation, but as an opportunity for clarification. Perhaps the point is not that the limb should be a conscious, obvious motivator ("Now I will die, I must urgently choose!"). Rather, finiteness is the fundamental horizon against which any meaningful choice acquires its value and uniqueness.

If you were immortal, if you had an infinity of choices and attempts ahead of you, would your activity have the same existential stake? The same "tension" that stems from the understanding that this choice is part of your one-time, unique life?

Heidegger's "Being-to-Death" does not necessarily mean a permanent fixation on death, but the realization that it is the own, indescribable possibility of Nothingness that makes every moment of Being and every choice truly yours, and not just another step in infinity. Perhaps this awareness operates on a deeper, unconscious level, shaping the very value of time and self-determination.

How do psychology and philosophy intersect here? Fundamental, I think. Psychology can investigate the mechanisms of decision-making, the effect of fear of death or uncertainty on behavior. But philosophy poses a question about the nature of this choice itself - is it simply a complex algorithm, or is it an act that transcends determinism? Your experience, jgill, seems to lean toward the latter, and that inspires further reflection.

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion? — I like sushi

Sorry, I got distracted. :blush: Thanks for the comment and interesting perspective on the central topic.