But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study. — Leontiskos

No one paid Newton to discover gravity. Look where that took us.

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. True, there aren't an abundance of them, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of folks interested in research. — LuckyR

That should be good, right? Then people won't have to worry about their taxes going to the "wrong" hands.

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. — Leontiskos

No. They're federal robots in a socialist type setting.

We have a word for giving people things for their own benefit, and that word is not "payment." It is "charity" or "almsgiving." — Leontiskos

Tax and government spending is charity? Well, if yes, then that's what I'm proposing. Federally funded education (government job).

Your preference is for theoretical knowledge, not practical. — Tobias

Yes. Because I believe theoretical knowledge is the purest form of knowledge.

I teach students and I am a researcher. It comes as a package deal. — Tobias

Does it pay enough to never having to get a job?

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics.

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? — Leontiskos

Because in an enlightened society humans don't search for selfish material gains but the sacred things like education and knowledge.

why would I, through taxes, fund you? — Tobias

Because you're an enlightened being, not a motoric unicell organism.

I beg to differ... why would it not be? — Tobias

- What do you do for a living?
- I'm a student.

That's not a formal profession like lawyer or doctor.

And you seem not to like work. What's wrong with working? — ssu

Opportunity cost of studying/learning/researching/following hobbies or passions.

I'm doing a thesis on this right now. Thanks for initiating this thread.

socialist type — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't think it's socialistic because then taxes would also be.

study itself is work — ProtagoranSocratist

Yes. Should be regarded as more divine than government (federal) jobs.

A sane, educated, and enlightened society wouldn’t steal from the fruits of one man’s labor in order to fund the labor of another. — NOS4A2

An ideal society wouldn't require or demand humans to do labour or pay taxes. It would let the robots do those tasks while humans focus on their interests and arts.

I believe work should be done and taxes should be paid by robots while all humans live as monarchs in their bubbles.

Would you personally be willing to pay money out of your pocket for someone else to study while you work? — Philosophim

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

Does the society have money for this? — ssu

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc).

You're paving the way for future artists with your work and theories which would be used by academia.

Education's sole purpose should be learning, not earning. We should be able to earn as a reward of learning.

Modern employment market has turned intellectuals into rats in a mindless race.

On the other hand, there should be some requirements — not all areas of study are equal. Attached should be some pro bono work, whether in your area of expertise (teaching or tutoring, using skills in specific domains to help build or fix things) or in an unrelated area with pressing needs (if the neighborhood is full of trash, volunteer to clean it up; if the local library or food bank needs help, dedicate some time there). — Mikie

Yes, looks acceptable and even logical. Teaching your researched findings works as peer reviews and also helps you strengthen them.

Two straight lines can't intersect at more than one point. No act can be selfless.

There's no way around them. Some things are just like that (at least to our comprehension), like causality.

I started reading MYSTICISM by Evelyn Underhill today in my university library (I read a total of 2-3 books in my 23 years of life; not a reader), and the abstract felt almost identical to solipsism and other related philosophies I hold.

Let's see what the book holds.

All men, at one time or another, have fallen in love with the veiled Isis whom they call Truth. With most, this has been a passing passion: they have early seen its hopelessness and turned to more practical things. But others remain all their lives the devout lovers of reality: though the manner of their love, the vision which they make to themselves of the beloved object varies enormously. Some see Truth as Dante saw Beatrice: an adorable yet intangible figure, found in this world yet revealing the next. To others she seems rather an evil but an irresistible enchantress: enticing, demanding payment and betraying her lover at the last. Some have seen her in a test-tube, and some in a poet’s dream: some before the altar, others in the slime. The extreme pragmatists have even sought her in the kitchen; declaring that she may best be recognised by her utility. Last stage of all, the philosophic sceptic has comforted an unsuccessful courtship by assuring himself that his mistress is not really there.

How does thought A lead to/cause/remind us of thought B, in the same way that we can ask, How does my action of chewing a mouthful of food lead to/cause me to have a drink? — J

Causality (necessity and response).

Now, if you ask why the universe has causality as its founding grammar, that's a different discussion.

we are limited in our ability to know these general truths — Colo Millz

This is exactly why abstract reasoning should take precedence over empirical observations.

Because, due to human subjectivity and limitations, science will always be a mirage disguised as truth. We'll never learn the objective truth or reality, and we'll never have a finalized, reasonable conclusion. But between the two, the latter is more preferable, especially at the individual level. Whenever we attempt to collectivize something, it spirals into chaos.

The pursuit of knowledge is often mistaken for the pursuit of truth. They are not the same.
Knowledge is aesthetic; it beautifies the mind. Truth is theoretical; it exists only as a limit we can never reach.

The terminal nihilist studies not to “discover” but to experience the pleasure of comprehension.
Science and philosophy, when freed from the burden of eternity, become art forms — games of intellect that reward curiosity without demanding conclusion.

It is not necessary to believe in what one studies. Belief is possession; it creates anxiety and defense. Knowing without believing — observing, testing, and discarding ideas as one does melodies — allows freedom of thought without the sickness of conviction.

Thus, the scientist’s laboratory and the philosopher’s desk are stages, not temples. The experiment and the essay are performances of curiosity, not pilgrimages to revelation.
The wise man learns as a connoisseur, not as a missionary.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Terminal Truth: On the Economy of Existence [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17378531

The first thought reminded me of the second thought — J

Thoughts are like actions. They're a continuous process. Whether one gives birth to another or spawns subsequently is not the question here. When I eat, I drink. It's continuous. My throat is full, so I water down. You can call it a reaction or a simple chain of actions.

Celebrating the works of Copernicus

"We" need a state because if it is not our state, then it is anybody's state and may become their state. — unenlightened

Why do we need a community?

Your cognitive sword is skepticism, propelling you forward thrusting and parrying at the devious world of deception? — ucarr

And what is your proposed better alternative to that?

whatever the "self" is — Nils Loc

Yes, we'd need a standard definition for "self".

whether you have any counter-arguments — Mijin

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality. — Copernicus

Please now clarify — Mijin

Yes, it has practical benefits.

But no, I don't care.

performative contradiction. — Banno

It's not.

"I'm sure everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.
"I'm unsure if everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.

there is no relation. — Banno

If you meant from the aspect of causality (butterfly effect), then sure, we're related. But if you meant uniformity like electrons, then you're missing the point.

Fried eggs, therefore, are a leap of faith. Cool. — Banno

I hope you remember the spoon scene in The Matrix.

So the true reality is that true reality is unknown... — Banno

Exactly. It doesn't deny, only skepticizes.

I'm pointing out your part in the conspiracy. — Banno

How am I related to the chicken?

You're now plainly trolling with irrelevant and illogical counterarguments.

still just a guess. — Outlander

Everything is a leap of faith. True reality is forever unknown. But detected patterns often show uniformity.

What's the relevance of that? — Banno

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform.

Same with human selfishness.

Individual observation isn't needed to find natural law. Something we call sampling.

?

You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving — Outlander

Look.

You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours — Outlander

the core problem in Copernicus's threads is the failure to acknowledge the other. — Banno

Just like I don't measure everything in the universe but know that (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b². — Copernicus