I'd be surprised that there's a fair amount of support for communism? I fucking hope not.

Not many want true equality in economics, that's called communism. Wanting to lessen economic inequality is more complex than "I love equality" and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that... People want that for different reasons than increasing equality and those reasons are motivations for people in many other areas but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth, they don't have a name for being more lost than that because it's so unusual.

Is this a joke?

It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises." — BitconnectCarlos

No... I'm pretty sure that you're just feeling alone in being reasonable. The chances these guys are actually talking about the same things has got to be zero.

The reality philosophers don't like about suicide is that it's generally impulsive, thoughtless and stupid. It's not a symptom of a callous society or soulless culture. Suicide prevention exists and it's actually pretty amazing how many people care about whether you or any other random person commits suicide or not. Ultimately, peoples' relationship to the world cannot ever be defined by suicide prevention, you cannot live a life without being exposed to the things which can be cited as reasons for suicide. Which would really need to be contextualised by brain analysis anyway, we know brain differences play a role in suicide.

@Pfhorrest Ok here's what Wallows said:

If B follows from A, and C follows from B, and we only address C being a suicide or other ills, then why aren't we addressing the confounding factors starting from A->B->C? — Wallows

And here's what you said:

Because people are short-sighted. Mostly as a consequence of being lazy and greedy and stupid. Mostly as a consequence of being overworked, traumatized, under constant threat, etc. Or of bring raised by people who were like that and instilled their own bad habits formed from their traumas on their developing children. Our whole society is mentally ill, as a system not just as a bunch of individuals, and it’s a chicken and egg problem how to fix the system that could help fix the individuals who run the system without first fixing those individuals while they are still part of a broken system.

Best I can hope for is that the few people who are functional enough to work against the systemic dysfunction can over time pull hard enough long enough to pull the whole system back to functionality eventually. — Pfhorrest

Hehahaha... Wallows asked a stupid question without even specifying what he was talking about which makes your response even worse. Neither of you listed a single, real, observable problem with a suggestion for a solution - perhaps explaining why we weren't taking that solution. Instead, without even having any idea about what Wallows is talking about, you go off into a tirade about how apart from a few functional people like you, society is a disaster run by short-sighted, lazy, greedy people. Talk about deluded xd. You even proceed to share words of mutual respect while still having absolutely no idea what the other is talking about. That's just special.

Philosophy is not dead and won't ever be dead, naturally, the medium and nature of the discourse will change over time but not a problem unless you're sentimental.

I would say that many of us won't accept the philosophical ideas that we don't like as being philosophical. Nonetheless, they are.

Also, even if people don't call what they're doing philosophy but something else instead, it's still philosophy.

I think it's important to be knowledgeable about areas where expert opinions are varied. If they're not varied then there's probably hard evidence for their position but if many experts have differing or opposing positions then it might be an issue of interpretation. I am always particularly distrusting of experts that haven't actually demonstrated their proficiency. To me, that generally means doing something or achieving something that required proficiency.

I have no real problems with your definition of the state and I read that you - which I really didn't need to read - are aware that the state comprises individuals and that collectives can't act. The problem is that despite your definition and your qualifications you continually talk about the state as a single entity.

Why would the state fear it's own power? I was being facetious in talking about the state, I'm going to stop using that word because I think your keenness on it is half of my problem. I live in Australia, most of my government is a sprawling bureaucracy charged with overseeing mundane things like providing services, overseeing projects, planning, overseeing the regulation of various sectors, dealing with legal problems and so on. Unelected officials who aren't plotting the subjugation of other components of the government. I am sceptical that they even have a clue what's going on in any department besides their own.

Across the ladder, people are primarily concerned with keeping their jobs, doing their jobs and maybe even getting a promotion. Corruption isn't even a viable option for most of them and where it is - they're being regulated by more government bodies that aren't elected, aren't motivated in any of the ways you're talking about.

In the higher levels of government, we have two different parties, liberal and labour that can fill them. A big scandal here is somebody spending tax dollars on an unnecessary or unnecessarily expensive means of transportation. Do politicians care about advancing their career, avoiding a scandal and being elected or advancing the power of a government body that they know they're only going to be in charge of for a small portion of their career? For what?

Corruption exists but it's people using their position to make themselves rich - there's really very little incentive to attempt to empower the part of the government they're working for. They won't be there forever, it's a huge risk, there's no unilateral support and there's likely no support from higher levels of their party - if they even belong to the one that's in power - or one at all.

A totalitarian government is the worst possible thing for pretty much everyone except the ruling elite.
It's not that we should take for granted the checks and balances - also I think Australian democracy is wildly better than many other democracies around the world. So in some countries, the risk is extreme.

I think the concern with totalitarianism is not a gradual and collective descent into power-hungry behaviour by the government. It's power-hungry individuals in the government or often outside of it, who are hellbent on having absolute power. Most democracies that fail have rampant corruption, limited control over the military and haven't been a democracy for long and likely never operated as a true democracy.

Something exists that we interpret as colour. If you want to deny intersubjectivity, it's impossible to do in a sensible way really, all you can say is that the evidence is insufficient for you and then make up your own fantastical answer.

I feel that the way you use the term the "state" is very unhelpful for the topic being discussed here. Just look at the US, if use your terminology, wouldn't it be fair to say that the "state" is trying to impeach the "state" right now? You say that the "state" wants to become more totalitarian but in fact - in democracies - most of the state is terrified of the state becoming more totalitarian.

Rather, we must ask, ‘What do the three co-equal branches of government have a realistic incentive to do?’ Do the three co-equal branches of government have a realistic incentive to hold one another in check, and to prevent each other from growing in power? — Virgo Avalytikh

This kind of thinking is a symptom of the problem of talking about the "state" as a single political entity. When I say political, I mean domestically and not geopolitically. Branches of the government are not co-equal, they are neither competitive nor collaborative. They are also - just as the state isn't - single-minded political entities.

What motivates those who hold power isn't primarily acquiring more power but rather the preservation of their power, status, wellbeing, wealth and so on. Their power is not the power of the state or the component of the state but the preservation of an individual's role within the state. Transparent acts of corrupt behaviour is a risk, you could lose your job or go to jail and the pay off for corrupt behaviour is usually going to be in the form of a reward for the individual being corrupt - not advancing the political power of the government agency you belong to.

As a democracy, we're relying on the motivations of those in government to be more complicated and varied than acquiring power for the government body or political party that they belong to.

I feel you, I really hate how straight white males have been so intolerant of other sexual orientations, races and genders. They spend so many centuries judging others by the groups they belong to rather than looking past those things and just realising we're all human beings, it's disgusting.

America and war, whether it's from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan it seems fair to identify a pattern. The pattern is that the American public are told more lies than truths, the white house gets into wars and stays into them in a completely undemocratic way and political motivations play a bigger role than actual geopolitics.

In the Vietnam war, many different leaders who knew the war was basically unwinnable continued to either escalate, start or continue the war. In Iraq, the entire reason for going to war was a lie and in Afghanistan, generals have recently admitted that they have no idea what they're even doing there.

The US has a history of political assassinations, supporting rogue groups and there's also an almost equally long history of how all of these things ended for the worst. In the middle east, in Asia and in South America.

America has such a bad history with the wars they've started, with the covert operations and assassinations they've carried out. If the US goes to war with Iran, we might find out 20-30 years later the answer why but until then, likely nothing is what it seems. I have no sympathy for Iran's regime, however, I also have no faith in America's ability to bring about a positive resolution through war and if this is the start of one then so far the start is pretty bad.

I think you're right Brett, we are mostly living lives of 'no harm done but no good either' and whether that should be characterised as being moral, getting on with our lives or cowardice really depends on the situation.

My biggest concern isn't that we shouldn't be aiming to collaborate, I'm a big fan of doing what's "best for yourself and the group" and collaboration out of self-interest. It's that as individuals discussing problems in society, we are doing so while simultaneously restricting ourselves to ideas and motivations which are great for showing what a good person you are. We're not getting the complete picture, we can accuse others, we can paint pretty ideals but our motivations are tainted.

If I can admit that I am prone to this kind of behaviour, that it's my nature and the nature of others to paint this pretty picture and present an image of ourselves that is pristine, can this be useful and how?


Well, I'm with you, how does knowing what you know impact your opinions on how discussions play out on the forum or in similar discussions? Do you have a process by which you vet people for their authenticity or do you possess any general scepticism towards the discussions on topics where the motivation of displaying or hiding certain thoughts and behaviours is plausible from this point of view?

I never said collaboration is not an essential characteristic of society but I have said the opposite.

I'm not saying we're not team players or that people can't be collaborative, of course, that's a part of who and what we are. — Judaka

I'm suggesting that the ideal of being collaborative and altruistic is put on display while other motivations aren't. Which leads to an imbalance in the representation of ideas in forums like these. I'm asking whether that is true, if so why that is and whether that undermines the discussions here.

Human beings are intrinsically social? That's just not a valid response. Can only see our social nature as collaborative? I daren't try to figure out what you're thinking.


As philosophers, aren't we always thinking about how things should be by ourselves? People form opinions on economics, politics, religion and so on without actually needing any kind of consensus. We don't actually do anything because we're not involved in the decision-making process and so while we're not dictatorial, we're also not dependant on input from others either.

My question is basically
1) Do you agree that posters on this forum generally and quite strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims?
2) Do you agree that people in the real world, while still being generally good people, are less concerned with being as altruistic?
3) If you agree then why do you think this is?

Well, let's not characterise human interaction as collaboration thoughtlessly, there is very little collaboration taking place on this forum and that wasn't what this thread was about. I've discussed many topics with you but I don't think I've collaborated with you on anything. Forums like this for me can be characterised by people feeling like they cannot change anyone else's mind, their opinions not really being cared about and people spending most of their time debating others.

It can be entertaining, validating, enlightening but we're not collaborating on anything. We're not even making or doing anything.

What I'm actually talking about is how we talk about collaborating and how we talk as if we're entirely altruistic. Now, you may be entirely altruistic, for you, I'm willing to concede that's actually just how you are. However, in real-world social environments where there's status, prestige, egos, competition, general dislike for some people and our emotions/psychology to worry about, are people as selfless then? Isn't philosophy just a special topic where selflessness and selfishness look the same?

Where if you're the most helpful, best contributor, who is ethical and caring, then you're also satisfying your desires of looking good, feeling good and presenting an admirable image of yourself to others and yourself. Couldn't it become difficult to share unpopular opinions that don't promise to help others or which portray you in a negative light?

I have become suspicious because while I can expect some of us to be this way most of the time and most of us to be this way some of the time. I am starting to think that everyone is this way nearly all of the time.


Is it the fate of an uncompromising philosopher in this setting, to perhaps make threads that nobody appreciates or responds to? Is it the fate of an uncompromising artist to not have their art enjoyed by others? Or is it just difficult to go out on a limb, however, sometimes it can work out?

I don't, it's just meaning comes from interpretation so without stipulating who's doing the interpretation then the question doesn't make much sense.

What you're saying makes sense if we treat meaning like knowledge to be discovered. Objective meaning. All I'm saying is that meaning is subjective, a subject must interpret what something means. Whether it's the importance of life, what one should do with their lives, how one should treat life or any other such question. It's all for the individual to decide and no higher power exists to tell them that they're objectively wrong because there's no such thing as objective meaning.

That's my stance anyway.


I think that what on the surface appears to be collaboration is actually either forced by necessity, a show or in order to compete in a competitive world. I think it's also more important to be shown as someone who wants to work together with everyone to make the world better but absolutely no necessity to actually do that work. Though thing has changed my mind a bit on exactly why we are focused on collaboration and altruism in philosophy. I wonder whether people really feel comfortable putting other ideas and priorities on display?

If someone said they want to focus on their art and fuck the world's problems, compared to if they are always showing themselves to care. For many of us, is there really no fear about what others might think? Also, as an artist doing your own art versus trying to help people and solve problems, is it easier to feel validated and useful?

Okay, I might be purposefully conflating talking about what's good, how to do good and how to get people to do more good. If your experience in philosophy has been different than mine then that's fine, might be a little hard to relate to each other though. Just means your interests and mine in philosophy are probably a little different.


I don't agree with your definition of meaning. I believe all meaning comes from interpretation and essentially comes down to "this means that" or in other words, what information can be taken from the thing we're taking information from or forming opinions about. I mean information as both intersubjectively true and subjectively true.

You've got an avatar with some leaves in it, I might take that to mean that you like nature. I could be totally wrong and it also doesn't mean that I think it's important or significant that you have an avatar with leaves or that I think you like nature. You may also tell me, "no, I don't like nature" but that doesn't mean I have to believe you, maybe I refuse to believe that anyone with leaves in their avatar couldn't like nature. The way I am using the word means and meaning now isn't different when it comes to a question like "what is the meaning of life?".

Now, I'm already a nihilist, I don't think there is an objective meaning to life, I think that I can interpret my own meaning or purpose. I didn't give up on answering the question of life's meaning, or what's good and worse. I just reject that those questions have answers which supersede my own personal interpretation. My importance to myself is unconditional, I don't even ask myself this question. Basically, I don't feel the need to negotiate with you about what means what.

I guess you fall under the category of what @thing was talking about, embracing a universal humanism which strives to find an answer that can be the answer for everyone?

I'm a nihilist/moral relativist and I don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree that meaningfulness means being important to the functioning of the universe. I don't think the universe needs me to function - or anybody. Also, the universe doesn't care about me and isn't something which can consider me important. I also don't agree with your singular approach to truth, goodness, knowledge and justice "etc". There's a lot that's subjective about those things, isn't there? Rhetorical question, I don't think we can discuss this topic, we're lightyears away here.

This makes me disinclined to engage with you further. — Pfhorrest

I can understand why you might say that, based on my knowledge about you which is limited. Would it help if I said far-leftist? Re-read what Themadfool just said, is that really what you want? If people are lobbying together for climate change, is it really important to divide those people by their sex, age, race, gender, sexual orientation and other bullshit? Is that what makes an individual? I don't really want to talk about identity politics and the way the far-left divides people but yeah, it's pretty garbage.

The "we" here is us, of course, I don't just lump every philosopher who ever walked under the sun as the same. I actually don't want to talk about how to get people to do more good, I'm actually tired of that topic and I'm complaining about it. I'm saying that it's all we talk about and I'm investigating why that is. If we limited discussion to just career philosophers, I don't think I would have brought up this issue.


Typical of SteetlightX, making threads about garbage leftist ways of thinking. Philosophers don't agree with each other even when it comes to do-gooding, we are definitely not a single-minded mob.


I think you've provided really logical and reasonable counter explanations for this phenomenon.

This is what Spengler called 'ethical socialism' as a kind of default setting of our age. We unconsciously assume that there is one right way and that it is our duty to find and impose it. — thing

Good point, agree.

Solomon wrote of the 'transcendental pretense.' This is basically the assumption of a universal humanity. Certain enlightenment philosophers took their experience of being human and understood it as the way of being human. We don't think of a plurality of ways of being scientific and rational. There is one rationality, one science, one humanity. — thing

Another good and relevant point. I'd add truth to this list as well, I think that people today are very focused on talking about things from the perspective of this universal humanity. Tribalism still exists but it always seems orientated around having different visions or interpretations of doing what's best for all of us (in philosophy, not politics).

If I ramble on about my preferences, I'm likely to bore or annoy others. If, however, I speak of things accurately that are important to both of us, then I'm actually contributing. I am listened to and valued because the objectivity of my knowledge accords with the self-interest of my listeners. — thing

it's a fair point and I relate with it, is this what requires us to keep up a facade that our contribution to topics involves pragmatic utility to the listener or society. Like, "listen to me because I can make things better!" It does feel like when people are offering utility, it's universal, I don't hear people offer wisdom about how to get one over your competition in philosophy and utility is generally offered as useful for everyone regardless of your circumstances, excluding the mega-rich.

I think enlightened self-interest explains much of morality — thing

Well, I certainly agree generally speaking, especially when it comes to "don't do's". Though things become a bit more complicated when it comes to economics, politics and higher-level morality. Which generally seems to be orientated around the concept of "one humanity" and how to better it.

Generally, you give a pretty reasonable picture of why we try to be so collaborative, I like some of these things but sometimes it does feel like it's just a facade which has grown popular because it's very positive and socially useful. Like it's just too hard to argue against it without seeming like a terrible person.

I'm just saying, why do you automatically start talking about "species that work together"? That's the highest possible level of analysis even if it conveniently ignores the value of competition. Collaboration itself in real-world examples is mostly motivated by self-interest, it's only really in high-level philosophy where we pretend like we're all part of a big family. Your biggest enemies aren't other species, you know that.

Also, we aren't solving the world's problems here. If you are talking about how to do it, the question has to be asked about why? How can something totally lacking in pragmatism also be completely divorced from morality and image?


I think most people would say that. The question is that if we look at what people are doing rather than talking about doing, what does that indicate? If it is true that people have their ideas and pursuits measured and validated by a claim for utility and justice for the masses then I want to ask that question about it.

Would you agree that our opinions in philosophy are more benevolent than we are? There's no prejudice, no counterweight to compassion, no self-interest and competition is just kind of ignored. Wouldn't that make philosophy a feel-good exercise which paints a picture of our intentions and concerns as only containing the aspects of our nature we most want to put on display?

Suicide is never the problem, depression and impulsiveness among other things are problems and suicide is sometimes a symptom of those problems. Suicide is not a logical solution to really any of the problems nor does it ever help the individual. It is a symptom of our flaws and it itself leads to nothing. Whether we agree with someone's suicide or not, it is always the symptom of tragedy and is itself a tragedy.

Existential philosophy frames the question of life in a depressing and unhelpful way. Life does have meaning, we create that meaning ourselves and the lack of objective meaning is as irrelevant as the lack of all other objective version of subjective things. Most of the beautiful things in the world are subjective and personal and their beauty and value are accentuated rather than diminished by their subjective nature. Instead of framing the question of life around the things we don't have, it'd be better to frame it around that which we have gratitude for.

It is almost to the point where I wonder if that's the reason some people engage in philosophy. To be righteous and fight for the oppressed, help the innocent and condemn those they see as the problem. All while never having to actually do anything besides sharing opinions and arguing them.


It is not a good thing to be seen as selfish, uncompassionate, self-serving, self-interested. I'm not saying we're not team players or that people can't be collaborative, of course, that's a part of who and what we are. I'm just saying, the collaborative, benevolent, altruistic motivations are put on display because they are interpreted by others and perhaps oneself to mean that you are a good and kind person. Which gives status.

I'm not really saying that's a conscious motivation for most people but I just feel that conversations are completely dominated by this angle of good-doing. When you look at peoples' actions in real life, yes there is good-doing but also a lot of other feelings and interpretations beyond "what's good for us". Even some of the most out-there posters on this forum still argue in terms of humanitarianism and what's right. We're all just saints who want what's best for everyone else all the time and have nothing more to say? From the posters I like the most to the ones I dislike the most, they all talk about what's best for everyone else. I don't know anyone who talks about things in other terms.

I don't know. Provided whatever my area is doesn't get burned down or flooded, I should be alright. If not, may have to move for that reason down the road.

I prioritise good quality air conditioning when choosing an apartment to live in, in the future, I think this will continue to be a priority.

Anarchy is the absence of structure and tyranny is the most basic structure of government. More advanced forms of government can only be carried out by more advanced cultures. Anarchy is tyranny but there is no government and in a tyranny, how often were they held accountable for anything? Dictators and kings commit evil and nobody can challenge them. Few of the problems you listed in democracy, can be coherently argued to be better or absent in tyrannies or anarchies.

How can you even talk about storming the palace of the tyrant, how often did that happen historically? People who disagree with democracy are almost as bad as people who disagree with capitalism.

In the US, Trump is held accountable for bad tweeting and off-hand comments. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un is worshipped as a God and has effectively brainwashed half the country and the other half are too terrified to say anything. If anyone was going to storm his palace, they'd had decades to try.

Pragmatic Idealism is fine, for an individual.

Personally, I don't see this "us", I'm by myself here. My feelings, my thoughts, my interpretations, my resources, my knowledge, my circumstances, my desires, my friends, my philosophies, beliefs and ideals. I can as an intellectual exercise consider what might be best for some "us", the humans who are here and the humans that will come and for specific people, like you or perhaps the needy.

However, there are things I have barely any control over and things I have complete control over. I don't trust most people and I actively distrust those with power. People with good intentions think they should be trusted, the only obstacle to trust is unfamiliarity, not true. They can trusted if you go along with their good intentions, otherwise, then you are I don't know... "lacking free will and rationality"?

That's the truth about power, there are things people will put up with when they don't have it, rational debate is just the most effective tool. Idealism quickly becomes tyrannical but it needs power.

I've got "self-control, free will and rationality" but I'm me and you're you and that's not a bridge that can be gapped. There's no unconditional "us".

If someone calls you "friend" and you turn around and say "uhh, no we're not", it's going to make you seem unapproachable and anti-social. I know that because that's exactly what I did and it was obvious as soon as I said it that it highlighted the truth that I don't particularly care for them or trust them. I felt it was just obvious that that's how it was because we barely talk but of course, saying such a thing is a rejection and it's going to be hard to play it off as friendly. Especially if you do it to them in front of others, it's embarrassing.

Just accept that "friend" means acquaintance, I don't agree that the "masses" are trying to feel important by having an eclectic array of friends. I've found it's actually just incredibly difficult to be sociable nowadays without adjusting to the new meaning of the word. It's not toxic to have acquaintances who you get along with when you happen to meet at work, parties or spots of gathering.

I think social media has played a role in expanding the definition of "friend" to include pretty much anyone that you are friendly with on a regular basis. There's often no expectation of loyalty, honesty, longevity or some kind of specific intent. It is just as simple as "I enjoy your company". I experienced quite a shock when acquaintances who I barely even spoke to would say without doubt or hesitation that we were "friends". I ended up realising that my idea of what is a "friend" was just completely different to theirs and accepted that even though they felt the same as me about them as I did about them, the term held a significance to me which seems outdated.

I think the modern definition of friend expands from people for whom you feel close to nothing towards to the dearest people in your life who you would do anything to help and protect.

The problem with the "greater good" is that to serve the greater good is as likely to mean saving people as it is to mean killing them, as likely as it means to give people liberty as it is to take it away, as likely as it means to tell the truth as it is to tell lies.

I feel as likely to agree to fight for one person's "greater good" as I am to fight to stop someone else's. I cannot imagine one can be wise and knowledgable of history while also thinking that the 'greater good" should trump individual rights. It's what people who complain about democracy and capitalism don't understand, they don't understand why these things and liberty are so valuable. You cannot trust your government, you cannot trust the people who claim to have your best interests at heart, the ideologues who claim to speak for you. No promise that requires the sacrifice of individual rights can be trusted. Rights really just serve to curtail the evil nature of power, where rights are limited, power becomes corrupt.

Of course, I talk about modern rights protecting liberty in the West, nothing like "the right to own a slave" or some shit.

From a nihilistic perspective, it's hard to care too much. I am pretty sure humans won't be around 200 years from now anyway. We should do what we can to make ourselves feel better about it but if it ultimately causes future generations problems or not won't matter to me after I'm dead.

Also, I believe it is real but it seems like a relatively manageable disaster going forward.

Nobody with any sense could see things as you do, words have power and when they aim and result in murder, the punishment should fit the crime. I am done debating the matter with you, what you are saying - and even about Hitler, it's just silliness.

Depends on level of involvement, when the inciter was a significant factor in the death then he can claim equal responsibility. Manson lived like the leader of a dangerous gang, he participated in and inspired the criminal activity of this gang. Inciters like Manson don't need the actual person who committed the crime, that person is replaceable but provided Manson was allowed to be free, he would have continued to incite people to commit crimes. He was good at doing it, he would have continued to have been good at doing it and more people would be killed as a result of his actions.

I don't really understand your position, those who recruit others for violence are literally the people you should least want free.

I'm happy for people who opening talking about how certain people need to be murdered to be jailed for it. Inciting people to violence should be a crime, especially if the "incited" actually commit murder. He spent most of his life in or out of jail and when he was free he was getting drunk and high and being a hippy. Even without the murders, his value is debatable, when you factor in the murders he becomes a serious danger to society.

He's fine for one to start talking about as the lowest in society, if you grant that his life has value that has yet to be spoiled or cannot be spoiled then you seem to think everyone's life has value. I think that Manson was in the eyes of most, not offering anything but actually just hurting people for his entire life and he hurt many people throughout his life in all kinds of ways.

Many, including myself and probably Manson, never cared whether our lives were thought of as intrinsically valuable by complete strangers. I don't think Manson's life of living 23 hours a day in a metal box had either value or beauty, I think there were legitimate reasons for putting him there too. If it were up to me, I'd likely have executed him. Those things are not to do with Manson though, they are to do with me. That's the whole purpose of the thread anyway.

Charles Manson was literally convicted for directing the murders and not committing them. Murderer or not a murderer, it was a crime for him to tell these kids to kill and he spent his life in jail for it. There's nothing to debate on that front... You aren't even aware of what Manson was convicted of?

Actually, I fact-checked myself and found this:

"In 1971, he was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people. The prosecution conceded that Manson never literally ordered the murders, but they contended that his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy."

He wasn't even convicted of directing the murders but actually just putting ideas in peoples heads and manipulating them to think in this murderous way.

They are guilty of allowing themselves to be manipulated and he is guilty of manipulating them. They are both being blamed for what they did and not more.

Charles Manson convinced a bunch of impressionable, gullible and desperate young adults that a devastating race war was about to occur and that they needed to kill some white folk in order to set it off. He was completely delusional and lost his freedom while gaining nothing but notoriety and some misguided fans.

Nonetheless, it's great that he never lost his self-esteem, even if he probably should have.

I think that people are tired of how ineffectual recent governments have been and how ridiculous the other side is. I think the 2016 US election showed two extremely flawed candidates and ideologies battling it out. In EU the situation isn't much different, it's populism vs leftists and the two have a lot in common. They demonise, they hyperbolise, they're self-righteous and they categorise people by their groups. I don't think that either will last forever but I'm also not convinced they'll be going away soon.

I mean, you're still around, how to justify banning OP then? Not enough of your posts get removed haha.


People will buy what you're selling if it's marketed at something they want or feel they need, philosophy is not different. You seem like the anti-social type, you're interested in philosophy and you prioritise interpretations of yourself which are based on your ideals which others do not share. With different personality types and circumstances, I just don't see everyone seeing things the way you do or adopting your solutions. Have you tried factoring in the differences between your personality and others to explain the differences in approach? I would classify myself as an egoist as well, I believe there's a pragmatic element to it but it's mostly just my personality.

About nihilism, life is hard, people find meaning in life through their relationships, responsibilities, interpretations and the ego. There is no undoing of nihilism without belief in the supernatural, the answer is to dispense with the notion of transcendent meaning and find meaning within your life through your actions. If that's by having a hobby, or starting a family, or achieving goals you've set for yourself - or perhaps trying to change the world with your ideas? Each to their own.

It is a misconception that the consumerism impacts the West alone. India and China can be argued to be even more materialistic cultures than what's in the West. Eastern Europe, South America, most of south-east Asia, Korea and Japan all of them are pretty much equally materialistic and consumer-orientated. Any country with the wealth to be materialistic has a materialistic element to their culture. I also fail to see how individualism and consumerism are at odds with each other but rather appear to complement one another.

As for your gargantuan conspiracy theories about morality and religion etc that merely describe the proclivities of men and the trends of civilization, you appear determined to simplify things to seeing a fantastical villain. The powerful elite conspire globally and across time to construct systems which control and enslave the masses? The "herd" is not a "herd" because there are shepherds. It's more complicated than that but isn't that kind of obvious? People who don't talk in terms of shades of grey, I see as more emotional than logical.

It's not the physical description that poses a problem but all besides that.