Maybe I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Maybe we are headed, inexorably for the abyss. Maybe that's what we want - to wipe ourselves out. I don't know what you know. I'm not a particularly sociable person. But I know I want to belong to a species with a future - because otherwise, it just makes everything I am and everything I do seem...masturbatory. — counterpunch

Yes. Humanity and everything it has built and developed has been maintained for thousands upon thousands of years of hypocrisy and lies. And why? Because we are intrinsically egoist beings; we want individual, not collective, achievement. When the group was forced into the human psyche, everything stopped being done in practical-physical delight - aka, real - for something symbolic-metaphysical - aka, false -.

You are not part of a species destined to progress, because progress is a modern idea, therefore, a false idea.

Oh! Can't you see it? It is the fact that the masses are aware of the lie that they are that has put the world in the precipice that it is today.

Sure, but our mind it self has an idea of freedom and deathless world which never existed and we are all looking for some form of freedom or purpose — najomip369atmaksap

Could you repeat it in punctuated formal English, please?

Could one say we were manipulated into this reality? — wilal47744

When you say that we have been "manipulated" into this reality, you already claim that some higher force may exist. In this case, this "manipulation" or "control" has been discussed for more than 5,000 years and is called "God".

I find your historical picture and would imagine that have probably studied history in some depths. My own background is more a mixture of philosophy and psychology. So, you are probably more versed in the idea of cycles. I definitely believe that there are cycles and probably the way I had conceived cycles was more along the lines of the Hindus. I have even thought in terms of the astrological age cycles, such as the transition from the age of Pisces to Aquarius. — Jack Cummins

You know the phrase:

"Those who do not study the past are bound to repeat it"

This summarizes the entire recorded history of mankind - and I believe that it has been the same in the thousands of years in which we have not developed writing -.

In terms of "cycles", humanity - within history - has already gone through 2 - the "Collapse of the Bronze Age", and the "Fall of the Roman Empire" - and is currently going through another. To what extent we are bound to repeat this cycle cannot be answered, however, I believe in two possibilities for the end of this repetition:

1º: Humanity, at some point in the future, will become extinct, thus putting an end to the cycle.
or
2 º: We will transcend this cycle in some way, be it technological, psychological, biological, etc...

I definitely don't think that what we are seeing is just like the end of the middle ages. I would say that it is equal to the fall of Rome, if not more.The reason I say possibly more, is the whole climate concern and whether the earth could become uninhabitable. — Jack Cummins

Don't get me wrong, we are going through something equal to or worse than the fall of Rome.

And if we really fall, this will probably be the first and last time that we will reach the technological level we have today, as our entire civilization today is based on petroleum. The shallower pits have already been completely dried out, and the remaining ones are difficult to reach. If society collapses in any way, the technology for accessing these pits will be lost, and therefore, having no more access to the shallow ones, we - humanity - will be doomed to a technological future of equal levels if not worse than during the Modern Age - 1453 to 1789 -.

I would thank you - and mean it, had I not just glimpsed at your profile and recent comments, and discovered a disregard for the consequences of philosophy. Publish and be damned - seems to be your byword, whereas I have struggled mightily to secure the future - with the least possible disruption. I worry that seeking to emphasize the truth value of science will merely cause a disenchantment with the ideological architecture of society - and plunge us into some anomic, nihilistic abyss. It's true, we made a mistake in relation to science 400 years ago that hasn't been corrected, and is key to securing the future. But we have to learn that lesson and bring it home - and with regard to the future, we have to get there from here. I've no desire to upset the applecart. Where then would I get my apples? — counterpunch

I see that your ideas are founded on a strong will to change the world, or to cause the same change of thought that had completely transformed the future of humanity as Christianity did in late antiquity. You seem convinced that you know something that we all don't know.

Your mission is noble, your willpower is to respect. The only problem is that the individual, when aware of its goals, does not achieve its purposes. We live in times where any changes that could prevent a dark future can no longer be made.

We have already contemplated the light of advancement and prosperity, and now, we are heading towards the abyss. Your question should no longer be how to avoid it, but if you want to fall into it in complete hopelessness, or dancing...

That's why I say and repeat:

Record your truths. If you are convinced that you can keep it, even if it is the ashes of the flame of the past two centuries, do it. The same ones who use doublethink and hypocrisy to destroy the current world, out of resentment and regret, may discover your thoughts in the future and, then, they will say:

- This is a saint! He speaks the truth that we didn't hear 300, 400, 500 years ago!

(Currently, it makes no difference whether you want to disturb the applecart or not. He no longer cares about it, and his apples are already rotten. He himself poisons them and sells them at an exorbitant price! Where will you buy it? What difference does it makes? Get them, or die.)

I AM a philosopher. I have philosophical views, on a range of subjects, of my own devising. They are informed by extensive reading; written in relation to modern western philosophy since Descartes, and intended to save the world by providing for a long, prosperous, sustainable future.

Recently, I showed that the subjectivist, post modernist, anti-truth position of the left is false, with numerous examples, in an argument peppered with literary and philosophical references, and ran into an ideologically indoctrinated brick wall of direct contradiction. This inability and/or unwillingness to learn plunged me into a sudden and deep depression, for - if humankind cannot learn, cannot correct this mistake, we are doomed. — counterpunch

I will quote my own ego:

"Those who are stoned, lynched and repressed today, will be worshiped as saints by the regret of the future."

Record what you know, make it clear what your vision is, and if you are sure of what you say, do not deny yourself the truth.

But the one aspect which I wonder about is what effect the ideals do have upon us on a collective level, consciously and subconsciously? Do these dreams and fantasy scenarios have a self -fulfilling prophecy, or do they give us scope for a critical understanding of culture? — Jack Cummins

I'm reading a lot of Mainlander's - 19th century german philosopher - work and the more I read, the more I'm convinced that humanity's only reason for existence is to reach death. As I said in the original post:

"What if this ideas - of utopia and dystopia, as was religion during the middle ages, and culture during antiquity - are nothing more than humanity's way of accepting the entropic end of existence by creating of the illusion of choice between the "perfect good" and "perfect evil"?"

Even if we construct order, that's just a means to blind ourselves of the real purpose, that which is "to cause death and/or death to itself - aka increase the entropy of the Universe -".

Quoting Mainlander:

“But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!”

But I do believe that ideas are not just based on instincts alone. — Jack Cummins

My statement does not say that all human metaphysics is irrational, but that its base was built by the instinctive and irrational minds of our ancestors. I believe that everything after 50,000 BC had already been developed and conceptualized rationally and "philosophically" - in this, understand "philosophically" as the act of questioning and answering yourself -, yet, as time went on, our way of perceiving and idealizing thing got more sophisticated.

I would say that we need to be aware of the instincts, emotions and reason and that ideas occur on all these levels. — Jack Cummins

As Nietzsche said:

"Apollo and Dionysus. We are made to recognize the tremendous split, as regards both origins and objectives, between the plastic, Apollinian arts and the nonvisual art of music inspired by Dionysus. The two creative tendencies developed alongside one another, usually in fierce opposition, each by its taunts forcing the other to more energetic production, both perpetuating in a discordant concord that agon which the term art but feebly denominates: until at last, by the thaumaturgy of an Hellenic act of will, the pair accepted the yoke of marriage."

In resume, we should live using wisely both our instinctive and rational "Self" to reach Übermensch - yet, we see the trend throught history of times where the rational aspect dominates, and others in which the animalistic irrational takes hold -. We have yet to make the perfect "marriage" between the two.

I am one of the worst examples because I sit here writing about ideas and I rely on microwave food. — Jack Cummins

I don't think you're one of the worst examples. You are simply adapted to the environment in which you find yourself. This doesn't make you worst or better. You just are.

How's that? If I activate a blast furnace used in old smithing, or take an old volcano, if it becomes hot enough it will eventually become freezing? Or if I place a frozen pizza into a subzero freezer it should eventually burst into flames? — Outlander

The point that you didn't get is that what I say is that the consequence of both extremes is, in conclusion, the same result - in the case of extreme fire, compared to extreme cold, the sensation would be the same, because in at some point, fire and/or cold hit the other side of the spectrum -. In the case of "topias", the "best" world, if somewho achieved in the Universe - as it is impossible to turn something metaphysical into real - this world, would not be any better or worst than the dystopian one, because when you get to it, you hit the other extreme - and vice-versa -.

I find it hard to imagine what is going to happen exactly because life is becoming unpredictable. A year ago we would not have imagined that life would have been turned upside down as it has been. But while it is hard to predict, I think that it is about the most important topic for philosophy but perhaps many just flee from the intensity. — Jack Cummins

The act of you already realizing that the future of society is unpredictable is already a clear symptom of the decadence that afflicts our civilization.

Like it or not, this current "globalization" is not sustainable for long periods of time. Homogeneity, on the other hand, is - it is not by chance that we had a 1000 years of a homogeneous and culturally similar Europe and Middle East during the Middle Ages -.

Again I will quote Rome:

- The old period called "Pax Romana" - Roman Peace - from 44 BC to 180 AD - - was a period of economic, social, cultural and moral prosperity within the already established society of Rome. Since you can currently travel from the USA to Russia moderately easy, the Britons could travel from their homeland - Britannia - to Egypt with such ease as well. The current global economic structure is a reflection of the "global" economy of antiquity - where the economies of the Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Han China andAksumite Ethiopia, were dependent on each other in a clear example of an economic organism -. It just takes that this peace lasts for a long period of time for humanity to stagnate. And after stagnation, what comes is decay.

It just takes that a group of events of gigantic scales decide to happen in the same space of 50 years for any society to collapse - a political, economic, and biological crisis was enough to bring Rome to its knees - where the Roman civilization would only rise again thanks to the drastic reforms by Diocletian - where the period named "Dominate" begins, a time of despotism and autocracy that would last throughout the following, Middle Ages - which completely changed the life of the Roman citizen - therefore, what guarantees that our civilization will be more resistant than that of Rome?

Where in Rome, the citizen became the serf, the warrior became the soldier, and the "Princeps Civitatis" - First Citizen - became the "Imperator" - Emperor -, in the west the citizen will become the proletariat, the soldier will be the revolutionary, and the President, the Dictator...

Is that what you mean? — Jack Cummins

No.

What I say is that, the "original ideas" in their essence were not conceived by the human psyche, but were instinctive reflections of the animalistic side that we still have.

For example, the idea of creating energy by means of the use of fire, or better saying, of producing energy by means of cooking food - when human beings learned to "cook" or create more energy to be consumed - was not something idealized, or programmed by the inquiries of the human individual, but by the simple instinct and its irrational impulsivity.

All reflections conceived by the contemporary human logical-rational mind - from 10,000 BC to the present day - were no longer original, as they were based on irrational "ideas" from our ancestors.

"Jersey Flight can be considered as a contemporary, liberal version of Nietzsche."
@JerseyFlight

I'm pretty sure that "Rafaella Leon" was just a pseudonym to the current banned user "Paulo Kogos" - the anarcho-capitalist guy - who is a extreme right-winged "philosopher" here in Brazil. He's a fervent supporter of Olavo de Carvalho and he normally quotes and practically plagiarize his writtings.

I am wondering if there are any new ideas which have not been advocated by thinkers already. This is based on my reflection on the way in which I have discovered that any idea which I have, if I do some basic research, seems to have been explored. — Jack Cummins

The original "ideas" were not even ideas, but instincts, or irrational impulses. Everything that had been thought of by mankind was no longer original.

The people alive in MMXXI perhaps experience some of the same disquiet, unease, confusion, and anxiety people did in CDL Rome. "Things are falling apart; the center is not holding." The best seem to lack passionate conviction, and the worst have Twitter accounts which they use with a vengeance. — Bitter Crank

I would still affirm that the masses have no idea that their routine lives are about to collapse. Do not underestimate the people, they are much more ignorant than they seem.

Rome collapsed, and I doubt that the mundane plebe was aware of the fact. And even if they were, it did not change much on their lifes - as the reforms of Diocletian in 285 AD had already practically established serfdom and what we now call as "Feudalism" in the Roman Empire more than 200 years before its fall -.

Poor girl. No one was educated enough to warn her that criticizing communism and all its variations on this forum is the equivalent of the killing of Jesus. Well then, I'll do it:

"Don't criticize left-wing ideologies. The forum's" inteligentia" doesn't like it when their egos are diminished."

can we imagine a place without time? — TiredThinker

The simplest answer would be God. He simply Is.

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset? — DingoJones

It will probably be a gradual degeneration of culture and technology. I don't believe it will be a complete and revolutionary collapse - as was the Bronze Age Collapse -.

However, what lasts longer, has much more time to make suffer...

What you are saying is very important. I am glad that you have placed it here because at least it cannot be ignored. I have been trying to engage in discussion about the present state of of the world during the last week but I don't think many people are interested. So, I hope that a lot of people read and take on board what you are saying. — Jack Cummins

People, when given freedom, tend not to discuss what bothers them. Currently, not even the possibility of discussing what bothers them is being respected. Perhaps for this and other reasons - such as ignorance, deliberately hiding facts, etc ... - these discussions are decreasing more and more.

In question to Rome compared to the current West. I believe that the collapse will not be single, but double - thanks to the now "double west" - the Americas and Europe - -.

The most likely scenario to the collapse is one where Western Europe collapses and the United States fragment. Two Romes in this case, double the fall, twice as much chaos, twice as dark.

You know that many historians have stopped using the term "dark age" because it just wasn't that dark. Certainly, the empire was over; the benefits of empire began to disappear, but resilient people were busy with their lives, and were (advertently and accidentally) developing new culture. True, the Roman establishment in Britain decamped, but that doesn't mean that the newly arrived Angles and Saxons were in a depressed funk about it. — Bitter Crank

There is no denying that the period between 476 AD - fall of Rome - until the year 1000 AD were centuries of technological and cultural regression. Just the fact that we consider that during the 15th century we had a "renaissance" already disproves this hypothesis that the period was not obscure. The point that I defend is that from 476 to 1000, the term "Dark Ages" is fair and valid because it was the period when everyone - no one excluded - tried to imitate the glory and light of ancient Rome. After the year 1000, it is much more visible that Europe had already developed a culture capable of overcoming the resentment that had overtaken the society in question to Rome, and it is not by chance that it is only after the year 1000 AD that we have a new noticeable technological progress and moral advancement of Christian Europe.

To compare the Frankish society - for example - that invaded and conquered Roman Gaul, with the Roman society that previously existed there, is to belittle and diminish the advances and achievements of the Romans.

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times? — DingoJones

Honestly, Roman civilization is a reflection of ours in everything but technology. What, during the fall of Rome, was used as a justification, means and end - Christianity - in our time, will be ideologies in its place- most likely what we now call Communism and Capitalism (?) - I am in doubt about the second term - -. Symbology and subjective absolutism will be the rule of this new Dark Age intelect, just as it was during the 6th to 9th centuries - ex: The Germanic kings who conquered Western Europe, were blatantly hypocritical in the fact that they called themselves Christians and virtuous but they were anything but Christian and virtuous, but to maintain their power bases, they had to symbolically represent what they weren't -.

I do not believe that we will have monarchies again, but dictatorial regimes transvested as republics. This, I can say with certainty - as in a letter between Pepin I - Charlemagne's father - and the Byzantine Emperor, where they discussed the lands of the pontifical state, the Roman State was still called as the "Holy, Divine, Blessed by God and Jesus Christ, Republic of the Romans" - this already at the height of the Dark Ages - 8th century - -.

If a scenario you want to imagine, imagine the largest and most "civilized" cities in the western world today, but completely overwhelmed by the rot of nihilism. Garbage tossed all over the place, hypocritical graffiti on each wall, rubble of ruined structures, an illiterate population who, being ignorant, will live in this environment as if it were the best in the world. A population, which had created new languages ​​thanks to its ignorance of language norms; who talked through slangs - as the romance languages ​​were born from vulgar Latin -.

I'm just not sure yet if we are living on the edge of this scenario, or if we still live during the degeneration of Rome. The plague has already occurred, but not yet the war. Only time will tell.

But one thing is certain:

"Those who are being lynched today, will be worshiped as saints in this future society."

If this is a sign of the times, then are we experiencing a flare up of tribalism, a tribalism growth spurt of some kind? — DingoJones

This is not only a human tendency, but something that a few people - most of the time, the intellectual minority - consciously decide to adopt as a tactic of power. This extremism, polarity, division, etc ... in today's society - more precisely, in the West - has happened in history at least once in the past - that we have records of -.

During the third and fourth centuries AD in the Roman civilization, it was noticeable the slow death of neutrality and intellectual freedom of individuals due to the cultural and moral decay that had been afflicting society. The most renowned philosophical groups in Greece - such as the Stoics, for example - began to fragment more and more thanks to the no longer homogeneous metaphysics they were discussing. Ha, even Plotinus, one of the most prestigious thinkers of the age, said - through the records of one of his disciples, Porphyry -:

"Philosophers, intellectuals, and Romans, are only those who look to the future like us"

This return to the most basic and rustic values ​​and principles is only the result of the development of centuries of prosperity and wealth - again, in the West -.

What some would call "apocalyptic thoughts", I see only as the wisdom of the studying of history. We are already headed for a new Dark Ages, it is only a matter of time before our Rome falls.

As Nietzsche already said in the 1800s:

"The question is no longer how to get out of the abyss, but if you want to fall into it, in hopelessness, or dancing."

Why was I excluded of the decision of giving me existence?

I think that you are going to feel bombarded by all the responses you have, and all the startling, offbeat ones. — Jack Cummins

In no way. The only answers I give my attention to are those that really seek (1) or answer my questions differently, or (2) deepen my questions, or (3) refute my question. And until now, the good answers are overshadowing the bad ones.

I had noticed that you had not posted on this site for a long while, and had thought that you had become completely fed up with this site. — Jack Cummins

I am like this in this forum: - I come and go like dead leaves in the wind. There are hiatuses like death and moments of great participation like life.

I probably won't have the same presence I had before for now, as I'm focused on other projects - aka, my second book -

You care about yourself, right? Wish to survive, live, and thrive? Others wish to do the same. Tell me, exactly how much land, resources, and people do you think you could protect on your own? How much can the larger group protect? So, by protecting the larger group and being selfless, you protect yourself and your own freedom to be selfish. Ironic, I suppose. — Outlander

The fact that you seem to deny is that the group is only conceived if the individual's will decides to grant it conceptual life. Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual.

but I am wondering how do you define the ego? — Jack Cummins

Natural egoism arises together with the conception of the Being to existence, that is, the ego is part of what makes us beings of the form, way, way of being, and all perception, meaning, and existence, is felt through our free conscience towards the use of our own egoism.

Does this mean that we are all already destined to do acts only for the sake of self-interest? Yes, however, how each individual will project his nature into existence, its a unique choice of each Being.

Egoism is not a projection of our ideas, concepts, subjections, prepositions, languages, and not even of our consciousness of Being, but rather all of this arises from egoism that comes into existence with existence itself.

when you were conveived, you were your mother. — Echarmion

Yet, even another proof that I was an individual even though it was no the Self I call as I.

This implies that humans start as individuals and then "come together in groups". But that is not what historically happens. Humans always already start out as part of a group, and the rare exceptions where this isn't the case will not have "normal" cognition. — Echarmion

I don't know you, but when I was conceived, I was only me, not a group of any kind.

Where do the italicized quotations come from — Nils Loc

My egoism.

Do you have anything specific you can point to here? — Echarmion

band-level societies — Echarmion

The "group" exists only to benefit the individual and its goals. For what reason do you believe that irrational animals - and rational, as in the case of humanity - come together in groups? This "alliance" - commonly referred by us, as community, civilization, etc ... - is simply a consequence of the perception that individuals seek self-realization. Obviously if some people with the same purpose meet, they would probably create some kind of relationship, as this will make it easier for them to reach their individual goals. The fact is, the group only comes to exist - as in the form of the concept - if, and only if, the individual wants it to exist.

While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality. — Echarmion

"Individual" is not synonymous with "Individuality". It is easy to confuse the metaphysical perceptions of "One in existence" and "Being one in existence"

From a historical perspective, it seems clear that individuation requires contact with other humans, and there has never been a time in human history where humans did not live in some kind of community. In this sense, "communism" is humanities ancestral form, and individualism is a recent invention. — Echarmion

It is very likely that your perception of what a perfect world would be is seriously affecting your perception of reality. Human nature was never "group mentality" "but "egoistic". Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community...

It says nothing.

I can affirm - from experience - that the worst way to spend your days is as a prisoner of the past. Memories, regrets, victories and defeats. Martin Heidegger was right in stating that we - humanity - are Beings only and exclusively in Time. It is an intriguing relationship, where all your evil and its purgatory can only be perceived thanks to life's inexplicable gift of - you - being able to perceive existence.

"The best days of your life, will be those where you won't even notice that you exist" - My Own, motivated by my ego.

we can all take part in drawing up issues for debate rather than leave it all in the hands of those in authority. — Jack Cummins

Philosophy is corrupted when it spends a lot of time in the hands of the self-proclaimed "sages" and it eventually passes from philosophy to biased opinion within a few generations. It is good that amateurs philosophers continue to emerge and continue to make their views public whether they are controversial or not. At least with this, we can delay the future dogmatic hegemonic way of thinking that will arise - in the west at least -.

So, if I love my child throughout his life regardless of the ups and downs we might experience — Hanover

The point that you consider in your argument "ups and downs" in relation to your relationship with your hypothetical child already proves my view that unconditional love does not exist, because if it were absolute, you would not even consider the existence of such periods.

You said unconditional love didn't exist, so you did in fact tell me that within your personal life you have never experienced unconditional love. — Hanover

This is not philosophy but opiniative speculation based on your view that unconditional love exists, even though you have no proof that such an emotion may exist.

Its not that they don't understand, they don't care. — Philosophim

My point with this discussion was to prove that even if you construct a rational argument against the "argument of faith" people will not care, because the "loop" of "faith because of god, because of faith" is an answer to its own question. It's dogmatic, and with everything dogmatic, the best is to avoid.

Faith is not an valid argument.

Pppplike the comment that we are just children playing with toys. — Jack Cummins

I corrected the last phrase. Thank You.

These are great examples of how great Humanity actually is. Once we unite into doing something, it is a glory to witness. — Yozhura

In a way, it was just a group of humanity that came together to build them - the Egyptians -. However, really, when humanity comes together - by the individual will of each being - it is an engine impossible of being stopped.

Ancient civilization had very basic computers and a lot of high end technology for their times. I wonder where all that knowledge got lost over time. Maybe something happened in the past, which is not recorded in our history books. — Yozhura

I call it the "civilizatory cycle". Civilization is born, grows, develops, thrives, reaches its apex, stagnates, decays, and ultimately collapses. We have had three cycles of this in written history. The Bronze Age Collapse - 1300 BC to 1150 BC -, the Collapse of the Roman Empire - 285 AD to 476 AD - and the Collapse of Modern Society - 1914 AD to the present - it still has to reach its lowest point - -.

We are just childs playing with toys. Eventually we get tired of them.

Were they made by slaves, or did the nation come together to build them. — Yozhura

We tend to underestimate the people of the past, but you have to take into account that Ancient Egypt was, for most of its existence, the most advanced and sophisticated civilization in the ancient world. They had architects, scribes, tutors, soldiers, carpenters, masons, etc..., with an highly urbanized society around the Nile and established borders.

The construction of the pyramids was probably made by a joint effort between slave and employed labor, together with the theoretical effort of the architects responsible for their constructions. Another thing that must be taken into account is that not completing a God-on-Earth - the pharaoh - given mission was considered capital sin and punishable with death, so they also had that little bit of extra motivation to give their best.