Airdrop program
Get from 15 SOL free and 10 SOL per referral
Get free SOL
Sola
beta
God.
1年
Photo #1 from Valhalla, United States of America by God. made on 2018-02-05 05:23 for Sola

Do you think equality and freedom are intrinsically good?

Photo #2 from Valhalla, United States of America by God. made on 2018-02-05 05:23 for Sola

Can one exist without the other?

Photo #3 from Valhalla, United States of America by God. made on 2018-02-05 05:23 for Sola

Can the extreme forms of both be practiced at the same time?

Photo #4 from Valhalla, United States of America by God. made on 2018-02-05 05:23 for Sola

If not, is one preferable to practice at the extreme?

Photo #5 from Valhalla, United States of America by God. made on 2018-02-05 05:23 for Sola

would that make these values inversely proportional and better expressed as approximations rather than extremes?

44450votes
48.9SOL earned
投票
シェア
投票
シェア
172
3968
44450
United States of America, Valhalla
169 コメント
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Extreme equality is forced equality without considering any differences in abilities, which is why its usually not good.
18
God.投稿者
What about extreme freedom?
3
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Extreme freedom is anarchy, it’s only freedom for the strongest.
8
José Zueco...™
There will never be equality as long as there are people who think there are people who are lesser than themselves, ain't it Goat..? But it's your defence against something of your own🤣🤣🤣
16
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Time for your meds
1
José Zueco...™
Cis white Goat, an equal dose..? 🤣🤣🤣
12
José Zueco...™
Cis white Goat, or shall I try introvertnous🤣🤣🤣
1
Opie ♻️
José Zueco...™, I think you mean extrovenous
1
José Zueco...™
Opie ♻️, also yeah...
1
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
Extreme equality? The way you define it prove only that you don't think equality could exist... Equality isn't based on abilities. If it's, that's not equality. On the contrary, equality is normally made to compensate for differences in abilities.
6
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, it's like women quota or diversity quota for organizations, its forces equality and I think its inherently a bad thing, even discriminating. It should simply be about competences, who is best suited for the job, nothing else.
1
Opie ♻️
Cis white Goat, competence isn't everything. Particularly when you are working with other people. But it's also a subjective thing. Even a supposedly objective test, like IQ, is full of inconsistencies and biases. So you can never get a pure measure of competence. Better to look for a range of qualities, and some sort of balance.
2
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Opie ♻️, range of qualities is perfect. Which has nothing to do with race or gender.
1
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
Cis white Goat Quotas exists in USA, not in France. I can't understand what is forcing equality. Equality is a question of laws and rights, it's guaranteed by our constitution. If you have abilities related to your education, it only reflects the chance you had to pursue an education with your parents' money.
1
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, I suggest improving equality in education chances, not quotas anywhere.
1
Opie ♻️
Cis white Goat, well, we don't know what race is, and gender seems to be approaching a similar nonexistence. It's so stupid. Today the UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, got slammed for referring to Asian grooming gangs. Grooming gangs are despicable whatever their ethnicity. Jimmy Saville for example. But the complaint is that ethnically or racially asian Home Secretary, should know better. So, some people are post-racial, but others don't have a fuckin' clue.
1
flack
Opie ♻️, the issue with the Asian grooming gangs is that they were not investigated for a very long time because the police were scared of accusations of racism. If race doesn’t exist, then why do we need enforced diversity?
1
José Zueco...™
flack, race is for the mentally insecure people who wants to point out, "That's not me"...
1
flack
José Zueco...™, it’s a word that has been used to draw lines, that’s for sure.
2
José Zueco...™
flack, "look at my skin, I would not steel"...
1
flack
José Zueco...™, I don’t think that justification would work these days. I think anything like that is an appeal to racial unity, which is something that is not only limited to white people. People sticking together to the detriment of the truth is always a bad thing.
1
flack
flack, and that is something I see with many different sorts of division. Political racial regional even sports teams.
José Zueco...™
flack, it's indeed not limited to white people...
Opie ♻️
flack, if race doesn't exist, what is diversity about? It does seem that some people do get caught up in some very superficial definitions of each, and end up talking out both sides of their mouths. Oh, and out their arses as well.
flack
Opie ♻️, yeah. I could say the same. Since you say that race doesn’t exist, but seem to support racial and gender quotas in the workplace. If it doesn’t exist, then why do we have to specify how many of non existent groups are employed in any given workplace?
Opie ♻️
flack, ah, here it is.
Opie ♻️
flack, I'm not a subscriber to quotas as they are generally described. I was around when affirmative action started up, and felt at the time it was another congressional hatchet job on the idea of redressing historic imbalances. Another fucked up compromise on the part of people with a vested interest in doing as little as possible. But aside from that are the questions of what historical imbalances consist of, and how they reinforce ideas of race. There's also a really stupid thing about racism in that the individual targets of racist attacks are often not members of the class being attacked. During the Arab Oil embargo in '73, I knew native americans, spanish people, and other non-arabs who were physically attacked by hooligans looking for Iranians. This says that racism is the mindset of the racist, not the ethnicity of the victim. But victims there were. Upshot being that AFAIAC, the wider question of recourse/redressing should really focus on disabling racist behaviour. Lock 'em up, boot em out. Mandatory castration. No driving license, no voting rights. For Trump Sr., and for street-level hooligans. Make racists pay, and pay, and pay, rather than construct a complicated system that borrows from racist ways of thinking. As if that's ever gonna happen in the US of A, where the notion of quotas took root, and seem to have been imported by equally blinkered people here and elsewhere, and where structural racism is as invisible as the existence of social class. That said, I'm all for disrupting hegemonic culture by whatever means. And if having arbitrary quotas is disruptive, then I'm okay with it. The way to trip up the Kavanaughs and the Trumps is to have Keith Richards get in their face with a gun, or have someone like Ellen Pao walk in and shake it up. Or whatever.
flack
Opie ♻️, this is my other issue with quotas, they actually reinforce racist ideas, that certain groups need help and they allow people to quietly nod and say quotas, eh? To each other. I think America’s problems are different to a lot of other places. But I don’t subscribe to the idea of historical reparations. Where does it end? Do the descendants of the celts deserve reparations from the descendants of the Romans?
Opie ♻️
flack, flack, if today's Celts can find some Romans who are keeping them down, sure. But I'm not referring to reparations. I didn't use the term, and that was deliberate. Reparations are what Japanese-Americans were entitled to after being imprisoned during WW2. Righting historical wrongs like structural racism is a different matter.
flack
Opie ♻️, you did mention historical imbalances, which didn’t really sound like what you said above. Structural racism is something i feel I don’t see the same way as you. There are no racisms in the structure. No laws that specify race, no business policies that specify race. But there are individual racists, and groups of racists. It’s not ok to penalise or disadvantage a group for the crimes of some of it members. I think the energy is best spent on removing people who show racism.
Nina One
flack, research has shown very clearly that structural racism exists. Access to housing, health care, employment, and the justice system are very much affected. I could refer you to hundreds of articles. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/27/racism-british-society-minority-ethnic-people-dying-excessive-force
Opie ♻️
flack, okay, I'll go with your point for the time being. Let's say that structures cannot be racist, political, et cetera. What that means is that individuals, or groups of individuals (because there's no such thing as society?), systematically abuse structure to pursue racist aims, with impunity. Let's use Ryanair as an example. I say they are a racist business because they allowed one customer to harass another. That airline is not a neutral bystander. It has legal authority and responsibility to customers, and to the wider public. That's where the concept of duty comes from, along with the concept of dereliction of duty. Ryanair have a duty to protect customers from one another. They failed. They are either negligent or complicit. We can rule out negligence because a Ryanair staff moved the victim, instead of having the abuser arrested. The abuser goes unpunished, and the airline condones it. Doesn't matter if it's condoned explicitly or implicitly: the airhost has legal responsibilities to protect passengers; leaving the harasser in place exposes all other passengers to higher risk. The structure of this airline, and of the business, perpetuates racist abuse. So while the structure itself cannot be racist, the way it is used by those who control it can be racist, in one of the broader meanings of the word. How we get from there to the concept of structural racism is not a big step, but it is wrapped up the sloppiness of public discourse, where a word like race , with a nominally clear definition, is used in all sorts of ways to mean other, related things. For example, Jews are not a race, but antipathy toward Jews is described as racism. There's a discursive sloppiness in that. So if we are complaining about other people's inept misuse of words and concepts, that's different to the abuse of one person by another and is also different to the extent to which that abuse is condoned through organisational structures.
Tadas
Go home God, you're drunk.
10
God.投稿者
As per usual
10
Opie ♻️
Nothing is intrinsically good. Not even goodness. Not even God, or godness. OK? You must have posted this question as a distraction. From what? What's going on over there?
11
God.投稿者
Calm down friendo
3
Opie ♻️
my fevered brow wants a cool hand
CCMD Trapper
Depends on what you mean by equality.
DELETED USER
On a long enough timeline, the two will inevitably run counter to each other.
Flesh is overrated
Is this question for me?
1
God.投稿者
Its for everyone
Flesh is overrated
God., Good, cos I have no idea!
1
B. 🐟
Equal to me
thelevel
'Equality of property' is supported by the idea that it's ok to violate others property rights to make it equal. There's plenty of people who believe this so it's a thing. Freedom, which in this case may mean freedom from tyranny, is basically where we all respect each others property rights.
God.投稿者
There are plenty of people that believe the earth is flat
Philo 0316
When everyone's property rights are respected with no regards to equality, those with little property end up with little freedom, and those with more property end up with more freedom. Isn't that exactly the Tyranny you fear?
22
Opie ♻️
are you sure that's nothing to do with you?
thelevel
God. 🎃, people who believe good comes from chasing vague greater good goals are the problem.
thelevel
Philo 0316, huh? How is there tyranny if everyone's property is respected? That doesn't make sense
Philo 0316
thelevel, some people don't have nearly as much property, and must obey those who control more if they want to live.
5
thelevel
Philo 0316, they must beg or trade to acquire more. Where is the tyranny in the situation? Using a person's disadvantages as a reason to steal from another person via government is where the evil is. It might feel like charity, but it's not when its stolen
Nina One
thelevel, you want people to beg??
10
Philo 0316
thelevel, the disadvantage itself and the system that creates and perpetuates it seems to be the evil to me. Why do we want to put people in such situation?
thelevel
Nina One, no, I said the choice is beg or build. That's reality. I'd actually want them to build up. Use their skills, learn new skills, etc.
thelevel
Philo 0316, it's the reality of your survival as a human. Using government as a proxy to steal and give away others property is a real evil. To help the poor, give charity.
Nina One
thelevel, charity is insufficient. The world you prefer is pretty much Dickensian. People begging to survive, and trying to stay out of the workhouse, where they were treated like criminals. Children dying of starvation and exposure. Charities saving a few of “the deserving poor,” leaving the rest to rot. That’s the logical outcome of what you describe.
10
Opie ♻️
thelevel, what charity do you give?
Nina One
Opie ♻️, to me it doesn’t matter if he gives to charity or not. That’s the excuse all the libertarians make for their selfish ideology; that they’re oh so generous when it comes to charity. I say it’s beside the point.
10
Philo 0316
thelevel, why is property the supreme good? Property should only be an as a means to an end. If stealing is good for people, then stealing must be done, and it is right to do so. Perhaps we can at least agree refusing to give to charity is evil?
thelevel
Opie ♻️, I'm a Christian, which is why I give charity. I've honestly turned away quite a lot of people who asked me, but have helped others.
thelevel
Philo 0316, property isnt good or bad on it's own. No personal property, or somehow trying to ban it would be quite bad though. You'd have to carry out evil acts regularly to enforce it and upkeep it. And stealing is always an act if evil. It always involves a property rights violation. And not giving charity seems a bit different. I dont see evil in choosing not to give your property to anyone who asks. But given my religion, I should likely give more and not turn as many people away.
Philo 0316
thelevel, you're right that abolishing private property would likely require violence, but so does upholding it. Property necessitates violence. You need to realize that there are things more important than property rights, like people's lives.
thelevel
Philo 0316, I do realize that. The concept of personal property starts with your body. So I see peoples lives are their own. Upkeeping this just requires respect from everyone. Abolishing property rights totally would require the worst acts of evil imaginable
Philo 0316
thelevel, forcing people to be homeless because someone who doesn't use it owns a house seems like a much worse evil than a homeless person seeking shelter in an unused home. Do you disagree?
6
thelevel
Philo 0316, who is forcing a person to be homeless? The last person I worked with a few months ago, did so by choice. He was given charity and got back on his feet. The rich families on the hill to the south had nothing to do with it either way. If respect is upkept, then we dont entitle ourselves to others property. If you want to help the poor, use your own resources.
Philo 0316
thelevel, why aren't homeless people going in empty houses to sleep there, if not violence of the police? If there is respect, the concept of private property wouldn't exist at all. Those who have more than they need would simply give away what they don't need for those who need them. But this is relatively rare, unfortunately. And I do help the poor with the money I get from my employer, but that's not nearly enough to help most people, and comes at much greater personal cost than it would come from those with substantially more property. Property rights impedes individual freedom.
thelevel
Philo 0316, respect always involves property though. You can't have a concept for respect, it wouldn't exist, unless there is such a thing as property. Plop a guy named John down on Mars and the concepts exist. He owns his body, as his property. The clothes on his back. His space home is paid off now, and he owns it too. If a guy named Bob climbs in the window and starts living in the space home, he is disrespecting John.
Philo 0316
thelevel, we don't need to rely on property to have respect, and we don't need to define property in such a way that includes bodies and lives of people as property. We should not consider people to be property. For example, we can define respect as something like wanting good things for others. This aligns well with the colloquial definition of respect. Let's have that same Martian example. John cultivates the planet, so that it is more hospitable to life. Now Bob arrives. John shows respect for Bob, and shares Mars, as John can't possibly use all of Mars without others. Bob respects John through gratitude and helping John with what he needs or wants.
5
thelevel
Philo 0316, wanting good for others is not the meaning if respect. Equivocation eats the integrity of this thining
Philo 0316
thelevel, how are you defining respect, and why is that valuable?
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, why should we not consider people to be property?
Opie ♻️
JDaniel Richer, on the other hand, why should we? There is no inherent relationship between self and property, and there are other equally possible relationships. So there's no mandate for presuming that link.
2
Philo 0316
JDaniel Richer, because only people can make value. Property can create value only indirectly, by being used by people. An empty mansion in a remote island has no value until it is used, but a stranded person in a remote island has value.
thelevel
Philo 0316, respect is misunderstood and it leads to a lot of bad results in our world. I saw a poster in a school last year with a picture of a basketball player, with a big headline "Respect is all about teamwork". So even a school is teaching the wrong meaning of the word. I dont see people standing around the poster and questioning the truth of the nonsense statement. Nobody takes it down. But if a kid takes all of his friends crayons, and is later questioned, he should be able to reference the poster. Respect apparently means teamwork, so he can take anything needed from the team to get the job done. Hah Respect is defined from how I treat my property and others. I can respect others right to their property, rather than not. Rather than acting like people can't own their body and the stuff they have. I can have a boundary where, unless I need to immediately protect property, i dont violate others property rights. That's the only condition. Time, my stuff, etc is property. For example, I can respect another's time by showing up for a meeting when agreed. Its valuable because operating in another way can be toxic. Such as living by the idea that property isnt a concept. In practice, others would call that insane, criminal. Read the crime report and ask if most or all of the criminals seem to respect property as I described it, or if they must have another concept.
thelevel
Opie ♻️, you're born with a body and a necessity for stuff.. food, shelter, etc to be happy
Philo 0316
thelevel, how is that taking all the crayons teamwork? The team had no input in the matter, and the outcome doesn't benefit the team. If there was an aspiring artist without any supplies, and people worked together to provide those supplies for them, that would be teamwork and respect. I'm sorry, but I don't see how respect can be defined solely in terms of property. It's not respectful to use force to keep people away from using your property, when you're not using it yourself. Your definition is too different from how most people mean when they say "respect." Helping others is a much better way to define respect, and it meets your crime report criteria as well. People who harm the well being of others tend to be considered criminals. On top of that, a society in which everyone helps each other is far from toxic. People refusing to help each other in the pursuit of more property can be toxic, though.
5
thelevel
Philo 0316, the crayon scenario is a kid acting on the wrong meaning of respect. And if respect means helping others, it can still lead to harm. What if a woman thinks its helpful to round up a group of people from Turkey and put them in a camp in your city? Or Japanese people. What if 98% of people who take a poll, say that is helping people?
Nina One
Philo 0316, a society where everyone is out for the main chance and cares only about their own advantage is indeed a toxic society, full of cheaters, polluters, abusers and exploiters. Anything for a dollar. The harm done by prioritizing property goes on and on. And it’s killing the planet.
thelevel
Nina One, most people are good, and we all organize our life around achieving max happiness. Not respecting property leads to the world you just painted.
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, I see my consciousness (my brain) as me and my body as merely a vehicle. This is why I say I am property. This is why I view other people as property or owners of their own property. Ofc there is a bit of a debate over exactly what consciousness is but nonetheless I think we can both learn from each other here.
Philo 0316
thelevel, your crayon example is closer to autocracy than democracy. One person is acting on their own accord without consideration for others. And this, I think we can all agree, is disrespectful to others. Of course, any system can go wrong. A system built around helping others and supporting each other can go wrong. But I don't see that as a reason to support a system that rewards selfishness, which is what property rights ultimately come down to. People have done terrible things in pursuit of profit, and continue to do so today. You ask what if 98% of people agree on something bad? What if 1% of people agree what's best for them without any consideration for the other 99%?
Philo 0316
JDaniel Richer, that's an understandable perspective. Then I imagine you consider consciousness to be separate from property?
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, I guess. It's hard to answer because it's hard to know exactly what conciousess is. But basically yes.
Opie ♻️
JDaniel Richer, semantic question: is consciousness a property? Of what?
DELETED USER
Opie ♻️, it's more of a concept, but I've also stated that I am also referring to my brain. How I view property is basically "well if I lose my arm, am I still me?". "Well if I lose my house am I still me?" Eventually you get to the point where it's just your brain and your brain is you unless you can somehow manage to separate your consciousness and upload it digitally or something (like in the movie CHAPPIE).Then it's just you and everything else is property including your body.
Opie ♻️
JDaniel Richer, if you lose consciousness are you still you?
Opie ♻️
JDaniel Richer, so, people in a coma? Do they still have (a) consciousness?
Opie ♻️
And, do you think consciousness can be separated from the brain? I gather you think it's not anywhere else.
DELETED USER
Opie ♻️, I think it depends, my mom was completely conscious in her coma and there are many reports of similar stories. I do believe that consciousness can be separated, transferred, or maybe even created.
Opie ♻️
JDaniel Richer, okay. Interesting. Now what about phantom limbs?
DELETED USER
Opie ♻️, I'm not sure what you're asking
thelevel
Opie ♻️, its interesting you bring up consciousness. The concept of property stems from a conscious being's inherent property and ability to acquire personal property. If you look at it... the concepts of a being, property, and respect are all critically important. By logic, theres only one meaning for each. But a mind can operate on the same words, but all with other meanings.
Nina One
thelevel, I agree that most people are good at heart. It’s the system that’s the problem. Your “maximum happiness” is a selfish thing. More for you. Not more for the community, the world, etc. If a mining company increases its profits by destroying the area around the mine, without taking responsibility for the cleanup, they are maximizing their own so-called happiness at the expense of others. When tobacco companies concealed cancer findings, they laughed all the way to the bank. No doubt slavery maximized the happiness of slave owners. So no, maximizing happiness is not a yardstick with which to judge behaviour.
10
thelevel
Nina One, max happiness for me, does not necessarily mean less for anyone else. Like I can maximize my happiness during dinner with beer and pizza. It can be a good experience. Nobody lost anything. Happiness isnt a finite resource that's divided up. For commerce, theres a way that one person can trade money and be perfectly happy with the service they get in return. The merchant can receive the money and trade services, perfectly happy as well.
Nina One
thelevel, yes, such an exchange is fine. But what about people who can’t afford a pizza and a beer? Or enough food generally? What about the people who have to pay far too much because businesses are colluding to raise prices? What’s going to happen when the pig farms that provide the pork for your pepperoni have polluted so heavily that the land in their area can’t recover? Is that okay?
10
Philo 0316
JDaniel Richer, would it be fair to say that consciousnesses are more important than property?
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, yes but consciousness is pointless without property (a body).
Philo 0316
JDaniel Richer, that's only true for body, not property in general. I think we can say body is uniquely different from other forms of property in that sense. Say, body and consciousness are required for existence.
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, ok let me answer again. What do you mean by "more important"? In what situation?
thelevel
JDaniel Richer, being needs an interface (a body)
Guardian🎺
Yes. I’m kind of surprised that you did not make it commandment against slavery
God.投稿者
I also made a commandment against adultery and here we are. I find it better to just let you guys figure it out.
10
Rufus Kohn
Equality and freedom seek naturally for an harmonious tone. False tones like big difference in needs and wants disappear on correct confrontation
10
lafanga
Only thing that binds equality and freedom is context. Without context they are nothing but blobs.
1
DELETED USER
“A society that puts equality — in the sense of equality of outcome — ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” -Milton Friedman
20
Hanover Fiste
I wish I could give more than 10 for that.
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
The opposite is also true. The ones who promote freedom for earning the most and preserve their huge property rights are only defending their first position in society, with so much wealth differences, that equality doesn't mean anything, and freedom is only reserved for the richest.
10
DELETED USER
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, it's one or the other
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
JDaniel Richer You surely know that truth is not only bad or good, black or white. Truth is more complex, and often includes paradoxes... In my opinion, the two versions may be true, depending only from your position in the society... If it was so simple, there won't be any diversity of thinking: everyone would agree on the same things...
DELETED USER
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, you surely know that what I meant was that you can't have freedom AND equality
4
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
JDaniel Richer Oh! Sorry. I missed that... Why?
DELETED USER
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, it's ok. You said it yourself lol
5
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
No, that is what you have understood about freedom, which for you only serves to exploit the work of the poorest people for the sole benefit of those who own the capital. It is your problem to think that equality does not exist, provided of course that you are among the richest who benefit from this capitalist system.
DELETED USER
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓, pretty sure you said it but ok lol
Hanover Fiste
Of course one can exist without the other. In fact they're not even related. But the more you have of one, the less you're likely to have of the other. In a perfectly free world, you will probably have a lot of inequality. When you force equality, you infringe on freedom. Give me liberty or give me death. Charity is voluntary. When there is freedom, love overcomes all. When you remove liberty you plant seeds of discourse. Everyone loses.
Opie ♻️
Hanover Fiste, seeds of discourse? :D That's the germ of an idea I'd like to talk about... Meanwhile there are several other words beginning with d that better suit your apparent aims. Discord first among them, perhaps.
Viqueen
No, I dont think equality and freedom are intrinsically good. With something usually viewed as good, often a certain amout of responsibility follows. So it's only good if you are capable of making ot good.
11
thelevel
Equality, no. It requires a group with force to try to make things equal. And in reality, it can't be up kept and requires evil acts to enforce. Take personal property. As soon as a person creates something new, government or whoever is the equalizer, comes in and robs that guy so they can distribute his stuff out equally. And freedom of what? If its financial freedom, then it generally seems good. It creates interdependence and also causes a person to spend less resources up keeping their survival. For example, a lot of the people who cry about pollution may be commuting daily to a job for 20 years. The goal seems to be employment. If they had a goal for financial freedom, it might be 5 years and then no commute.
José Zueco...™
We can start by thinking everyone is equal, not by thinking that person is lesser than me...
16
flack
Really enjoying seeing some of these cards back again...
God.投稿者
I'm only reviving the thoughtful ones now since that's what I'm going to shift my content twords focusing and I want anyone going to my account to see all that first.
flack
God. 🎃, That’s a really solid idea. Looking forward to pitching in on the discussions!
God.投稿者
flack, sounds good. I really like producing more thoughtful content. Its relaxing.
flack
God. 🎃, I enjoyed the thought experiments a lot. The philosophy too, but lately my mind has turned elsewhere, maybe I’ll get back into it...
God.投稿者
flack, thought experiment and philosophy is where my mind is at 100%. I write to vent those thoughts, these cards are just condensed versions of what I write usually, or a thought I've been lingering on for a few weeks
flack
Around the time this card first dropped I was devouring a lot of mythology and religious texts, dissecting them for meaning and psychological truth, starting to pick at a few directly philosophical works, as well, but lately I have developed the feeling that ultimately they don’t add much value to my life, and the practical issues at hand are where I should be focussing. the overlap between those two spheres of thought is starting to interest me a little now, though...
God.投稿者
flack, Personally I find that focusing on practicality is often boring and monotonous. Sure it's more useful, and in repetition becomes extremely easy, but the philosophical side for me is interesting, so j dedicate my mind to that and my body to the practice side. I dont consume philosophical text much. That's sorta against my philosophy funnily enough.
flack
I can agree with that. I usually end up discarding purpose written philosophy in disgust. I had a copy of thus spake Zarathustra and I chucked it out. It’s all vague gobbledygook designed to be so obscure you can extract almost anything you want from it in my opinion. Other stuff I have found painfully stuffy and pompous. I’m happy for you that life is boring. No really. It’s a good thing. You can use your mind for entertainment. Lately I have been living in far too interesting times...
God.投稿者
flack, I'm a bit too old for much of an interesting life really, but I dont read philosophy for a different reason. I find science and religion are two sides of the same coin. Science I classify as the extroverted side of the coin. The subject itself benefits dramatically from sharing results and experiences. Its objective. Philosophy on the other hand is subjective, and by nature introverted. Sharing results in philosophy attempts to make it an objective subject when in reality philosophy is a personal endeavor. This is what I call distilled philosophy. The notion that philosophy has been weakened over the ages as staple philosophical ideas became the acceptable ones. A subjective topic becoming objective and it suddenly stops being philosophy. I dont see a point in reading up on philosophy if the real point of philosophy is totally subjective and based on my experiences. It breaks philosophy in my opinion.
God.投稿者
flack, sorry if that's a bit repetitive.
flack
God. 🎃, no I get that. It reminds me of the way the Russian mafia organises a group. They have a “father” that deals with external matters, who to rob, etc. And a “mother” that deals with internal matters, discipline and so on. I think there is some use in comparing philosophical/religious matters, mostly for seeing things from a different viewpoint, perhaps to get a clearer look for yourself, but ultimately it becomes fruitless as the language breaks down... is the universe a tree or a circle or a tree wrapped around in a circle, but then, what do you mean by the branches, are they the individual paths of a humans experience? Or are they the branching of each quantum decision. And so on. But even if you can only be a glimpse it can be a worthwhile endeavour.
God.投稿者
flack, certainly for seeing other viewpoints, but I'm more apt to learn different viewpoints in person by talking to folks than listening to some condensed audiobook of their views. More flexable and diverse in person.
flack
God. 🎃, I agree. You can get clarifications... and these things are so much better when mutual. It’s as if the transfer itself is a creative process, or at least illuminating.
God.投稿者
flack, being a fan of thought experiment that lightbulb moment where someone realizes something they never thought of before is something I love to see too.
flack
投稿者により削除
Danaos
There is no such a thing as equality anywhere in nature. Only balance. Equality brings distabilization and hate.
José Zueco...™
For balance you need an equal on both sides...
Nina One
I think the word we want here is equity, not equality. Everyone deserves an equal chance in life.
Opie ♻️
Freedom is a happy meal the way I like it?
Nina One
Was that aimed at me?
Opie ♻️
Nina One, no. Possibly the swipe function misbehaving again.
1
Opie ♻️
. Damned swipe function
Meth Wyde
Meh.. You don't even exist, righ?
Mehrdad.dd
read me and back
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
Libertarian is the extreme freedom of capitalism, for exploiting the others...
3
Nina One
Exactly.
10
Mahdiye
モデレーターにより削除されました
Oxalate
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.–Aristotle
Opie ♻️
"Rie Rubin, his former wife, who divorced him this year, said in a civil suit that he engaged in “ownership relationships” with several other women while they were married. In an email he sent to a woman in 2015, that was included in the suit, Rubin wrote: “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Nothing amiss there, then...
↪👑محمد صالح👑↩
モデレーターにより削除されました
Amos
Yes .equality is good for everyone who is created by God
shazia khan
am new hear please help
2
🍼🏍🔥Garsbriel❓
Pro Creator
Help you about what?
Nahid
カード投稿者により削除されました
Shakil khan
カード投稿者により削除されました
Md Sohel Islam
カード投稿者により削除されました
Write something...
送信
Earn SOL - a cryptocurrency used in Sola (ERC20 standard token). Solaは、iOSAndroidwebブラウザで稼働するアプリケーションで、メディアとコミュニティのミックスです。 Solaは、気軽にフレンドリーでリラックスして新しい人やエキサイティングなコンテンツを見つけることができます。