How war makes the world a better place when soldiers who like killing people for fun kill other soldiers who like killing people for fun by reducing the number of people who like killing people for fun
@mobilizon Why would I want to associate with an unethical entity (nations) that are ultimately built on violence or the threat of violence? No one sane should have anything to do with nations.
@amerika @sj_zero anything related to reality.
A great starting point for breaking out of the collectivist strait jacket is Max Stirners classic the ego and his own.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
Another classic is Epicurus Vatican sayings, as well as the science of positive psychology.
https://archive.org/details/lettersprincipal00geer
Enjoy!
@amerika @sj_zero Lonely boring selves is actually a symptom of anti-individualism, it is people who are empty shells needing to be filled from without. This is caused by an overdose of collectivism.
Individualism is actually the antidote and yields wonderful, meaningful lives.
As for the transcendental, in the words ordinary meaning, this is beyond the empirical domain, and better treated as psychological comfort blankets, but must not, at all cost, be misunderstood as
@kibcol1049 Typical socialists... they only know how to argue from a basis of fear. The cliiiiimate, AI, rich people, jobs disappearing... never has a socialist been able to argue constructively. It is always about spreading hate, polarization and fear.
The cult of woke is less easily beaten. But the case of the Cambridge professor Jason Arday is surely “the apotheosis of this moral and intellectual rot” – proof that our academic establishment and the wokeness it underpins is “as big a farce and as massive a fraud as Trump is”. Even a cursory read of Arday’s work shows it to be “incomprehensible”, the sort of thing a floundering high school student might turn in, yet he was lionised by his boss as “the best in the world”.
Money, Power, and Civilization: East vs West Explained Through Proverbs .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfTDgCItgK8
Maybe the government of china are cheering to early? Plenty of time to destroy what they have built through increasing government control and authoritarianism.
@Bernard This is the truth!
@Bernard Sad but true, unless you go to a posh school or somewhere in the remote country side that is not destroyed. If you go to Malmö, it is already part of arabia.
Take anatomy for an example
They make maps of the body and assign names to those regions of the map. Anatomists often debate then decide by consensus where the borders for naming things should be. For examp!e a blood vessel can change names by consensus without merging or branching with another blood vessel simply by crossing a border
If you want to know how muscles move something then that is biomechanics which is physics or biochemistry which is chemistry
@amerika @sj_zero unhappiness, and that is just a fact of nature.
Disregarding feeling, in favour of an ideology, religion, ism, and doing what the leader says, despite that it making you unhappy, is extremely unhealthy, and if pursued long enough, will cause severe mental illness, depression, and might ultimately cost you your life.
Not to speak of wasted opportunities.
So a core _strength_ of individualism, is that it focuses on your feelings, and teaches us to
This is an underdetermined scientific hypothesis that is sadly beyond science to prove. Finding the "ultimate" parameter ,individualism or altruism, is not possible, since it seeks to explain all behaviour. We can of course infer, and speculate, but empirical proof is difficult.
When it comes to doing it for "feelings" I disagree, and I argue that it is in fact the most healthy way to look at things. We have feelings of happiness, and
Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism
It does not need to imply freeing people from something.
Egalitarianism is the opposite of classical liberalism or libertarianism, since it ascribes no values to the individual.
But we know our definitions differ, which is why we arrive at different conclusions from the same words.