Dude, that’s the way my mind talks after I’ve been smoking weed. Do you mean something like “observed hours”? The number of observers times the number of hours of observation?

Surely there was at least one group that went out laughing. A hero, indeed.

Even if we cannot eliminate all suffering, we should be striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible.

Much like how we view Utopian ideals. Or the idea of perfection.

You've assigned your own meaning to suffering that many other humans disagree with, while acting as if your opinion is an objective reality/fact. That's a heaping ton of hubris.

Everyone suffers but some suffer unnecessarily while others inflict it on those around them despite having the capacity to reduce or eliminate a lot of said suffering. In my life experience, people that espouse beliefs like yours tend to be extremely privileged or very religious or both. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Here comes some connnteeennnt

I'm with you about the role of religion in all this. In the education that all religions push onto people, especially young malleable minds, I suspect there really are 2 things pushed, namely first that there is a god, and all the contextual folklore that goes with it; and second, and more subtly but also more importantly, what is pushed/forced is a certain mental structure that installs a premise of thinking meant to be felt emotionally, that without that god or any other forms of otherworldly source of meaning, there is no sense/salute/"salvation". In other words, they install the programmed feeling that there is a fundamental lacking in humanity. Once this conditioning is installed, then religion self-perpetuates.

Looking at it this way, it makes sense why religious authorities everywhere are so inclined on getting involved in the local education systems, to the point of taking it over where and when they can.

An extreme manifestement of this mental conditioning sometimes shows itself through questions from theists when they ask and wonder sincerely how it is even possible for atheists to have an inner moral compass or ethical considerations, since they don't believe in god.

A lot of the time, it's not can but rather may.

I think what they're describing as humor is 'discovery,'. It's interesting to read this angle. I am realizing that 'discovery, curiosity, seeking novelty' all relate to the motivation to do anything. Perhaps humor is a yield of discovery.

Without novelty, this universe would be all logic.

This universe appears to be a product of logic and novelty.

[deleted]

I think suffering is sometimes necessary. Too much is bad, too little is bad. There's some optimal amount of suffering that we all need to function properly. That said, we bring unnecessary suffering to ourselves; when we spend too much time in our minds, pondering the depths of things that ultimately don't matter, and listening to people who don't know what they're talking about, philosophers or not.

See The End of Wisdom.

What is the book list to understand life lol Kant or Sartre

I do, that’s why I’m sick of wading through shitty articles on Nietzsche written by 19 year olds. Journal, write, comment, think about Nietzsche all you want, but i don’t know why you think it merits a post. Just participate in forum threads like other normal people.

[deleted]

I think religion plays a large role here. Many people are brought up thinking that the purpose of life is to live in a certain way and worship a certain god, with a goal of going to heaven after death (or something similar.) When they eventually shed that religion, they’re left with the question: what IS the point then?

If I want to learn how to live in a world that makes no fucking sense, I read Albert Camus, not Nietzsche.

Edit: And then I read the first sentence of the essay. Ha!

Sure!

Can i write you on personal message?

Yes, freedom creates the capacity for morality. But it’s reason that binds freedom which actually establishes moral rules. Let me know if you have any topics you have questions about on this and I’ll try to write about them on my substack. Thanks for taking the time to comment and question.

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me. I am trying to comprehend it... before i thought that it was the other way around, freedom is within the moral circle, it has to be. But now i think it is true, we(conscious beings) have freedom and it is thru that freedom that we set the standards for our morality. Did i understand it right?

Apologies, I’m trying to write less abstractly but I’ll continue to work on that.

The thesis of the article is that morality must rely on freedom. Morals can’t exist outside of freedom. Imagine a circle that represents freedom and a smaller circle inside it that represents our moral duties.

This has to be the case. We can’t have moral duties to do the impossible or control our involuntary functions. Therefore morality exists only within the realm of freedom. Additionally, the sense of freedom we experience is undeniable. It’s a strong foundation to rest an ethical theory on, yet it’s too often overlooked.

Additionally, our moral universe only includes free beings. Not objects, unconscious life or ideas. So whether a being is conscious is morally relevant.

Let me know if this helps.

Can we get a seperate sub for these edgy undergrad blog posts on Nietzsche already ?

It is way too difficult for me to understand. Can you please explain to me in layman’s terms and simple examples in real life?

Freedom is a philosophical topic that interests me... because it is what i wish to achieve in life

Try a little x instead

Life is nothing more than a test to see how much you can take.

Schizophrenia obviously does not exist. The unlearned masses may be dazzled by scientific sounding Greek and Latin terms but men of high capacity are not fooled. Many people mistake knowing the name of something for understanding something :

"Psychiatric insiders have openly admitted the lack of science to their area of operations. Allen Frances (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61), for example, has recently stated that the mental disorders given in the DSM are “better understood as no more than currently convenient constructs or heuristics that allow [psychiatrists] to communicate with one another.” This has included the classic constructs of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (formerly manic-depression), of which the mental health researcher Joel Paris at the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, has admitted “[i]n reality, we do not know whether [such] conditions … are true diseases” (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61). Even National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director and strong advocate of biomedical psychiatry, Thomas Insel (cited in Masson 2015: xii), announced on the release of the DSM-5 in 2013 that the categories of mental disorder lacked validity and NIMH would no longer be using such diagnoses for research purposes.Despite the claims to “progress” made by official historians of psychiatry such as Lieberman and Shorter, there is no evidence for the supposed “science” of psychiatry. There is no test for any mental illness, no proof of causation, no evidence of successful “treatment” that relates specifically to an individual disorder, and no accurate prediction of future cases. Thus, the claim that psychiatric constructs are real disease has not been proven. Consequently, it is necessary to utilise the existing evidence to more accurately theorise the real vocation of the psy-professions in capitalist society."

Cohen, B.: "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness" Palgrave- MacMillan

Bruce studied sociology in the north of England in the 1990s, and worked as a post-doctorate researcher at both the Humboldt University in Berlin and the University of South Australia in Adelaide in the early 2000s, before becoming a full-time academic in Sociology at the University of Auckland in 2008. With thirty years social research experience, he has undertaken empirical work on topics such as mental health user meanings of illness, community-based youth music projects, police perceptions of drug users, alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation, migrant labour markets, female perceptions of crime and safety, and the criminalisation of ‘legal highs’. He has published over 40 academic books, articles, and chapters to date.

Sounds like we might be laughing with death then.