Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like “but how’s the soap made, anyway?”.

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I’ve also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don’t think other countries are either. I won’t say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So… no.

Most psychologists […].

And yet for some reason philosophers […] and artists […].

Why are you careful/nuanced with psychologists but dump philosophers and artists in the same bag as if they all do the same?

I see this a lot. The other day, I was watching a science video. Same thing: “some physicists believe…”, “other physicists…”, but “philosophers say…”.

Do you think philosophy and art (disciplines that by their very nature are diverse and creative) create only one type of people? I mean, Karl Popper is a philosopher against Freud, you just said it. You could find many philosophers opposed to Freud, indifferent, critical, in agreement, etc. Artists are the same, very different people among them.

Now, the real question should be why is Freud popular amongst some artists and philosophers and other non-psychologists, especially in certain regions like France and Argentina, or certain traditions like old continental philosophy. And that’s probably the beginning of an answer at the same time: a strong tradition of psychoanalysis within certain circles. Also, a matter of coherence or lack of. For example, if you start reading French existentialism and keep reframing certain aspects of reality, you may find yourself inclined to epistemological paradigms that do not oppose psychoanalytical theories, so you could combine them if you want to. If you start denying materialism in some ways, you may end up denying biological explanations of psychopathological phenomena, so Freud could be a good substitute (or not, depending on the person).

I guess if I were to give a psychological reductionist answer, Freud and similar authors appeal to part of the population that is skeptical of conventional models, the status quo, scientism, hard materialism, etc.

French and Spanish would have been better.

I don’t know, the world is depressing. Recently, details about Palestine have been disheartening…

Communities for underground music and the one for roller skating.

The study of psychopathology in any form, particularly of severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder type I.

I like philosophy, mathematics, and arts more, but that would be my favorite field of science.

Exactly. I often post walls of text, and it is probably because it takes me a lot of words to express ideas in English, but I also feel like I cannot discuss something deeply in whatever number of characters are admitted now on microblogging. Forums and such are great and I love reading long posts and comments. Also, I get lost in who is replying to what on those sites, but here it is literally linear!

I’m in that demographic (born in the 90s), and my friends are definitely apathetic/uninterested in trying new platforms. I am trying to convince them of alternatives 🫡, wish me luck.

I’d like to prevent many tragedies, but I’m not sure a single book would change history. I can actually imagine it going very wrong…

— Mein Führer, this book here explains our theories about the origin of the German population and about the natural maliciousness of Jews are wrong.
— Let me see… Lies, all lies! This here is evidence of their pervasive propaganda against the aryan people.

— Witchfinder General, a book had arrived… from the unknown.
— What kind of sorcery is this? “Witches do not exist”. “…These trials were the result of ignorance and greed”. What in the name of God is this blasphemy? A powerful witch is near and these are her evil tricks!

So I need to think of a better plan, lol.

🤘

That’s hilarious! I guess he was a normal man with normal blunders in his daily life. I’ve heard about his meticulousness, that we had strict rules for his routines and reunions, but never details (and never the cup of coffee thing). Thanks for sharing.

The lack of individuals within a species is not a problem as long as the population is healthy. Horses are not in danger of going extinct. I do not know the numbers then and now, but horses are fine, and the ones alive in countries that would have put them to work in other eras are free of suffering, which is something every sentient being wants to avoid.

I’m glad horses are not being used as much as before; they are not objects, they are animals just like us.

I believe many great human beings have existed throughout history, but the impact they cause is often limited by their circumstances. For example, there have been thinkers defending compassion towards human beings and animals in possibly every culture, but those sages live and die admired yet misunderstood. Their lives are seen as “extraordinary”, and thus, not attainable for normal people like us. We give up on following them since the start, instead of trying to achieve their wisdom or understanding…

Anyway, by mere impact, I guess Socrates, Plato, and Immanuel Kant are on the top for me. The first ones were influential in the development of many branches of knowledge, and solidified a tradition of critical thinking since antiquity. Immanuel Kant is kind of recent, but I’d say his works were really important for discussions around philosophy, science, arts, religion, and more. I admire Immanuel Kant greatly. I was recently reading a little text he wrote about psychiatric disorders and he was predicting modern paradigms in the 18th century. He was such a brilliant and knowledgeable person.

There are also incredible inventions and discoveries that have helped us all, but often those are the results of collective efforts. Still, as I said before, amazing human beings the ones that gave and still give these things for free. Getting personal again, I wouldn’t be alive without many of those advances (vaccines, medications, etc.). On the technological side, the founder of that website that unlocks academic papers has had an impact that is yet to be analyzed.

Sorry! So many people…!

Totally! You explained it really well.

My partner and I are the lookie-loo shoppers. We often cover stores aisle by aisle. It’s entertaining for us for different reasons. We like to see what people are buying, especially things like books, clothes, etc. We like to talk about the products and the things that follow; for example, we start by noticing the variety of flavors in pets food and end up talking about animals, foods, etc. We like to learn about new products, as we are often out of the loop and it’s nice to find new gadgets or kitchen accessories this way. We try new things, like “try me” lotions or whatever. Overall, it is a fun experience.

I was enjoying it, but two things are getting tiring: the lack of social sciences and humanities, and especially the misogynistic ‘tone’ of some users.

I haven’t noticed, but some people say they are feeling political tensions, and…

The year 2024 is notable for the large number of elections, with 7 of world’s 10 most populous nations (Bangladesh, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Mexico) voting; countries that are home to nearly half of the world’s people will hold elections in 2024.

From the Wikipedia complete list.

I guess everyone is just a little worried about national and international elections.

Many probably are adaptations of old jokes. I’ve heard that one in a neutral version, in my native language, and now here. But yeah, not nice to target women.

Sorry, I’m answering myself because I forgot to post my own opinion.

I clearly have problems with any metaphysical explanation, because every one of them tells us to accept this Universe as it is, which seems arbitrary and, depending on the ideology, even cruel, and because we have no good reason to prefer an idea over the others. Do I believe in a god, gods, only matter; reincarnation, ascension, definitive death; simulation, real thing…? I do not know. Why would I pick one at random? If there’s something more to this existence, I’ll perhaps know when I die, and I will fight for our right to be better than we are right now because, come on, here on Lemmy we tend to be leftists, right? We do not like bigotry, exploitation, or unhappiness. We fight in our own ways against this. Then why would I stop when I die? If the ones controlling this reality are messed up, are we to accept the status quo and thank the tyrants that, at least, we were to experience smelling flowers although children were literally bombed next door? No. If they’re tyrants, heads must roll. Let’s be fucking spiritual punks! Not yet, just if we confirm this suspicion, lol.

Oh! Reincarnation, right. If reincarnation was real and it would make us cycle at random from one life to another, without anything else (no merits, no punishments, no learning, just cycling), I guess some lives would be better than others, yeah? But then, why? Is there a purpose? If not, what happens to souls that are tired of cycling? Can we opt out? If not, who or what is holding us against our will? Can we escape? Again, many questions, lol. But I finally answered!

If that’s true, will his next life inevitably be a little worse than now? Average, perhaps? Even bad? Then it would not be about reincarnating for the better each time but a lottery, in which eventually you’ll get a relatively better life than the others, right?

Or is the best life the last one before crossing to somewhere else? Will Earth become emptier and emptier then, as we all cross? Then why the number of beings keeps increasing instead of decreasing? Who are these new souls?

Do you believe his humbleness is part of why he has those circumstances? Will he keep the good life because he deserves it? Some systems talk about merits, about reincarnating into what one deserves. Then, every orphan and every Palestinian and every pig deserve what they have suffered? If so, those systems often invite us to compassion, but is there space to absolute compassion when the Universe itself is punishing them for terrible deeds in the past? It would be similar to watching children being spanked; on one hand, you feel bad for them because they need to learn this painful lesson; on the other, you feel good because they deserve them, especially if the harm was against you, you may even feel a spark of joy from something similar to revenge. So are we supposed to feel this mix of feelings for beings who have it worse than us? Happy that they’re getting to learn, happy that they’re been punished, happy that they won’t be doing it again? Because that’s not how I feel, and I would feel sadistic to feel it based only on this theory we’re imagining. Then there’s the question: is this kind of cruel punishing the only way for souls to learn? If so, why such a primitive system? We do not even use it for our children anymore, and psychologists have found it is detrimental instead of constructive. Is this the best way the Universe can help us grow? If it is, it seems suspicious, who is behind? If it is not, then it is needlessly cruel as there would be more peaceful ways, and we should be questioning this instead of embracing it just because it is the thing we’ve been given.

On a similar line, do you believe we somehow learn virtues that we inherit for the next life? If so, are we all collectively better people than in the 19th century (because some of us would have surely learnt something)? Is humanity walking towards an utopia then? How do we explain the centuries in which we seem to devolve, in which irrationality, wars, hate, and more increased? Today, are we really that advanced and far away from Ancient Rome or Ancient Egypt?

The person you were talking with was happy you have a mind that lets you consider things from positive sides, and said that many do not have that chance. If reincarnation has a purpose in each life, how are we supposed to learn, grow, change, or whatever we are supposed to do (in case there is something to do) if we are partially limited by our brains and many other things? Why would we judge those negative thinkers as if they decided their current life?

…Unless we decide our current life, as some systems propose. Then many things we do are determined already because we knew which were our limits and which were our base characteristics (e.g. our temperament, which is innate). This contradicts a lot of the things we were thinking and makes the scenario more similar to a game than to a learning path. But it poses a lot of new questions such as who or what are we when we’re not humans but beings deciding where to be born? Why do we do this? Is it ethical to embrace an identity who has no memory of the deal and impose a life onto it full of things that identity did not consent to? Because maybe the being decided to live as a woman who would be hurt, develop PTSD and learn to live through it all. It sounds dramatic and interesting. But the woman is a new consciousness, a new identity, then is it right to make her suffer all that just because another consciousness, a previous consciousness agreed to? The same question might be asked for whatever case of reincarnation in which we reincarnate in very different identities. If it is possible and a cruel murderer reincarnates in a sweet person, why should a sweet person pay for the crimes of a cruel murderer?

So many questions still in the air that I haven’t written down… But all different variations of reincarnation seem problematic at some point already. Do you agree? Because many people who find these metaphysical problems in different postulates (not necessarily reincarnation) tend to say that we are judging high ideas with mundane ideas. How can I say it is an unfair system if whoever designed it is much wiser than us, so it knows better to be fair and good, and we cannot understand such elevated balance so we think it is unfair. Yet, at the same time, the system that they propose is full of explanations, promises, and consequences based on our human values and morality, not higher ones. The Universe gives ‘good’ things for ‘good’ deeds or ‘good’ personality, then it does work with our frames at some point, huh? Then, all our questions are indeed valid. All this paragraph to say that, if you agree that indeed there are things that seem weird, suspicious, or wrong when thinking about reincarnation (or metaphysical beliefs in general), how do we keep our belief in reincarnation?

I’m not saying it does not exist just because it does not entirely “click”. I’m asking why to believe in it when we realize this, instead of taking a more skeptical and distant approach, maybe curious, maybe excited, but cautious?