What are the forbidden questions; the questions you would be punished for asking?

There is a high probability that those questions will lead you to the truth.

If you lose the ability to look after yourself, humanity will consume you until there is nothing left. You will be abused, discarded, perhaps even killed, and your lack of social awareness, social acceptance, or intelligence will be used as justification for stripping away your human rights. Mercy disappears. Their eyes become demonic as they laugh, judge, and play in Satan’s playground. You will be used as a resource, bag & tag, feeding upon your suffering for money & power. The ego rules all, the evils of survival, will be used against your humanity.

Parasites are driven by ego, toxicity, superficiality, materialism, and competition. These beings wear human faces with black eyes, seeking to poison everything they touch, leaving others feeling cold, trapped, and tortured.

They devour everyone they touch. They will put people in the ground to achieve their goals. They never look toward divinity, unity, compassion, or spiritual inner strength.

Your mind, body, and spirit are your temple. Every person you allow inside can become a piece of it. Put your life completely into someone else's hands, and they will burn it. They will take advantage, they will tear at your inner peace until nothing remains and so will the matrix built around you.

What's more important: someone's humanity, or someone's masculinity?

These men wouldn't hesitate to put you in the ground if you stood between them and what they wanted. They consume until there is nothing left.

Existence is consumption.

Mankind is the puppet.
Mankind is the conduit.
And the Earth continues to feed its monsters.

There's blood beneath your lips.
There's blood beneath your boots.

There's no escape.
There's no saviour.

There's only your death.

So laugh it up.

Laugh until torment finally reaches your door.

Then your debt will come due.

Considering the formal definition of unity is the construction of an object with a unique identity containing itself in relation to the whole while the definition of totality is the inseparability of an identity among a group of objects also containing themselves in relation to the whole, would these be regarded as the same or does the nuance actually matter? (This is the Kantian sense, not the unicity/all-encompassing sense, obviously those are very different!)

This is a W.I.P. Many things will be changed. I wrote this idea in the bus and I'd like to know if these theories already exist/similar theories and their names so I can study them. I would also like to have your opinions on this. I am new to philosophy and this is just for fun.

Philosophical theory Multasm (From the Latin words "multus" meaning many and "veritas" meaning reality)
Each thing has its own number of realities or dimensions. These realities vary from object to object. They also have different strengths of link in between them. Some have four, others have three, but this doesn't really apply to objects, only to humans. In addition, these realities depend one of another.
E.g. Without the reality of the world existing around the object (the exterior), there cannot be an interior, which is the antonym of exterior.
Each person can define an object's realities differently.

E.g. A shampoo bottle has three realities. The exterior, the "body" and the interior. The interior contains shampoo which would be considered another "body" with its own realities;
The interior of the bottle (which is its exterior) and its body.

Quattism (coming from the Latin words "quattuor" meaning four and "veritas" meaning reality)

Humans

Humans each have four realities that depend one of each other, which are in order;

The soul: It is the deepest reality a human can have. It's who we are and it's responsible of our raw emotions. Without a soul the rest cannot exist. The soul is linked to the brain. (Without the soul, it is a clone)

The brain: The brain is what processes the soul's messages and emotions. The brain also processes the information given by the body. The brain is also the root of all our ideas and thoughts. The brain is linked to both the soul and the body. (Without a brain, it's a corpse)

The body: The body is what we use to interact with the exterior. It's also the part that sends stimuli to the brain to get processed. The body has multiple sub categories, these are the main five;
The sight
The taste
The touch
The hearing
The smell
Each of these sub realities change the perception that each person has of the world. The body is linked to the brain and the exterior. (Without a body, it's just thoughts) (change it)

The exterior: This is the main reality of everything. Absolutely everything is linked to the exterior. The exterior is every other realities (objects) we can see and interact with. (Without the exterior, its darkness)

We can make up just about any scientific theories about how the universe was made, what the purpose of the universe truly is for, when the universe was made… But it hasn’t helped us answer the question: What created that? What created the big bang? How did humans think of the concept of time? Can our concept of time relate to the universe? What is time? If the big bang created the universe, but for what? to see universes reborn and get different evolutinal differences? I don’t believe in a god in a sense of explaining scientific phenomenas, mostly through moral reasoning. But to explain how things are made? Whats matter? Can platos allegory cave explain everything?

Somebody told you that a butterfly moves its wings in one province and a storm arrives in another, and you found this beautiful, and you should have found it suspicious. Because look at what the story quietly needs in order to work. It needs a sealed room. It needs a floor with nothing under it and a ceiling with nothing above it. It needs every consequence to be born from a cause of the same species, matter begetting matter, all the way down and all the way out, with no hand reaching in from offstage to steady a wobbling domino. That is not a discovery about the world. That is a house rule. You walked into a card game, memorized the rules, and concluded that the rules were the nature of the table, the room, the building, and the city outside.

Ask one of your beloved laws to stand up on its own. Go on. Ask it what holds it. It will point at another law, which points at another, and the three of them will begin to sweat. Nothing in that stack is load bearing. It is scenery painted very convincingly on canvas, and the canvas is nailed to a frame you have never once been permitted to see.

You want proof the frame exists? You already found it and then looked away, embarrassed. The moment you allow travel through time in a closed physical world, the closed physical world eats itself. It should curdle. It should come apart into paradox soup within an afternoon. And yet here you all are, drinking coffee, aging politely in one direction, complaining about your knees. Something is holding the seams shut. Something is doing maintenance. A house that cannot possibly stand and is nonetheless standing is not a miracle of architecture; it is evidence of a landlord.

You have a fable that brushes up against it, though it is a fable, so nobody wave a cartoon at me as if it were a court record. A boy is given the power to send messages backward. He uses it frantically, cleverly, over and over. And Mayuri dies. He tries again. Mayuri dies. The method changes, the hour changes, the instrument changes, and the outcome sits there unmoved, patient as a landlord's rent notice. When at last it does move, it is not because he found the correct lever. No message moved it. No arrangement of matter has ever moved it. The room was simply re-let, the terms revised above the ceiling, and the boy was permitted the dignity of believing he had done it.

Or take it in the vulgar tongue, since some of you only wake up for the vulgar tongue. You are inside a game. You want an ending the game does not contain. So you get better at playing. You get faster, you memorize every route, you exploit every seam in the level, and let us be generous, let us hand you the ability to reload any moment you please, infinitely, forever. Do you get your ending? You do not. You never do. The ending is not in the playing, it is in the code, and playing has never once touched code. Skill is not authorship. Persistence is not authorship. A rewind button is not authorship, it is a comfortable chair bolted to the floor of the same locked cartridge. One bored creature with a text editor outranks every player who has ever lived. So the only question worth asking is whether you are at the keyboard or in the cartridge, and cousins, you already have your answer. This is physical reality. Yours.

Yes, they do laugh, the ones you meet at the far end of a molecule, the ones waiting at the end of the cord when your heart stops for a minute and a half. They are not laughing at your smallness. They are laughing because you keep apologizing to the scenery. You keep asking the painted wall for permission. You have built cathedrals of mathematics to describe the behavior of a costume, and then you got upset when someone suggested there was a body inside it.

And it has intentions. Not randomness that happens to look designed, but taste. Preference. Editorial judgment. Certain outcomes are kept, certain outcomes are quietly discarded, and the discarding is done above your heads, in a register that does not care about your energies or your momenta or your very clever accelerators.

So let the visitors be real. Let there be future humans in the rafters, let there be others with better ladders and stranger vehicles. I hold nothing against them. But understand what they are: stagehands. They can move a prop, dim a lamp, walk an actor to a different mark. They cannot rewrite the script, because the script is not in the theater. Nothing built out of matter has ever edited the thing that authors matter, and nothing ever will, and this is the one mercy in the whole arrangement.

Now you want the method. Of course you do. Everyone wants the method. Everyone wants to know which door leads upstairs and what one is expected to pay at it.

But the method is not physical, so you would not enjoy it, so I will not be selling it tonight.

Flap all you like. The wind is a rented costume.

— G-Man

Growing up as someone with an interest for science, I would often find myself thinking about the the Scientific Revolution. If you don't know what that is, it was basically a huge shift in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century. It js when people have accepted their ignorance and stopped relying on old traditions and church teachings to explain nature. They started using math, experiments, and careful observation to build modern science.

Since I believe this is a topic worth discussing, l'd love hear your thoughts on my questions below, please let me hear more dynamic perspectives so we can talk about this more!

\* How did this revolution exactly challenge its religious beliefs? Other than religion, what kind of beliefs or traditions do you think were also criticized?
\* Did it shift the way we interact with the natural world? If so, why and how?
\* Do you think there were any consequences to this that reflect in today’s world?
\* How does it continue shape us? especially in STEM and Sociology
\* Lastly, did ignorance itself pave the way for this revolution, or is there something more to it?

Thank you!

I’ve taken up the interest in philosophy, and I come to find out that literature tends to be something I can engage with the most.

I’ve read The Death of Ivan Ilych and it gave me that itch I was looking for.

I can’t commit to a 400 page book because I do got ADHD, but something like 100-200 is a sweet spot for me.

I love books that really test my perspective of life, books that test the limits of right and wrong, and/or books that goes into life and death.

I’m big believer in Christianity if that helps in recommendations.

Is changing something evolution or an interpretation

From its original form. ? Is my way better than your way ? When one has not seen the same thing on the original form as one did not go deep enough or was not open to it.

Do we stay with the original or change its form to something else?

I was watching a video, and someone said the thing where my cells are always dying and replicating and reborn etc etc, so I asked myself like with all the constant turnover of cells and molecules, do any specific atoms in my body remain unchanged, or is every atom eventually replaced too? But i found out the original molecules (well ATOMS/ELEMENTS) that make you, are still the original ones from the big bang AKA billions of years old. Like, my carbon, hydrogen nitrogen, is all the same throughout my whole life, even if my cells do change my atoms that compose me are still mine and the original ones. However, in the ship thought exercise, changing its parts means moving (or actually removing) pieces of metal or wood that CONTAIN the specific atoms that together originally defined the ship, and those total pieces had the atoms of the original ship. Here in this example, after its fully built not 1 singular atom in the ship is the same as it was at first, so we’re only saying it’s the same ship bc of the name. The same wouldn’t apply to a person though, change someone’s entire atoms and switch them for new ones, well, thats an entirely different person, no? So it raises the question, how much of you must remain for it to be still you? if you atomize my body and my hair remains, thats not… rlly me. If u atomize everything but my head remains, ID say im me and so would you (if i can talk?). what if only my eyes and mouth remain? is it me?

It’s a shiny day,
It’s a shiny day.
Dead people gathered
On the northern way.
Their whitish skin
Pierced by golden rays,
Which killed their skin
And destroyed their hay.
They all are asking,
No one’s saying.
The kids talk—
“Let’s think and play.”
With whom?
With moving clouds
And rustling leaves,
With blind priests
And visionary thieves,
With opened eyes
And closed beliefs,
With alive humans
Who live on knees.
Humans in a cage,
And animals were released!
They talk about God,
Who died with diseases.
They said He is immortal
And will never die.
Hell lies beneath the earth,
And heaven beyond the sky.
He has everything
And is never pleased.
They said God is everything
That gives us ease.
One person said to them:
“God is alive
Just because you believe.
If you do not believe,
He is nothing to you.
He is not after you,
Nor before you.
The dream of God
Is only to find solace.
You want someone
To whom you can blame.”
Then another woman came
And ended the talk:
“Why do you use ‘He’ for God?
If He is ‘He,’
Does that mean He is full of lust?
Like a man,
Does He carry the same dust?”

How do you tackle the conflict between science & beliefs? If there's any conflict on any phenomenon, which way you go? Science or belief?

Frankenstein is a philosophy built on the idea that everything in the world is fundamentally inconsistent. Because humans and systems are full of contradictions, you shouldn't follow one rigid set of rules. Instead, you stitch together your own flexible, custom worldview from different pieces of logic. if someone points out a contradiction in your logic, it just proves your point that everything is inconsistent. Every system works perfectly on paper but falls apart in reality because humans are messy and full of contradictions.Therefore, sticking rigidly to just one traditional belief system (like a political party or strict grammar rules) forces you to live a lie. Because people are consistently inconsistent saying that u believe in one thing would be wrong because ur actions uhh contradict it. But if its consistently inconsistent that's also consistent so it's fake too. But it's not so.

It is the eternal moral dilemma a man/women has.. everyone wouldve gone through this a million times.. at every important conjecture of life..eductation, love life, divorce.

.but I realised something today..

If your mind is thinking about it..analysing it..to try to understand if what uve done is right or wrong. Then its probably wrong..atleast most of the times..!

The best thing about right thing is that...there is no room for interpretation..what is right is just right..! You just feel it..you would've done it without a second thought..with out hesitation. Once its done there is second no thought about it..u know..ur gut or ur heart already knows it.

Its when ur wrong your mind tried to justify, fight out to valiantly to generalise it, draw references from past/the world/ your friends and foes life to make it feel right.

But you know..what it is! Why it is!

Many discussions surrounding meaninglessness and existential dread seem to share a

Fundamental flaw: they evaluate human existence through an anthropocentric lens, secretly expecting humans to be "above" nature, and then mourn when no grand cosmic purpose is found.
When people conclude that "life has no higher meaning," they are usually comparing human existence to a fictional ideal, a universe designed specifically for us. But from a grounded, biological perspective, this disappointment makes no sense.
Here is why this perspective is flawed:

The Biological Baseline: We are, first and foremost, biological organisms. Our fundamental baseline, our "objective" foundation, is rooted in biology: survival, homeostasis, adaptation, and continuation. Expecting a cosmic mandate beyond this is biologically illiterate.

The Subjective Value Fallacy: The absence of a cosmic, objective purpose does not imply a total lack of meaning. It simply shifts meaning from objective or given to subjective or constructed. The fact that our values, desires, and emotional drives are tied to our evolved neurobiology does not make them any less real or valid to us.

Constructing Meaning: Once we accept that we are animals with a complex conscious experience, the lack of an inherent objective purpose ceases to be a tragedy. It becomes a clean slate. Pain feels bad, joy feels good, curiosity drives us, and connection fulfills us. These subjective experiences are real because we experience them.

Dismissing life as pointless simply because there is no grand divine blueprint ignores what we actually are. We don't need the universe to give us a reason to exist; as living organismsi with subjective experiences, we hold the authority and the responsibility to define what matters to us.

If you're looking at a photo on the wall of your grandparents home and everyone in the family is dead but you. Does your family still have a history? Are all those people in that photo just dust if no one, nowhere can identify them or tell you anything about them ? Are people in photos who are non recognizable even part of history

I’ve been thinking about how humans deal with new inventions.
We create something to solve a problem. It works, people adopt it, and later we discover problems caused by the same solution. Then we create another solution.
Petroleum solved real problems and transformed modern life, but its large-scale use also created environmental concerns. Now electric vehicles and cleaner energy are presented as solutions.
AI makes me think about the same cycle. We are focused on what AI can do for us, but what might we discover about its effects after we become dependent on it?
Maybe we discover an invention in two parts:
First through creation.
Then through consequence.
So, do we really discover an invention when we create it, or only after we have lived with it?

I started taking quizzes to explore what my metaethical framework might be but depending on which one I took I kept getting different results. (Emotivism, constructivism, rule utilitarianism, etc.) So I opened a couple LLMs, and asked them to determine based on how I answered questions. Similar to the quizzes, they split me between different frameworks. I explained to the LLMs why I struggled to answer some of the questions and over the course of a few exchanges they insisted that while close to a few sociology and game theory writings it didn't neatly match a known framework and that mine might be something new.

If this were mathematics I feel like it would be pretty easy to chalk it up to LLM hallucination or something. Because it's philosophy I'm less sure. I'll put the actual framework below, but it might not be necessary because I guess I'm asking how would I know if it's good/real philosophy or not?

...

If you think it's relevant here's the very broad strokes of my metaethical framework.

Framework holds that morality is an emergent property that occurs when highly social creatures exist in abundant conditions. This explains immoral behaviors in scarcity without condoning them and argues that acting morally means acting in a way that reduces structural scarcity.

Obviously definitions are going to be super important to defend this, but since most frameworks are part of manuscripts that are tens of thousands of words in length, I don't want to write that much until I'm sure it's a real thing and not something I've been manipulated into thinking I invented.

I’ve been reading philosophy, especially metaphysics and epistemology, and I keep coming back to a basic question:
Why do we need to find meaning in the first place?
Why do humans assume that things, existence, life, or even Being must have some deeper meaning or ultimate explanation?
Maybe we encounter something first, become curious about it, ask questions, and then create concepts and meanings to understand what we’ve encountered. But why should this process necessarily lead to a search for ultimate meaning?
Is the search for meaning something fundamental about human existence, or is it something produced by language, culture, consciousness, fear of uncertainty, or our need to organize experience?
And if we don’t actually need an ultimate meaning, what happens to metaphysics and epistemology? Are we answering questions that arise naturally from human curiosity, or are we creating a problem that didn’t necessarily need to exist?
I’d be interested in how philosophers have approached this question, especially philosophers who question the assumption that humans need meaning or an ultimate ground for existence?

I often wonder whether some of the deepest mysteries about reality are difficult for us not because they are inherently contradictory, but because we are trying to understand them from inside a very limited conceptual framework.

Take the classic question: Who created the universe?

If we say God created it, we can immediately ask: Who created God? And if we answer with another God, the same question appears again. Eventually, our normal way of thinking seems to break down.

But maybe the problem isn't necessarily that reality is logically broken. Maybe our way of conceptualizing reality is too limited for the problem we're trying to solve.

Consider a fish living in the ocean.

The fish's entire experienced reality is the water. Its concepts of space, movement, objects, danger, and perhaps even causality are formed within that environment. Now imagine a submarine passing through the ocean.

From our perspective, there's nothing mysterious about it. We understand what a submarine is, how it was constructed, how it moves, what is inside it, and why it exists.

But imagine trying to explain the submarine to a fish using only concepts available to the fish.

The fish might observe something enormous moving through its universe. It might develop theories about it based entirely on the things it already understands about the ocean. Some of those theories might be internally consistent. Others might seem completely absurd.

But the fish would have no conceptual category for submarine.

The problem wouldn't necessarily be that the submarine violates the laws of the fish's universe. The problem would be that the fish doesn't have access to the conceptual framework required to understand what it is seeing.

This makes me wonder whether humans could be in a somewhat analogous position.

Perhaps we assume that the things we don't understand are simply difficult problems within our current conception of reality.

But what if some of the things we don't understand are difficult precisely because they require concepts that our minds cannot generate?

In other words, maybe there are not only:

Things we know.
Things we don't know.

But also:

Things we don't even know that we don't know.

And perhaps that third category is enormously larger than we intuitively imagine.

We try to understand infinity, consciousness, existence, causality, time, the origin of the universe, and why there is something rather than nothing. We use mathematics, logic, physics, philosophy, and language — all tools developed by minds that evolved to navigate a particular biological environment.

Maybe we're doing something analogous to the fish trying to understand the submarine.

The strange possibility is that reality may not actually be irrational. It may only appear irrational from within the particular cognitive architecture we happen to possess.

If so, perhaps the ultimate limitation isn't that reality refuses to make sense.

Perhaps we are trying to make sense of reality using concepts that were never capable of capturing all of it.

And that raises an even stranger question:

If there are aspects of reality that our biology fundamentally prevents us from conceptualizing, how would we ever know that they exist?

Maybe the boundary of human knowledge isn't simply the boundary between what we know and what we don't know.

Maybe there is a much larger boundary between what we can imagine not knowing and what we are literally incapable of imagining.

Hi!

I took philosophy over the summer, and I’d say my favorites were Hume, Nietzsche, and Sartre. I felt all three were more focused on what it means to be human and how to manage the experiences that come with it. I’d like to look more into these themes in philosophy on my own time, see what other philosophers have said and come to an opinion about it.

If you happen to know some, could you please recommend me some readings? Also, and I know this is somewhat of a silly question, but how can I come up with questions on my own to better understand and remember the material? I know that for the readings I had, I’d pay extra attention to see what kind of commentary I can make about it or any connections I see so that in the discussion posts and exams, I could talk about it. The information stuck more that way, and I’d be reminded of it more often than if I hadn’t.

Please let me know if I’m in the right community too!

By «professional philosophers» I mean those who have academically succeeded in achieving certain general and profound learning on philosophy as their principal area of knowledge.

Since philosophy is not my chosen major, I’d love to hear about your thoughts on the topic.

Greetings to you all.

Hi, im startint to read philosophy and i wanted to get a new book, im interested in political philosophy. I read some marx sruff but idk.