It’s hard to admit, but I’m not healthy in that regard. I postpone the break-up so that time gives an opportunity to fix things, and when that fails I jump into another relationship right away, and not in a “using people to distract me from my pain” way but in a “falling in love with people who show me empathy and care, and who I imagine are a good fit without giving enough time to consider it thoroughly” way. Currently in the first step, waiting, wishing.

I have no advice. I can only say I am sorry you are grieving.

Edit: Grammar.

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.

We don’t know if evil is relative, but you can follow the dilemma with different wording.

We don’t like our wellbeing and our ability to make our own decisions taken away from us. We suffer, which is something we want to avoid in general terms. It goes beyond humanity, as many animals also seem to seek the satisfaction of their will (being it playing, feeding, instinctively reproducing, etc.) and seem adverse to harm and to losing their life.

So… If we are such creatures, it’s natural we don’t like situations and beings that go against this. We don’t like volcanic eruptions when they’re happening with us close the crater. We don’t like lions or bears attacking us. We especially don’t like other humans harming us as we suspect they could have done otherwise in many cases. We simply don’t like these things because of our ‘programming’ or ‘design’.

Problem? There are a few. The first is God asks us to like him when he’s admitting that he is actively doing the things we dislike almost universally as human beings. That makes us fall into internal conflict and also into conceptual dilemmas. Perhaps due to our limitations, but nonetheless real and unsolvable to us.

Then you can argue that the way we are is designed by him, so why design something that is going to live, feel, think certain things as undesirable and then impose such things unto them? Let’s say I cannot say that’s evil, I at least can say it’s impractical as it will certainly cause trouble to his mission of accepting him (and following him). If that obstacle for us is part of the plan, that’s not for me to say, yet it is an obstacle in our view and experience. In human terms, all this might be classified as unfair or sadistic*, which is the reasoning in the guide and how you can follow it in this perhaps closer way.

Now, about this last part, while we can argue that *those terms arise from our own dispositions and might be different to other dispositions (aliens that do not experience pain, for example), is that enough to invalidate our perspective? Then what’s the place of empathy, which I am assuming is also a part of God’s gifts to us? What’s the place of compassion, as written in many religious texts of supposedly divine inspiration? If we need to carry our dispreference, displeasure, dislikeness—suffering—and not to classify it as necessarily evil when the gods impose it to us (as it is our judgment only), then why classify it as evil in other circumstances?

I hope I am getting my new point though. What this all seems to conclude is that if the lack of respect for the suffering of the animal kingdom is not worthy of being classified as bad (for whatever reason, here I argued that because this comes to be only by our characteristics/disposition); if, therefore, we cannot say a god is evil for going against our wellbeing and against our ability to make our own decisions, then I fail to understand many other things that tend to follow religious thinking and even moral thinking.

That would fall under the “then God is not good/not all loving”. You described it as if it were a privilege, but the capacity of evil causes indescribable suffering to us and to innocent beings such as small children and animals. If God lets all of this happen just because he wants some replicas of himself or because he thinks it is such a gift to be like him despite it, he’s an egotistical god.

Also, if he gets bored of pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection, then it was never pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection for him. Those things, by definition, provide eternal satisfaction. So he either never created that (evil branch again) or he cannot achieve those states even if we wanted to. If he cannot achieve those states even if he wanted to, if he lacks enjoyment and entertainment and has to spice his creation from time to time, then he’s not all powerful.

Also, many people argue the necessity of evil as a requisite for freedom. If God needs to allow evil so we can be free, then he’s bound to that rule (and/or others): not all powerful.

So… is our broken non-native English an advantage now (because one can tell we are real people)? Nice.

And we know what one specific viewpoint we’re talking about.

Dang it! I’m always out of the loop.

I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it’s way more nuanced but I’m not writing an essay on Lemmy.

In general Western philosophies always have a “goal.”

I know you said it was a broad stroke, and that in general is that way, but I kind of disagree still. I think Western philosophy is about finding if we have a purpose and what is it, and many philosophers since Greek antiquity to today have answered they are skeptic of it existing or it being able to be known. From Pyrrho of Elis and Hegesias of Cyrene to Arthur Schopenhauer and Slavoj Žižek.

The word we are looking for is teleology (not to be confused with theology). It refers to finality, that there is a goal. Many philosophers did not subscribe to a teolology.

Your human life is to prove your worthiness.

Same thing as before.

You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.

I agree a little more with this, there are many Western philosophers preoccupied with ethics. But that’s why I think they were talking of different dimensions. It was not that existentially you should roam the past or future, that your mental activity should be there. It was about being responsible in the now for the future, and to be held accountable for your past. It was a morality thing, not a conscious/existential thing.

In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you’re eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there’s no future there is only tacos.

Hey! Go away with that mindful nonsense. If I do that, I spend too much time with a single bite and I cannot eat as much (/s).

I’m from the 90s and I’ve been catching some trends thanks to TikTok and YouTube. Exactly what you said, new videos and keep jumping to suggested videos. Also, read the comments, people often have recommendations (you can even ask and you’ll get some new musicians).

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.

That’s an interesting idea. Thank you!

Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, methylphenidate.

Nicotine once. Friends at the time said I needed to try it to say for a fact I didn’t like it, and I didn’t like it. Then I learnt there are extremely rare cases of illnesses from just one smoke, so that advice was stupid, IMO.

Caffeine was a regular as I was self-medicating with it. Nowadays, I drink mostly decaffeinated. I wish there were more flavors and variety for it, though, at least a chocolate one…

Alcohol has always been an occasional thing for me, once or twice per year. I try to keep it that way because my family has a long history of substance abuse disorder.

Methylphenidate once. I borrowed it from someone’s prescription. I thought it would help me get energetic, euphoric, etc. Well, it was calming, and for the first time in my life my mind was quiet. It was so strange to be sitting with no turmoil, no direction of what to jump to do or even say spontaneously. It was just me and the silent room. Tranquility, so much that it was uncomfortable as it was new and not what I expected at all. Turns out I have hyperactivity and the medication turned it down.

If I were to say, I prefer uppers and I’m curious about substances like cocaine, but I don’t want to risk my health. I’m fine.

Historically, I’ve perceived Reddit as slightly left leaning, with strong pockets of conservatives.

Yes, in international subreddits. The national ones were often right leaning (e.g. r/Canada, r/Mexico).

We are already here.

It is bold. Since antiquity they are getting in trouble (sometimes big trouble, like Socrates)…

OCEAN is useful.

For fun but also interesting because it is a piece of history? The four temperaments (Hippocrates).

I don’t want to fall into a slippery slope argument, but I really see this as the tip of a horrible iceberg. Seeing women as sexual objects starts with this kind of non consensual media, but also includes non consensual approaches (like a man that thinks he can subtly touch women in full public transport and excuse himself with the lack of space), sexual harassment, sexual abuse, forced prostitution (it’s hard to know for sure, but possibly the majority of prostitution), human trafficking (in which 75%-79% go into forced prostitution, which causes that human trafficking is mostly done to women), and even other forms of violence, torture, murder, etc.

Thus, women live their lives in fear (in varying degrees depending on their country and circumstances). They are restricted in many ways. All of this even in first world countries. For example, homeless women fearing going to shelters because of the situation with SA and trafficking that exists there; women retiring from or not entering jobs (military, scientific exploration, etc.) because of their hostile sexual environment; being alert and often scared when alone because they can be targets, etc. I hopefully don’t need to explain the situation in third world countries, just look at what’s legal and imagine from there…

This is a reality, one that is:

Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression

Again, I want to be very clear, I’m not equating these tools to the horrible things I mentioned. I’m saying that it is part of the same problem in a lighter presentation. It is the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom of a systemic and cultural problem. The AI by itself may be less catastrophic in consequences, rarely leading to permanent damage (I can only see it being the case if the victim develops chronic or pervasive health problems by the stress of the situation, like social anxiety, or commits suicide). It is still important to acknowledge the whole machinery so we can dimension what we are facing, and to really face it because something must change. The first steps might be against this “on the surface” “not very harmful” forms of sexual violence.