philosophy

The way we name our children reflects something about ourselves. We could easily say that "Oh I wouldn't want my son to be called Niko, because it is a profanity in my mother tongue", or "My mother wanted my to name her after my great grandmother." or "I love the letter Z, so all of my children has the letter in them!"

Perhaps we give them names from the bible, from Star Wars, from a beloved author, or great friend who died. Or perhaps we just don't want our children to be bullied, so we pick a name that won't stand out.

Naming our children is obviously not a neutral act. The names suggest our relationships. What we want our childrens to be.

But this extends to far more than children names.

This is how language operates.

For each word, for each name, it communicates the world of the baptizer.

Looking how the sun moves throughout the day, we see that it is always going towards right. We can use this insight to speak of something going sunwise or counter sunwise. Playing cards we can say that we play sunwise. But you'll probably react with "We already got a word for that, clockwise and counter clockwise!" However, even though the two words points to the same thing, the underlying images are completely different. The sun represents a prerequisit for all life. Whereas the clock represents technology and efficiency.

Even though the context is the same, using the word sunwise pays tribute to nature, whereas clockwise pays tribute to technology. Here we can see that the words suggest our relationship with that which is spoken of.

NOTE Square brackets are used as "so called" brackets.

The word rich which comes from latin "reg" originally meaning someone who is ruling. Those who are [rich] has historically been a subject of envy. We have mades stories of them as wise, intelligent, groomed, well mannered. We can see this in fairytales and romantic fiction. These stories manipulate us into viewing the [rich] as good. Giving us a false sense of trust towards them.

So what should our relationship with the [rich] be then? I view the rich as somebody who grabs stuff away from the commons. In this sense I like to use the word grabbers.

To swap out words like this is what I call weeding. However, it is oftentimes not as easy as simply swapping one for another, because the word rich is intertwined into the language. We can say that something is vitamine [rich], meaning there is a lot of vitamins in it. Then you could say vitamine teem.

To swap out words like this, is what I call relighting. The act of moving the spotlight away from one word, towards another. To delight something unwanted, and enlight something that is wanted. Here we have relighted clockwise towards sunwise, and [rich] towards grabbers and teem.

Bondframing

As I have painted forth, words and names suggest our relationship with the spoken. The naming suggest how we ought to relate to the spoken. Or how we bond with the spoken.

For this reason, I use the term language bondframing.

To use the bondframing is to emphasize that language has a role in how we view the world, and that we ought to guide ourselves in a dezirable direction. It is to say that words should be open for inspection and potentialy weeding and relighting.

By using the bondframing, we are enabled to move our attention away from that which is strengthening the rich, towards the meaningful. Away from might, away from the machine, away from coldness, away from hierarchy. Towards solidarity, towards friendship, towards nature, towards growth.

Not exactly sure where to post this because I definitely don't think I am all that well versed in philosophy. But since this is about philosophy, I'll post it here.

I've been thinking about determination a lot as I am doing my uni work from a material pov. The debate on determination has always seemed a bit silly to me as a marginalized person who has been assigned female at birth. The anxiety around freedom and the negative feelings towards determination have always felt like the anxious thoughts of white, privileged, Western men who can delude themselves into thinking that they are in fact free to choose whatever they want without it being conditioned by anything. It has also always felt like an inherently colonial outlook from the viewpoint of the colonizer. I am quite sure that existence being determined is something that has never been lost on the oppressed of the world due to them all feeling it in their skin from the day they are born.

What I think I understood today about this is the way in which the acceptance of determination is necessary for any kind of socialism to rise. Determination makes it clear that there needs to be negative freedoms for any kind of real freedom to materialize. This freedom comes in the form of structural things like the type of childcare that allows women to leave the domestic sphere and be more free in a real way instead of the magical liberal thinking of freedom where freedom can just be a choice with no ties to any material reality whatsoever.

Funnily enough the welfare state model in my own country was very much built around this negative freedom and it therefore enabled the type of life that expanded people's choices quite a bit. I still of course don't think that "socialism is when the government does stuff", but you do need to have a state organized in a way where things like this can be prioritized. Here it happened due to existing next to the Soviet Union.

The discourses of neoliberalism, however have taken the rotting corpse of the welfare state and spun all the values of it towards positive non-determined freedom. This becomes clear in the way participation, empowerment and freedom of choice are talked about today. Previously, people had a right to daycare for their children that then enabled them to participate. The participation was a result of the negative freedom provided by a structure.

Determination dictates a need for negative freedoms and creates true freedom. Liberal positive freedom is the freedom of the oppressor. Determination is not a bad word; it's just the way the world actually works. Once people accept that, it makes a case for socialism all on its own.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43553416

Let's say you put all your energy and hope into doing your part in the revolution. And, what happens is that the revolution doesn't happen, or the world ends up becoming a dystopia, or humanity ends up becoming extinct—would you then say that your life was a waste of time?

And boy howdy does my head hurt.

I'm almost through the preface, and i have NO clue what he's talking about.

So far, the only thing I've gotten is something about how a result is determined by the path that lead to it, and that a negation is not a destruction of something but just a further step forward.

But I have no fucking clue about his other concepts like Notion, Subjective/Objective, what he means by Science or how to piece it all together.

It really feels like walking in, mid conversation, in a foreign language.

Is the rest of the book easier to read, or should I just call it quits here?

I just wanted to better understand dialectics lmao

Materialism is not about "matter" in the physical sense but in the philosophical sense, which is some observable thing identifiable in a discrete empirical observation based on its observables. That is how it will be used here, not to refer to particles with mass specifically, which is the physical definition.

The materialist philosopher Friedrich Engels described materialism as about "matter in motion," because we do not just believe in matter, which is the ontology of the world, but also that this matter is never static and it is constantly changing, i.e. it has dynamics, motion.

The dynamics, the "motion," is part of the nomology of the world, that is to say, it is part of the laws of physics that govern the motion of matter. There are no external, non-material objects that "cause" matter to behave in the way it does, rather, it is just in its nature to do so, and the point of the material sciences is to study and uncover the nature of matter, as well as to even figure out how to properly characterize it.

Physicalism arguably arose with the discovery of fields in the mid-1800s by Faraday and Maxwell. If you scatter some iron filings around a magnet, they will conform to the force lines of the field. Physicalists reified the mathematics of the field into a physical object, into the ontology of the world, saying that fields really do exist as an object in the world that "causes" particles to respond to it in the way that they do.

This does not qualify as "matter" and so it is not materialist because fields are not defined in terms of their observable properties. You cannot observe a field. You observe the effects of the field. You observe the iron filings conform to the force lines of the field and assume the field is causing them to do that.

However, fields can just as well be treated as part of the nomology of the world. We can say it is merely in the nature of the iron filings to conform to the force lines described by the mathematics of the electromagnetic field when they are near a magnet. The mathematics of the field is not interpreted to be an ontological thing, but a way to describe the dynamics of the filings. They just do that, and we can capture what they do in this mathematical model.

Why should we think about things in this way? Because physicalism leads to a metaphysical abyss which I have never seen a physicalist give a good counterargument to.

You see, if we reify parts of the nomology by moving them into the ontology, i.e. if take parts of the mathematics that describes the motion of matter and reify it into onologically-existing objects in the world, then your ontology becomes ambiguous and contingent entirely on historical coincidences.

This is because you can always reformulate the mathematics in a way that is mathematically equivalent, and thus makes the same empirical predictions, yet if you were to reify it, would imply a different ontology about the world.

• Electromagnetic dynamics can be reformulated using Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory which makes the same predictions without a mathematical field.
• Einstein's notion of spacetime in special relativity can be reformulated using Lorentz's theory which makes all the same predictions without the mathematics of relative space and time (by instead treating the one-way speed of light as relative).
• Quantum mechanics can be reformulated without having to invoke a wavefunction at all, and in fact this was the original formulation by Heisenberg called matrix mechanics.

Physicalists love to reify things in the mathematics, so they reify the field, the "fabric" of spacetime, and the wavefunction, as all real objects part of the ontology of the world. But, as mentioned in the list above, all of these theories can be mathematically reformulated in a way that is mathematically equivalent and makes all the same empirical predictions yet does not have these features, but different features.

Since they make the same predictions, the scientific method has no ability to distinguish between them, and so your ontology is solely contingent on historical coincidence. The reason you believe in fields as ontological entities, or ontologically relative spacetime, or the wavefunction as an ontological entity, is solely because that was the mathematics your society happened to be popularized first, but an alien species may popularize a different formulation first and thus have a very different notion of the ontology of the world.

The ontology then becomes arbitrary and ambiguous, seemingly derivative entirely of historical circumstances.

However, if we stick to materialism, this isn't a problem, because the mathematics is not treated as ontological to begin with but nomological. It doesn't matter if you can reformulate the mathematics without the mathematical construct of fields or relative space and time or the wavefunction, because these are just part of the nomology anyways to predict the motion of matter, and if the theory really is mathematically equivalent, you would predict the same dynamics from it, and so it would imply nothing different about the world.

I would argue that the majority of the confusion around the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics is derivative of physicalism, people's obsession with trying to reify things like the invisible wavefunction.

As Jacob Barandes has shown, the wavefunction can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to a description of a system that evolves according to stochastic dynamics where those stochastic dynamics are non-Markovian, i.e. the wavefunction can be understood to be part of the system's nomology, not its ontology, it captures something about how matter moves, its dynamics, but is not a physical object.

Indeed, the height of the metaphysical abyss of physicalism is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which not only reifies invisible entities like the wavefunction, but then turns around and denies the existence of matter. They thus deny what materialists associate with the ontology of the world while reifying the entire nomology into the ontology.

This leads you to a confusing situation where your beliefs about the ontology of the world consist of nothing with observable properties at all. It is the most incoherent philosophical view possible, yet is taken seriously by physicalists because physicalism has become so dominant with hardly anyone sufficiently criticizing it.

I am not the only one to have noticed this problem. Below, the physicist Carlo Rovelli also points out how the Many Worlds Interpretation bizarrely does not posit anything to exist in the world with observable properties:

The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe. In order to describe the phenomena that we observe, other mathematical elements are needed besides ψ: the individual variables, like X and P, that we use to describe the world. The Many Worlds interpretation does not explain them clearly.

It is not enough to know the ψ wave and Schrödinger’s equation in order to define and use quantum theory: we need to specify an algebra of observables, otherwise we cannot calculate anything and there is no relation with the phenomena of our experience. The role of this algebra of observables, which is extremely clear in other interpretations, is not at all clear in the Many Worlds interpretation.

— Carlo Rovelli, “Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution”

The philosopher Tim Maudlin also has a whole lecture on this problem:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7gbWWPUsA

If we stick with strict materialism, then the fact you can reformulate these theories in different ways is unimportant, at least as far as natural philosophy is concerned, and so much of the mystery and debate around these theories disappears.

Preamble: mostly talking about socially learned gender dysphoria in this post, separate from the medical body dysphoria people sometimes have from birth. I want to define three types of dysphoria to hopefully give you a clue as to where I am coming from:

Types of dysphoria: social dysphoria (misrecognition),

aesthetic dysphoria (norm conformity),

somatic dysphoria (body-schema mismatch)

Do you ever have a sneaking suspicion that the term “gender affirming” care is sneaking a little Telos into the conversation? To affirm one’s gender inherently implies the target gender is some objective thing that one can change into, but this seems contradictory to the idea that gender is simply a social construct, not a representation of reality.

What is the utility of the ‘trans’ prefix in a social context today? Clearly there is very real utility when it comes to medical treatment, and legal protections, but it also seems contradictory to the belief that trans women… are women. We don’t say someone who is nationalized is a “Nationalizing Citizen”, we don’t consider christian converts to be “Converting” Christians… They're just christians.

The trans prefix, used in a social setting, only semantically exists to distinguish Trans Women from Cis Women, which actually reinforces the concept of a hierarchical gender binary.

This doesn’t even apply to exclusively trans ideology. Someone getting gender affirming care because they want larger/smaller breasts is increasing their womanly-ness in a hierarchical fashion. They could probably quantify how more “womanly” they feel, but obviously that cannot be objective. This may be a form of body dysphoria, but to say it is gender dysphoria seems like you’re giving a lot of weight to the word gender. There is nothing inherently found in the definition of a “woman” that dictates the form of their breasts. To categorize a woman as “with breasts” is to make all women without breasts inherently less womanly… nonsense.

This ties pretty handily into Sartre’s Le Regard. What we are actually trying to achieve in our “gender” affirming care, is not to get ourselves to some Ideal state of a Woman… it is shaping our bodies to be what Society’s gaze deems to be a woman. Only through killing this gaze will we ever actually be liberated from these social definitions of Gender. Now we can either kill the gaze by stabbing all of our eyes out, or we can get rid of the gender framework as a concept. Will the gender framework wither away while capitalism is still there to reinforce it? Not sure on that. Stay tuned…

Talking with some trans comrades with medical body dysphoria, they’ve explained to me that “sex reassignment surgery” is actually a better definition of what they need to feel better than any form of gender dysphoria. They actually feel as though they are missing their third leg. This to me suggests that a great amount of dysphoria felt today is due to Le Regard… which I guess is just a nerd ass way of saying “social construct” The root cause of this pain being the gender framework that society continues to uphold, even as it relentlessly twists its own form to stay relevant.

Every time I try to discuss this in less radical spaces people seem to be really opposed to Gender Abolition as a concept… so bless Hexbear.

Am I misunderstanding or is Rawlsianism simply "yeah we should be nice" as an economic/political goal?

Like... HOW Rawls??? We can all agree that being nice is a good thing. But how do we get the capitalists to do that???? Why do they need to do that? Do you think nobody in the past several thousand years thought that the poor might need to be the target of social welfare? What are you even saying???? When did the poor simply become subjects to our economic policy??? A byproduct???

In my opinion, Rawlsianism is completely redundant to Marxism. Am I missing something?

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/54678688

Liberalism arises historically with the bourgeoisie, promising universal rights, free markets, and political representation.

Its core contradiction: it proclaims universal freedom but maintains private property, class hierarchies, and colonial domination.

Its “progressive” content (rights etc) is always mediated by its “reactionary” content (capital accumulation, imperialism).

In the late 20th century, liberal politics shifted focus from material redistribution to recognition and representation of identities (race, gender, sexuality).

This has real emancipatory elements (civil rights, anti-discrimination), but within a liberal framework it tends to:

Fragment the working class into competing identity groups.

Leave capitalist property relations untouched.

Turn politics into a symbolic arena of inclusion/exclusion rather than redistribution.

This becomes what some call “neoliberal multiculturalism”.

The Alienation of the Proletariat:

Workers whose economic position deteriorates under neoliberal globalization see elites championing diversity while offshoring jobs and cutting welfare.

They perceive “liberal elites” as hypocritical or hostile — not because they oppose equality per se, but because the equality on offer seems to bypass their economic suffering.

This creates fertile ground for reactionary movements that reframe their economic grievances as cultural ones.

The Dialectic: Liberalism to Fascism

If we think dialectically:

Thesis (Liberalism): Universal rights, formal equality, market freedom.

Antithesis (Proletarian Alienation): Mass discontent over the gap between formal equality and real inequality.

Synthesis (Fascism): A counter-movement that rejects universalism but mobilizes identity (national, racial, religious) to restore a sense of collective belonging and purpose.

Fascism thus does not arise ex nihilo; it is the reaction to liberal contradictions:

Liberalism’s fragmentation of solidarity enables fascism’s call for a unified, “authentic” national identity.

Liberal elites’ cosmopolitanism enables fascism’s anti-globalist populism.

Liberal tolerance of corporate power enables fascism’s authoritarian alliance with capital.

Fascism is hence the “removed Offspring” of Liberalism

You can theorize fascism here as:

Not simply a negation but a mutation of liberal politics: it retains mass politics, identity focus, and even some welfare-state promises — but only for the “in-group.”

A perverse form of “recognition politics” where instead of expanding recognition, it contracts it violently.

The endpoint of liberalism’s failure to resolve class contradiction: when equality cannot be achieved materially, it is abandoned and replaced with exclusionary hierarchy.

This would mirror Marx’s notion that each stage of history contains the seeds of its own negation.

This theory does not mean liberal politics intends fascism. Just that its contradictions enable fascism.

Overcoming fascism requires not just defending liberal norms, since the radical aspects of it which have been valuable are being attacked, but transcending liberalism’s economic foundations — i.e., re-centering class and material redistribution.

Now I’m no Hegelian, my understanding of Hegel and Marx is fairly limited. But this is the best I could do put forth the reasoning for fascism and where to move forward.

This is also not US centric, I am not american and am seeing fascism and surveillance states rise around the world. While fascism used to be a fear of ‘the other’ as an outsider, we’re seeing a world where fascism uses citizens as ‘the other’ now.

I would love to go more in depth here. I would like to incorporate naom Chomsky’s idea of manufacturing consent to show how the alienation is created.

In a genuinely Hegelian sense, capitalism contains the seeds of its own transcendence. But contrary to Marx, this transcendence is not socialist.

Through ideological domination the working class is stripped of its revolutionary potential. The only remaining agent capable of resolving capitalism’s crises is the capitalist class itself.

This class resolves contradictions not by abolishing capital but by restructuring the state around authoritarian and nationalist principles.

Thus the dialectic moves from capitalism to fascism, not because of proletarian liberation, but because of capital’s own drive for self-preservation.

In the late 1980s, Searle, along with other landlords, petitioned Berkeley's rental board to raise the limits on how much he could charge tenants under the city's 1980 rent-stabilization ordinance. The rental board refused to consider Searle's petition and Searle filed suit, charging a violation of due process. In 1990, in what came to be known as the "Searle Decision", the California Supreme Court upheld Searle's argument in part and Berkeley changed its rent-control policy, leading to large rent-increases between 1991 and 1994. Searle was reported to see the issue as one of fundamental rights, being quoted as saying "The treatment of landlords in Berkeley is comparable to the treatment of blacks in the South... our rights have been massively violated and we are here to correct that injustice."

. . .

In March 2017, Searle became the subject of sexual assault allegations. The Los Angeles Times reported: "A new lawsuit alleges that university officials failed to properly respond to complaints that John Searle ... sexually assaulted his ... research associate last July and cut her pay when she rejected his advances." The case brought to light several earlier complaints against Searle, on which Berkeley allegedly had failed to act.

The lawsuit, filed in a California court on March 21, 2017, alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and assault and battery and sought damages both from Searle and from the Regents of the University of California as his employers. It also claims that Jennifer Hudin, the director of the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, where the complainant had been employed as an assistant to Searle, has stated that Searle "has had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary or other benefits". After news of the lawsuit became public, several previous allegations of sexual harassment and assault by Searle were also revealed.

Also he was a philosopher, I guess.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/36425588

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/36231609

I cannot understand!

Yes, indeed, I cannot understand what is happening in the country now. Perhaps it is because I have grown old, and that is why I can no longer understand what is happening and why! I was born in September 1930. And now it is already September 2025. For about ten years now, I have been racking my brain trying to figure out what is happening in the country. To a certain extent, it is logical that I do not understand what is happening now. I was born and grew old in one state (the USSR) and am preparing to depart to the next world in another state (Russia). Therefore, of course, there is much I may not understand.

But I am a person, like all normal people, who understands what is allowed to be done and produced in any state and what is not. I watch with horror what is happening in the Russian Federation. Of course, my country where I grew up, the USSR, can be criticized and scolded. There are reasons for that. But in my country, there were not 20 million destitute people. This figure was stated by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief himself, who never served a single day in the army. I grew up in a very poor family. The war, four children, a father at the front. A mother who was a school cleaner. It's understandable. From the age of 12, I worked every summer on a collective farm to earn at least something. But until 2022, we did not have a war! And there were already 20 million destitute. How can one understand this? In the richest, greatest country in the world, with a population of only 150 million people, 20 million are destitute and another 50 million are near-destitute?

Recently, I heard an academician speak on television. I have a university education, so I understand who an academician is. I can see for myself what is happening in the country. But the figures he cited about the state of our country simply shocked me.

The academician gave today's country leaders a grade of 'D' for their management of the country. I completely agree. I do not know how to run a state, so I cannot assess the quality of work of government bodies. As a person who held a certain state position, I can only say that, possessing such enormous above-ground and underground wealth and a population of only 147 million people, our people should live very well. And yet we have so many destitute! Disgusting healthcare and disgusting living conditions for the majority of the population. The question arises: why? And there is only one answer. They are stealing! And not by hundreds or thousands of rubles, not even by millions, but by billions of dollars. And one dollar is 100 rubles. I remember in Soviet times, the dollar was equal to three rubles. And the fact that it is now 100 rubles to the dollar is a clear indicator of our economic level in the world.

I remember the 1990s. My wife saved money for decades to leave some money for our grandchildren after we were gone. The state swallowed our savings and has no intention of returning what was taken. Like a highway robber. It's clear. They cannot return our savings because then the top brass won't have enough money to acquire expensive real estate abroad, in "friendly" NATO countries. Yes, some here seize 20, 30 hectares of land and fence them off with 6-meter-high fences, like Mr. Medvedev and some other arts figures. But it is very interesting that we have officials who are duty-bound to directly care for the welfare of the people. For example, Golikova, Volodin, Matvienko. By the way, I have never seen her appear on screen twice in the same outfit. The richest leaders of the poorest people. Unfortunately, there are too many such bosses who "care" for the people. But the most terrible thing I learned today is the theft from the military budget by generals. This I absolutely do not understand – what is happening in the army where I served for 30 years. In my line of duty, I communicated with both generals and fairly high-level representatives of Soviet power. There was no talk of any theft. To steal from the military budget is to deal a blow to combat readiness stronger than a defeat at the front. It means not giving the troops everything they are entitled to for waging war. It means many more soldier deaths than there could have been with full provision for war. This is a crime for which the only sentence is death. And generals are doing this. The entire lineage of such generals should be cursed. For their theft is the death of thousands of soldiers in battle.

But we have such a huge number of "servants of the people." Just in the State Duma, there are several hundred. And when you see how they live, the impression is formed that they are not the servants of the people, but the people are their servants. By the way, deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR did not receive money for their position as deputies. These ones get over half a million plus various extras. And the people mostly have 20 or 30 thousand, at best.

What surprises me is that many sources of information speak of the vast real estate property of Golikova, Matvienko abroad. Of the fabulous wealth of many major state officials. And they do not say a word about it being slander, about it not being true... Or something to that effect. And furthermore, with what conscience do they speak and talk about their care for the people? Are they not ashamed?

For many years, I’ve considered myself a fan of Emil Cioran. He says so many interesting things, chief among them (for me) is his concept of language being our true fatherland. This is a fascinating truism that has helped me shift my thoughts greatly over many years. I have overcome many internal definitions because of Cioran’s advice.

Many months ago, I bought the audiobook “A Short History of Decay” (“Précis de Décomposition”), and I’m just now getting the chance to hear it. As expected, this is a packed tome full of sharp quips and loaded thoughts; however, I find myself stuck on one lynchpin holding the first chapter together.

Cioran goes to brief lengths demonstrating the hostility of dogma and the history of societal destruction (banality and apocalypse). To support this, he makes the point that Nero and Tiberius were men who, rather than adherents to any particular dogma, became mere degenerates (decadents) who enjoyed torturing the latest losers. Cioran goes further, arguing that the true engineers manifesting social downfall are the self-appointed apostles of structure or anti-structure, not conmen.

That’s… a tough concept for me. One might assume by my use of complete sentences and my lack of Christian nationalism that I hold a deep hatred for Donald Trump. One would be correct in that assumption. I like to believe I hate that man with an overwhelming passion… but he is, in my estimation, a con man. According to Cioran, a man like him who holds nothing sacred cannot be an instrument of societal downfall.

Here’s a quote:

This leaves me with an apparent crossroads. Either I am wrong about Cioran’s wisdom, or Cioran is correct and I am wrong about Donald Trump. Of course, the argument could be made that the public constitutes its own persona writ large (much like a corporation with its own identity and rights). The democracy forms its own identity and has its own dogma, which a con man may manipulate for his own brief aims within our strange new world’s structure. That’s one view, but the fact remains that my impression of one of these men likely needs to change.

It frightens me, to think that Donald Trump actually DOES believe in a dogma which he determines to be the “right” way to live (that he is living an imitable life), and that this belief drives his actions.

RESPONSE

Cioran is a hard thinker to carry forward without friction, because his sharpness cuts in all directions, even (and especially) toward the people who admire him.

Let’s walk through this.

⚔️Cioran’s View on Dogma vs. Degeneracy

Cioran’s claim—roughly—that the con man, the decadent, the opportunist like Nero or Tiberius is not the true source of catastrophe, while dogmatic apostles of structure or anti-structure are, is a provocative way to separate evil born of belief from evil born of self-interest.

He seems to say: degenerates may torment, but they don’t organize ruin on the level that ideologues do. Ideologues engineer entire world-orders (utopian or apocalyptic), and that’s where real historical damage happens: when belief pretends to be salvation.

So to Cioran, Torquemada is more dangerous than Caligula.

(above) Juan de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition

(above) Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus a.k.a. Caligula

🐍 So… Where Does Trump Fall?

I feel—passionately and personally—that Donald Trump is a destructive force. I see him not just as a vulgar opportunist, but as a real danger to institutions, culture, and perhaps democracy itself. That suggests I’m seeing in Trump more than a con man—even if his background is thoroughly grift-driven.

So let’s test this:

1. Possibility A: Trump is “just” a con man

This is closer to Cioran’s thesis. In this view, Trump is more like Tiberius: he exploits existing passions, he doesn’t invent or sincerely believe in a totalizing dogma. He is parasitic, not messianic. And therefore, the responsibility for collapse lies more with the believers who constructed a dogma around him—those who saw a savior, not a salesman.

In this reading, Trump is not “the true danger.” The danger is the dogma that grows around him—what others make of him.

1. Possibility B: Trump believes in something

What if Trump does believe in something? Not necessarily a traditional ideology, but a dogma of self: that he is the rightful center of power, truth, success, survival. That his way is the only way. That enemies must be humiliated and facts bent to his advantage. That loyalty is moral, and dissent is treason. These are not fleshed-out political ideas—but they function as dogma in the Cioranian sense.

In this view, Trump is not merely a parasite. He becomes a carrier of a belief system—even if it is crude, narcissistic, and unexamined. And once others take this up as gospel (e.g. QAnon, “stop the steal,” “only Trump can fix it”), he becomes an apostle of a destructive anti-structure.

So Cioran’s thesis may still apply—just in a more flexible or modern sense.

🪞What Might Be Happening Emotionally

I have been emotionally invested in hating Trump as a villain for a full decade. I do not directly hate him because he is a fool. Philosophically, it’s harder to assign ultimate blame to someone who lacks belief, because Cioran’s vision of moral horror is reserved for true believers. That makes the con man weirdly “innocent” by comparison.

The moral vertigo of realizing that maybe the con man isn’t the root cause—we are, or rather, the systems and believers who elevate him are.

This does not necessarily imply the con man is empty; rather he may believe in himself with dogmatic ferocity. Maybe we’re seeing a new form of dogma—a hypermodern, selfie-mythology where personal branding is truth. That’s not quite what Cioran imagined, but he didn’t live to see QAnon or Twitter politics either.

🎯 Conclusion: Are These Views Contradictory?

Not necessarily. I am not wrong to feel Trump is dangerous. Cioran’s work is not invalidated either. Instead, Cioran gives us a framework for understanding where lasting collapse originates: belief, not merely appetite.

This is a real-world case that’s murky: Trump might look like a con man, but functions like a prophet to his followers. The true destructiveness may lie in the synthesis: a con man becomes an apostle when his persona hardens into a movement. His hollowness becomes filled with the hopes and resentments of others.

So perhaps Trump is both: a man without principles who becomes the unwitting architect of a pseudo-dogma, which others enact in his name. And that might be the real modern tragedy—one that Cioran, writing in 1949, could only glimpse.

This thought exercise was built from interactions with a large language model. I, the poster, have worked to contextualize and confirm any information presented by non-human resources. Thank you!

As The Temperature Dropped – Cold War History Through a Poetic Lens

Body:

“The winds of change were never warm.”

This piece retells the Cold War’s origin with fire, silence, and human psychology at its core. It’s not just a timeline—it’s a reflection on what happens to a nation when fear replaces memory, and how propaganda shapes the very soul of history.

Free to read, because truth should never be locked away.

Full post on Ko-Fi:

https://ko-fi.com/post/As-The-Temperature-Dropped-W7W5ZSFCE

Direct PDF download:

https://ko-fi.com/s/9f7b5d67cc

Subject index: Cold War, History, Free Download, Truman, Stalin, Political Writing, Educational, E-book, Nonfiction, PDF, Antiwar, Geopolitics, US History, Soviet Union, Storytelling, Poetic Nonfiction

How do you know you’re a person who has lived your life, rather than a just-formed brain full of artificial memories, momentarily hallucinating a reality that doesn’t actually exist? That may sound absurd, but it’s kept several generations of top cosmologists up at night. They call it: the Boltzmann brain paradox. Fabio Pacucci explores this mind-numbing thought experiment.

doesn't seem to make especial case for will transmission, but some interesting tidbits about some studies nevertheless

My husband and I are both academics. We've been married for 3 years, and been together for 6. He is an academic philosopher and I am a physicist. He has recently expressed displeasure that I've never seriously engaged with his work. Now, I've read a bit of the classics of philosophy, but my husband's work is more in what I'm told is called the "continental" tradition. Unfortunately, everything he's shown me has just seems completely insane.

Here's the problem: his work apparently involves claims about physics that are just wrong, and wrong in a very embarrassing way! I'll admit, I'm a terrible person, but I had never read his thesis before. I tried reading it and it's riddled with talk about for instance the necessary relationship between matter having "extension" and possessing mass. He also talks about the "spectacle" of fundamental particles. This is obviously nonsensical/wrong; electrons have mass and are point particles (they don't take up space really). In the thesis and some other papers he wrote he seems to think of himself as "scientific socialist" and a "materialist" but his entire idea of what these words mean is stuck in like, outdated 19th century ideas about atoms as little billiard balls flying around in space. I've gently tried to help him and explain how he might start to engage seriously with contemporary physics (he has never read a book on the subject and is by his own admission "bad at math"), but he just gets angry with me and explains that Guy Debord's system is presuppositional and the basis for all possible rational thought so there is no need at all to read other texts in the first place (I have no idea what this means). He will throw out terms like "speculative propositions" but when I ask him to explain what this means or give me examples he just starts giving me more inscrutable jargon that makes no sense. On top of that, he will repeatedly say French phrases or terms that he uses (and pronounces) incorrectly (I am a native speaker) or nonsensically. He claims to understand the language (he doesn't) and tells me that Guy Debord can only be understood "in the original French" but he clearly can't read the language and when I've tried to read the original texts they make even less sense.

On top of this, his obsession with Debord himself has reached the point of creepiness. At one point he literally told me that all other work either agrees with Debord so is redundant, or disagrees with Debord and is wrong. He keeps a framed picture of Vaneigem on the nightstand in our bedroom. In fact, he even changed his phone's background from a picture of me to this same picture of Vaneigem. I feel like I am competing with 80 year old philosophers for my husband's attention.

Recently we got in a huge fight because he was trying to demonstrate an example of the Hegelian concept of the "unity of opposites" (whatever that means) by claiming that right and left hands are opposite but also identical. I told him this is just wrong and that right and left hands are not "identical" in any meaningful sense (chirality is a basic concept in geometry/group theory: left and right hands are not superimposable). He kept putting his hands together and tried to show how they were "identical" and kept failing (because they're not) and then got angry and stormed out of the house. I haven't seen him since (this was about a day ago) and texted him and haven't heard back.

What do I do Reddit? Do I just let this go? It's immensely frustrating that my account of my own field is not being taken seriously. He asked me to engage with his work, so I did. But it seems like he won't repay me in kind. He has told me repeatedly that Debord makes empirical science unnecessary and implied that my work is a waste of time Why is it okay for him to belittle my field but I can't offer mild criticism of his?

TL;DR: My husband's academic work is embarrassingly wrong and can't take any criticism.

I’m really trying to commit myself to getting a better understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. I’m starting with the Vietnamese textbook on dialectical materialism that Luna Oi translated, before moving on to The Dialectics of Nature and Anti-Duhring.

My problem is I really struggle with philosophy. Marxian economics I can vibe with all day, but philosophy is something I’ve never been able to really get a hold of (but wanting to fix that).

So my first big struggle is understanding the difference between dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. Is the former more of the worldview or viewpoint, and the later is more for explaining and analyzing specific processes? And if that understanding is correct, isn’t materialist dialectics the things we should be committing ourselves to as it’s what helps us better understand material reality (rather than dialectical materialism, which I guess would be more of a “belief statement?)? I don’t know I probably have a lot of this mixed up, just looking for any help on this I can get.

I don’t know how there aren’t a myriad of problems associated with attempting to emulate the brain, especially with the end goal of destroying livelihoods and replacing one indentured servant for another. In fact, that’s what promoted this post- an advertisement for a talk with my alma mater’s philosophy department asking what happens when see LLMs discover phenomenological awareness.

I admit that I don’t have a ton of formal experience with philosophy, but I took one course in college that will forever be etched into my brain. Essentially, my professor explained to us the concept of a neural network and how with more computing power, researchers hope to emulate the brain and establish a consciousness baseline with which to compare a human’s subjective experience.

This didn’t use to be the case, but in a particular sector, most people’s jobs are just showing up a work, getting on a computer, and having whatever (completely unregulated and resource devouring) LLM give them answer they can find themselves, quicker. And shit like neuralink exists and I think the next step will to be to offer that with a chatgpt integration or some dystopian shit.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think humans are as special as we think we are and our pure arrogance wouldn’t stop us from creating another self and causing that self to suffer. Hell, we collectively decided to slaughter en masse another collective group with feeling (animals) to appease our tastebuds, a lot of us are thoroughly entrenched into our digital boxes because opting out will result in a loss of items we take for granted, and any discussions on these topics are taboo.

Data-obsessed weirdos are a genuine threat to humanity, consciousness-emulation never should have been a conversation piece in the first place without first understanding its downstream implications. Feeling like a certified Luddite these days

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.

A long read for an article or blog post, but well worth it. If you or anyone you know suffers from a chronic illness, ailment or pain, you might relate to some of what is written here. I certainly did, and can share the author's dislike of positivity and therapy culture.