I am sick of capitalism so i thought why nit make the question which is done more than 100 times here, what is better than capitalism?

The greed of humans of course is infinite but also thats why there should be a model which sets this greed to a limit, maybe socialism was right, maybe a mix in both, i mean the perfect model for me would be if someone wants to work he can work if someone wants not o he does not have to because every body will have a house and everybody will have food and electricity and water, as dellusional as it may seem are we not on the same world where we explore the universe and there are humans who are so rich theu can build luxury gigantic towers which surpass the pyramids of egypt?

I mean is it easier to do a system which everyone has a house, food and electricity or to send a metal box into spaceship?

I am open for debate i need to be edcated in this field, why is it so hard for everybody to have shelter, food and electricity without wageslaving, u know living paycheck to paycheck, are we all seen as instruments as cattle, as donkeys by the rich, and when i say the rich i mean the real rich, and if this is the case how can we stop this inequality?

Is human the tormentor of himself, the liar of himself, i think yes, and this explains why so many people switch when wealth is in their hand, that is why a system needs to be placed to stop the inequality and give everyone basic needs, and i am anti-rent, why would i need to pay to live in a sheltered house, where there is land all over the world who humans can build shelter, but that is not allowed due to the rules?

Seriously please someone just give a role model no matter how much dellusional or utopian it may seem i need smth between reality and fiction or utopian.

Selfishness has a bad rap in modernity and ideology a good one, I wonder why and if this is justified?

I wondered if anyone had any recommendations of papers/books on the view that there are multiple ways we should understand "X means Y"

Everyone knows about Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Who are some of the lesser known ones that have had any degree of influence on philosophy?

I've been thinking a lot about the way we learn today, and I'm wondering if there are philosophers who have written about this? I don't study philosophy!

One thing I've noticed is that, although school and university taught me a lot of information, I often felt like my knowledge was very scattered. More importantly, I don't feel like I was really taught how to think critically. Most of my critical thinking skills came from reading and teaching myself outside of formal education. I actually had a deep moment where I realized I know just about nothing despite going to school for years.

I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to make the cliché "university is a scam" argument. I'm well aware that education is largely what you make of it, and that students have a responsibility for their own learning. At the same time, there were moments during my undergraduate degree when I genuinely questioned the intention of the educational system. Was the goal to teach me how to learn and think, or was it to teach me how to process and reproduce a large amount of information in a short period of time?

I guess I'm also fascinated by historical figures who were able to work across multiple demanding disciplines. People who studied philosophy, mathematics, physics, medicine, and they had a deep understanding of it.

Are there philosophers who criticize the modern education system? Have any philosophers argued that this way of learning shapes how we understand the world or ourselves?

I'm mainly looking for philosophers or philosophical works to challenge my own thoughts and beliefs.

Which book, concept, or interpretation is the most valuable in the philosophy of Leo Strauss? Let me know

I know that there are arguments like the contingency argument which can explain the necessity for a supreme creator, and which most often is used inside a monotheistic narrative, but why can't the same argument also be used in favour of a polytheistic framework? Afterall, if a supreme creator exists, then that creator could have created a set of "lesser gods" which would bridge the gap between the supreme creator and us humans. This is f.ex seen in ancient greek mythology. What are other philosophical arguments that try to make the case for polytheism over monotheism, in the scope of a theological discussion. (i.e we do not assume atheism, but only focus on the question of mono- versus polytheism question)

Ever since I was very young, I have been convinced that the non-existence of the self (that is to say, the state of the self before birth and after death) is preferable to existence. Starting from the basic premise that we are all seeking our own happiness.

I would like to flesh out this line of thought with sound arguments, and to that end I am looking to see whether any philosophers have put forward arguments that could support this thesis: ‘non-existence is preferable to existence’.

I am aware that the definition of happiness is a subject of debate in itself, but I am not concerned with any particular philosophical definition on this matter.

It seems to me that anti-natalism may have arguments that could support this, but I also know that their thesis is different, as it aims to prove that natalism is immoral. Not that living beings should wish not to exist.

Ps: sorry for any possible text errors english is not my native language

I dont think this a formal argument of his, merely something he said in a lecture.

"I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity. The principle of maximum diversity says that the laws of nature, and the initial conditions at the beginning of time, are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible. As a result, life is possible but not too easy. Maximum diversity often leads to maximum stress. In the end we survive, but only by the skin of our teeth. This is the confession of faith of a scientific heretic."

For Abrahamic theists this could also potentially align with the verses that suggest the purpose of creation is to display God's glory.

Obviously I could understand someone having a problem with God allowing suffering simply because it's existence is more interesting than not ha.

I’m interested in whether contemporary philosophy of information treats information as something fundamentally real or merely as an abstract description of physical and cognitive processes.
If information is ontologically basic, what would that imply about the relationship between matter, consciousness, and meaning? Could information serve as a deeper explanatory layer beneath traditional categories of mind and matter, or does it always depend on an underlying substrate?

I am trying to write a paragraph about the ego forming the ideal I and the little other. I thought they were the same thing, but apparently they refer to different things. Can someone explain their difference please?

This is question to those people who believe that there are such things as "moral facts" and that a statement like "murder is wrong" could be considered factually accurate. Are these moral truths true in all places at all points in history? Alternatively, are they true for you at this point in history?

Let me give an example of a fact:

In the continent of South America, there is at least one living tree.

This is a fact that I think no reasonable person can dispute. It is undeniably a fact. But it is not a fact that exists across all of time and space. Tomorrow, the human race may embark on a campaign of nuclear war against every tree in South America and eventually kill them all. The statement would no longer be a statement of fact, it would be a statement of error. A fact is "a piece of information about events that have actually occurred or things that exist".

Let us consider another statement which some people consider to be a fact:

Murder is wrong.

Personally, I do not believe that this is a fact, but I know that some people think it is. If it is a fact, has it always been a fact? Would that include before humans existed? Has it been a fact throughout all of human history, was it a fact for early humans engaging in primitive conflicts for territory, for Alexander the Great and Atilla the Hun? And will it always be a fact through every conceiveable circumstance?

I researched about scientific facts about death. What i have seen is there are some hallucinogenic like near death experiences such as seeing light or feeling "being one with universe" or feeling "timeless". These kind of hallucinogenic effects are reported scientifically by people who had near death experiences such as having cardiac arrest and getting come back to life after some seconds or minutes. I have found that this mostly causes by dmt created in brain. Then of course i researched more about dmt.

Firstly, in terms of evolutionary logic, near death experiences doesnt increase your survival chance because it happens when death is already inevitable. So why does it exist?

Secondly, i checked people's experiences when they get dmt as drug and their experiences were almost same as near death experiences they even feel "timeless" and they claim to see "higher entities". Scientifically there is no research that proves dmt production is increased near death on humans. It is not disproven too because dmt is highly small amount in body that it can be hardly measured and it is unethical to research on near death humans. However they did research measuring dmt levels on rats before and after cardiac arrest. They measured that dmt amount in different brain regions were increased especially in virtual cortex after cardiac arrest.

The effect of "timeless" is the key here. I think the hell and heaven concepts in religions or after life concept in philosophy like eternal recurrence idea of nietzsche might be real scientifically. After we die, if dmt is increased in brain and we get into a kind of timeless experience, even if they destroy our brain still we will be conscious in past timelessly. It is highly speculative concept but chemicals in brain makes you that specific moment feel timeless. That means we may feel that death moment for infinity at that time. It wont matter if our brain get destroyed and they measure 0 electricity activity on brain after a week. We may be trapped in that moment for eternity. We would kind of live in hell, heaven or some kind of other after life experience like nietzsche's eternal recurrence.

The most suspicisous part is there is no evolutionary logic behind dmt creating hallucinogens near death. It doesnt help to stay alive. It feels like it is developed or even "added" for another reason.

So, what I am getting is wanting to delineate a difference between the two states — as to epistemic and ontological limitations and function.

Can you establish any principal differences between what can be tested and observed?

I am currently working towards completing my undergraduate dissertation/thesis for the next academic year, I’m currently doing reading and research in preparation. My topic relates to the carnivore diet and the philosophical underpinnings of it; I’m very interested in bio politics, the development of power relations, contemporary constructions of masculinity and being conspiratorial and skeptic generally. Have read some of Foucault, Bourdieu, Carol J Adam’s. I’m interested in using Nietzsche’s concept of resentment too. I’m collecting a list of books I’m interested in reading for it and would like some more, I think that I would like some quite recent stuff on these topics because I’m writing about such a contemporary issue. Many thanks.

Hello fellow philosophers, even though i majored in Philosophy (primary field was Political Philosophy) i am currently getting more into the field of aesthetics.

So, my question is simple, are there anyone who knows the aesthetics of Aristotle better than i (which is easy btw) to have a theory about the content of the lost second book of Poetics dealing with comedy?

And yes, i do know of a certain italian book and movie dealing with this subject.

So I was reading a comment that went something like "the reason why slave morality debates are annoying is because the fanboy already assumes the Christian/religious are too inferior to understand due to their slave morals".

This made me want to ask then, what are some broader, more general criticism that the religious have said about Nietzsche, it's only fair to let the other respond to such accusations about their faith.