Individualism it's 21st century goal

[BackInTheGame78]

@Aguirre "...but are we truly better off worshipping ourselves?"

The "God" most humans worship has a curious habit of regurgitating all the talking points we ourselves have spent eons mistaking for incontrovertible Truth. We've BEEN "worshipping ourselves", since at least the beginning of recorded history


"I can't help but think were are on a downward trend"

Well, I'm not a big fan of the turn towards Identity Politcs and Censoriousness that The Anglosphere has taken, over the last decade... THAT though has been by the byproduct of Tribalism once again becoming hip, while individualism has once again been declared heretical by the majority of our opinion makers

Hasn't he ever heard that

"God's not dead,
He's truly alive,
I'm smiling from the inside!"

 

[BaronOfHair]

Hasn't he ever heard that

"God's not dead,
He's truly alive,
I'm smiling from the inside!"

Yeah, at the risk of redundance

Surprisingly FEW folks have recognized something so obvious. I'm not even an atheist, yet I still share/concur

 

[Aguirre]

Ok, so now you’ve moved the goalposts quite convenienly. We started with a historical assertion that societies once possessed a “unifying worldview,” and that claim does not survive contact with history. It was DOA.

Trying to recast it as “shared metaphysical presuppositions” does not fix the problem, because belief in transcendence has never implied agreement about truth, ethics, authority, or meaning.

Theological history is overwhelmingly a history of disagreement: schisms, heresies, wars, political maneuvering, sectarian conflict, reformations, and dissent driven underground by force. The Papal State itself functioned for centuries as a territorial power, maintaining standing armies and waging wars to acquire land, resources, and consolidate influence through alliances. Popes sanctioned violence, political assassinations, and coercion in the service of power, wealth and control of resources rather than unity.

Papal offices were also frequently shaped by elite financial and political interests, with powerful banking families such as the Medici exerting decisive influence over papal selection and policy, including bribing Cardinals to select the Pope they wanted that was either a family member or a close ally that would continue their banking relationship. This happened multiple times and is not a historical aberration; it is evidence that religion often operated as a governing and control mechanism, not as a source of shared moral consensus.

What you describe as unity was not consensus but enforced orthodoxy. When deviation is punished, silence looks like agreement, but the existence of secret worship, underground movements, and repeated religious fractures shows disagreement was always present.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people would speak out and disagree just as much today if they knew punishment for this was being burned at the stake, crucification, or various other methods of torture like it was back then?

Isn’t it enough to note that many of the most brutal torture techniques ever devised were used to enforce religious orthodoxy and compel denunciation of “heretical” beliefs? That history alone makes clear that apparent unity came not from shared conviction, but from fear of extreme punishment. The argument that humanity was somehow "unified" under religion back in the day seems absurd when you realize the lengths they had to go through to create this facade.

And let's not even get into why the Church of England exists or was created in the first place, shall we?

Disagreement is also not solipsism, and pluralism is not relativism. Democracy is not a theory of truth; it is a governance mechanism for societies that lack moral unanimity, which they always have.

Appeals to pre-modern metaphysical certainty confuse unquestioned authority with coherence. Ethics were never governed by a single metanarrative; competing moral frameworks have always existed, with one temporarily dominant through power, whether it was just "flexed" to gain adherence or actually used to force it.

Religion historically functioned as a powerful system of social control, producing order and compliance, not genuine unity, while structurally dividing people into in-groups and out-groups: The saved vs. the damned, the true believers vs. the infidels, the God-fearing people vs. the wicked and evil, etc.

What has changed is not that people stopped believing in higher things, but that fewer institutions can silence competing interpretations and still call the result “unity.” Human disagreement is not a failure of modernity; it is the default state of complex societies.

There are many factors at hand. I am approaching this philosophically. People are always going to invoke metaphysics, epistemology, ethics even if they do not understand they are doing so. It doesn't matter to me if people here are Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc.

Yes, I am familiar with church history and how it splintered over time. Sure, there were always regional and cultural differences but the Church was united as one church for many centuries, even in the beginning when there was not one authoritative Bible. Believing in God and the teachings of Church Fathers and possessing faith (etc.) were of greater significance to the population than and any trivial, superficial differences that arose in daily life or particular regions. I do not think that people only believed because of fear or threat of punishment; sure, there were many ‘heretics’ who challenged orthodox teachings. Gnosticism was a major threat to this worldview and one inversely correlated to Christianity.

I actually do agree with your criticism of the Catholic Church. But their machinations and abuse and usurpation of power are of something more deliberate and nefarious than a simple ‘disagreement.’ It really does conflict with Christianity itself, and the schism is indeed of great significance in this conversation. Rome was one of many patriarchates but began to deviate from tradition and assumed a position of papal supremacy instead of primacy, so it led to a schism; later on, protestants reacted to all of Catholic corruption but only created a new kind of heresy.

Aquinas is actually a bit of a forerunner to the Protestants and Descartes because of natural theology and his attempt to synthesize with pagan Aristotle which, despite good intentions, ended up displacing the traditional emphasis on ‘revealed’ theology in the West. This really is a huge precursor to what came later. Protestantism promotes individualism, largely because of the solas, like the idea that any one could pick up a bible clearly interpret it for himself using reason (despite it being a 'fallen' faculty) and devoid of traditional teachings, hence why there are endless denominations. Gnosticism, occultism/Hermeticism etc, factor in as well especially with the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Gnosticism teaches gnosis, a kind of individual salvation, and many other principles contrary to Christianity.

Sure, all of that is necessary to point out as a means to how we got here. Nevertheless, the embrace of solipsism furthers the revolution to a position of absurdity, and that is essentially what I argued from the beginning. It puts the ‘I’ before everything else and one no longer even needs to believe in a metaphysical transcendent order or the consequences thereof, as people have been ‘liberated’ from them. Consider today’s secular worldview: where do you find telos (purpose) in anything? We apparently are insignificant dust, bags of atoms randomly strewn together without meaning or purpose. Of course, I am aware of scientific movements that deviate from a mechanistic, materialistic worldview. Then you've got the pseudo-gnostic types like David Icke, proponents of sim theory etc.

The word dogma seems to only have a negative connotation these days, and is usually only used to describe religions. But is it dogma to say that men and women are different? So what? Modern institutions, academia, science can be just as dogmatic as any religion. Often scientific claims are based on theory rather than the actual scientific method and dogmatically asserted to be true. However, things like science or technology have no moral imperative, and don’t offer any real insight on how to get an ought from an is. As for ethics: why ought people not murder and rape? Are people not committing rape and murder only because they fear punishment? Can people democratically decide to make rape and murder legal? I think people innately are born with at least some capacity to see how immoral these are, even without any dogmatic ruling, but that does require people to rise above baser instincts. Power, technology etc are tools that can be used for good or abused. Are witch burnings any worse that what communists did to people or how about covid 'vaccines' and other big pharma atrocities?

I never said disagreement was solipsism. There is only one truth even if every person wants to have their own conception of truth. I also never said democracy was a theory of truth; I suggested that its utilization undermines the pursuit of truth and leads to relativism for there is nothing preventing it from doing so. People today are more divided than ever before -- how is this a good thing?

 

[Aguirre]

@Aguirre

Well, I'm not a big fan of the turn towards Identity Politcs and Censoriousness that The Anglosphere has taken, over the last decade... THAT though has been by the byproduct of Tribalism once again becoming hip, while individualism has once again been declared heretical by the majority of our opinion makers

I don't think it really is a battle between tribalism vs the individual. If people were more united we could have pushed back against these ideas in the first place. Divide and conquer is an effective, tried and true strategy. People are only now beginning to know understand that the enlightenment enterprise of liberalism has flaws that are being exploited. That, and I actually think there is a deliberate attempt to eradicate anything that is traditional Western. Patriarchy is now evil and toxic and we need to promote equalism between genders and deny truths about genders that have been known since the beginning of time; white guilt needs to give in to token replacement initiatives. Basically, the West needs to sh!t on its ancestors and history and we need to just gaslight ourselves into oblivion.

I won't say too much about mind control, but from the PR propagandist himself, Edward Bernays:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

And maybe it was Goebbels?:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.

 

[BaronOfHair]

I don't think it really is a battle between tribalism vs the individual. If people were more united we could have pushed back these ideas in the first place

Most of The English speaking world IS adamantly united into TWO tribes: The Woke and The Red Pilled. There'dve been nothing to "push back" against, had The Tribe not once again become venerated, and individual liberty been denigrated

 

[BackInTheGame78]

There are many factors at hand. I am approaching this philosophically. People are always going to invoke metaphysics, epistemology, ethics even if they do not understand they are doing so. It doesn't matter to me if people here are Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc.

Yes, I am familiar with church history and how it splintered over time. Sure, there were always regional and cultural differences but the Church was united as one church for many centuries, even in the beginning when there was not one authoritative Bible. Believing in God and the teachings of Church Fathers and possessing faith (etc.) were of greater significance to the population than and any trivial, superficial differences that arose in daily life or particular regions. I do not think that people only believed because of fear or threat of punishment; sure, there were many ‘heretics’ who challenged orthodox teachings. Gnosticism was a major threat to this worldview and one inversely correlated to Christianity.

I actually do agree with your criticism of the Catholic Church. But their machinations and abuse and usurpation of power are of something more deliberate and nefarious than a simple ‘disagreement.’ It really does conflict with Christianity itself, and the schism is indeed of great significance in this conversation. Rome was one of many patriarchates but began to deviate from tradition and assumed a position of papal supremacy instead of primacy, so it led to a schism; later on, protestants reacted to all of Catholic corruption but only created a new kind of heresy.

Aquinas is actually a bit of a forerunner to the Protestants and Descartes because of natural theology and his attempt to synthesize with pagan Aristotle which, despite good intentions, ended up displacing the traditional emphasis on ‘revealed’ theology in the West. This really is a huge precursor to what came later. Protestantism promotes individualism, largely because of the solas, like the idea that any one could pick up a bible clearly interpret it for himself using reason (despite it being a 'fallen' faculty) and devoid of traditional teachings, hence why there are endless denominations. Gnosticism, occultism/Hermeticism etc, factor in as well especially with the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Gnosticism teaches gnosis, a kind of individual salvation, and many other principles contrary to Christianity.

Sure, all of that is necessary to point out as a means to how we got here. Nevertheless, the embrace of solipsism furthers the revolution to a position of absurdity, and that is essentially what I argued from the beginning. It puts the ‘I’ before everything else and one no longer even needs to believe in a metaphysical transcendent order or the consequences thereof, as people have been ‘liberated’ from them. Consider today’s secular worldview: where do you find telos (purpose) in anything? We apparently are insignificant dust, bags of atoms randomly strewn together without meaning or purpose. Of course, I am aware of scientific movements that deviate from a mechanistic, materialistic worldview. Then you've got the pseudo-gnostic types like David Icke, proponents of sim theory etc.

The word dogma seems to only have a negative connotation these days, and is usually only used to describe religions. But is it dogma to say that men and women are different? So what? Modern institutions, academia, science can be just as dogmatic as any religion. Often scientific claims are based on theory rather than the actual scientific method and dogmatically asserted to be true. However, things like science or technology have no moral imperative, and don’t offer any real insight on how to get an ought from an is. As for ethics: why ought people not murder and rape? Are people not committing rape and murder only because they fear punishment? Can people democratically decide to make rape and murder legal? I think people innately are born with at least some capacity to see how immoral these are, even without any dogmatic ruling, but that does require people to rise above baser instincts. Power, technology etc are tools that can be used for good or abused. Are witch burnings any worse that what communists did to people or how about covid 'vaccines' and other big pharma atrocities?

I never said disagreement was solipsism. There is only one truth even if every person wants to have their own conception of truth. I also never said democracy was a theory of truth; I suggested that its utilization undermines the pursuit of truth and leads to relativism for there is nothing preventing it from doing so. People today are more divided than ever before -- how is this a good thing?

A bunch of fancy words and philosophical footnotes don’t change reality: history shows there was never a unified worldview, only fear and coercion. Secret worship, heresy, and schisms are constants, not anomalies.

Claiming humans were “unified” under religion is like saying everyone in North Korea secretly agrees with their leader. Appearances are not consensus. Modern pluralism isn’t solipsism; it’s the absence of threats that used to make silence compulsory.

And if we’re grading by actual outcomes, the Church’s historical “unity” required armies, torture, and execution, not shared conviction. Words like “telos” and “gnosis” don’t erase that.

If obedience under threat counts as agreement, congratulations , you’ve just invented a new dystopia and called it unity.

Schisms, wars, and heresies: humanity’s real track record of ‘unity’ is more like organized chaos with fire and swords.

No need to dust off Aquinas or Descartes, the historical record does all the heavy lifting.

If Jesus himself couldn’t unify the religious authorities of his own day, good luck arguing that religion ever magically produced universal agreement, which by the way, is abhorrently historically inaccurate. During his era, the Jewish religious world was riddled with many factions which included Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots among others, all fiercely at odds philosophically and politically over the interpretation of the law, the temple and the messianic expectations, many times boiling over into fighting among the factions.

So at this point I need to ask are you simply historically ignorant by choice or do you willfully choose to turn a blind eye to anything historically that doesn't fit into your narrow-minded narrative?

 

[Aguirre]

A bunch of fancy words and philosophical footnotes don’t change reality: history shows there was never a unified worldview, only fear and coercion. Secret worship, heresy, and schisms are constants, not anomalies.

Claiming humans were “unified” under religion is like saying everyone in North Korea secretly agrees with their leader. Appearances are not consensus. Modern pluralism isn’t solipsism; it’s the absence of threats that used to make silence compulsory.

And if we’re grading by actual outcomes, the Church’s historical “unity” required armies, torture, and execution, not shared conviction. Words like “telos” and “gnosis” don’t erase that.

If obedience under threat counts as agreement, congratulations , you’ve just invented a new dystopia and called it unity.

Schisms, wars, and heresies: humanity’s real track record of ‘unity’ is more like organized chaos with fire and swords.

No need to dust off Aquinas or Descartes, the historical record does all the heavy lifting.

If Jesus himself couldn’t unify the religious authorities of his own day, good luck arguing that religion ever magically produced universal agreement, which by the way, is abhorrently historically inaccurate. During his era, the Jewish religious world was riddled with many factions which included Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots among others, all fiercely at odds philosophically and politically over the interpretation of the law, the temple and the messianic expectations, many times boiling over into fighting among the factions.

So at this point I need to ask are you simply historically ignorant by choice or do you willfully choose to turn a blind eye to anything historically that doesn't fit into your narrow-minded narrative?

Philosophy is more than just fancy words. These deep philosophical questions correspond to the nature of reality and how we should live our lives and why. They are timeless and always relevant no matter what trends come and go. Assuming that a particular historical narrative is correct it is indeed also valuable, but it only tells you how people have lived their lives. But where is the ought from is? Science/technology have been used nefariously to kill masses of people, but does that mean it is bad and we should do away with all technology? Governments have done bad things too, oppressing people etc... should we just be anarchists then? This would be fallacious reasoning, but you seem to have a very reductive view of the past and one that seems to be colored by your emotional reaction to Christianity.

You don't seem to want to give Christianity any credit. It offers a coherent worldview and, if you prefer a historical analysis, it indeed has given the world many positives that you likely take for granted. It isn't merely an oppressive power structure enforcing dogmas or else death. Sure, there are examples of that in Christianity's history, but it does not follow as a necessary feature of Christianity; quite the opposite.

The Pharisees, Sadducees etc did not simply debate interpretations, they actively perverted the teachings for their own gain. Invented was the concept of a secret oral tradition and more. Jesus rebuked them, but within Christianity is the concept of free will, so nobody was forced to believe Jesus.

But since you clearly dislike Christianity, what is your perspective on the current state of affairs? Do you like the direction we are going in? If not, then what do you propose.

 

[Aguirre]

Most of The English speaking world IS adamantly united into TWO tribes: The Woke and The Red Pilled. There'dve been nothing to "push back" against, had The Tribe not once again become venerated, and individual liberty been denigrated

Sure, the red pill is a collective reaction to the woke narratives, but it is more complex than that. Wokeness is rooted in a lot of Marxist presuppositions, critical theory, social constructivism etc, and these people want to see the West crumble because these 'useful idiots' believe in a utopia. The straight white male is the archetypal villain to them.

There exists the problem of the one and the many. Just how far can people be liberated as individuals yet still exist as a group living amongst each other? Can individuals not be free to choose to accept the views proposed by other individuals, thus creating a group or at least a zeitgeist? I don't think one can argue that humanity is innately individualistic rather than tribal. But everyone, including the liberal, wants some legal limits on individual liberty, no? What are your thoughts on transgender bathrooms? Decriminalizing street drugs? Age of Consent? The idea that millions of Muslims can come in and put Mosques everywhere?

 

[Desdinova]

If you move outside the city, you'll get a bit of a different opinion. Cities are social toxic waste dumps. In rural communities, people are more likely to help stick together. The downside is that people outside the city thrive on community gossip instead of social media gossip.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Philosophy is more than just fancy words. These deep philosophical questions correspond to the nature of reality and how we should live our lives and why. They are timeless and always relevant no matter what trends come and go. Assuming that a particular historical narrative is correct it is indeed also valuable, but it only tells you how people have lived their lives. But where is the ought from is? Science/technology have been used nefariously to kill masses of people, but does that mean it is bad and we should do away with all technology? Governments have done bad things too, oppressing people etc... should we just be anarchists then? This would be fallacious reasoning, but you seem to have a very reductive view of the past and one that seems to be colored by your emotional reaction to Christianity.

You don't seem to want to give Christianity any credit. It offers a coherent worldview and, if you prefer a historical analysis, it indeed has given the world many positives that you likely take for granted. It isn't merely an oppressive power structure enforcing dogmas or else death. Sure, there are examples of that in Christianity's history, but it does not follow as a necessary feature of Christianity; quite the opposite.

The Pharisees, Sadducees etc did not simply debate interpretations, they actively perverted the teachings for their own gain. Invented was the concept of a secret oral tradition and more. Jesus rebuked them, but within Christianity is the concept of free will, so nobody was forced to believe Jesus.

But since you clearly dislike Christianity, what is your perspective on the current state of affairs? Do you like the direction we are going in? If not, then what do you propose.

The “unity” you’re describing existed largely because most people were deliberately kept uneducated, materially dependent, and punished for deviation. Medieval peasants weren’t unified around metaphysics: they were illiterate, struggling to survive, and excluded from interpreting law or scripture for themselves. Deviating didn’t just risk social disapproval; it could mean expulsion from land, loss of the right to farm, and effective starvation.

Once expelled, the “choices” were grim: forage and likely die, or steal to survive, which often carried capital punishment. When dissent places you in a starvation-or-execution trap, silence is not agreement.

As literacy, printing, and basic security expanded, disagreement didn’t suddenly appear, it simply surfaced. That’s why mass education correlates with reformations, heresies, and revolutions. Visibility is being mistaken for novelty. We are not more divided than ever; dissent is simply more visible, especially with the rise of 24/7 social media and the "spin" of media.

Let's not pretend that Christianity is unique in providing moral structure or meaning. Many religions offer similar ethical frameworks, social cohesion, and metaphysical narratives. Recognizing that doesn’t diminish Christianity, it just undermines the claim that it once achieved some singular, unified consensus humanity has now lost.

And for the record, this isn’t hostility toward Christianity. I’m Catholic. Acknowledging how religious institutions historically functioned as mechanisms of authority and control doesn’t negate the faith’s theology or moral insights. It simply rejects the myth that it ever produced universal agreement without coercion.

If “unity” only exists when people are uneducated, economically trapped, or afraid to speak, then it wasn’t unity, it was enforced compliance.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Can individuals not be free to choose to accept the views proposed by other individuals, thus creating a group or at least a zeitgeist? I don't think one can argue that humanity is innately individualistic rather than tribal

We're social animals, and thus the temptation to blindly follow "the herd"(A few or several individuals, who are themselves blindly following an ideology, guru, elected official, etc etc)is always strong... The urge to piss and sh-t wherever we happen to be standing is also strong/arguably natural, yet we needn't give into THOSE temptations. One similarly doesn't HAVE to drink The Kool Aid of yet another cult


"What are your thoughts on transgender bathrooms?"

Everyone go into the toilet, relieve themselves, walk out, and return to groaning over how Disney "ruined" two franchises that were the intellectual and artistic equivalent of gas station food to begin with... There's no "problem" here, unless somebody creates one


"Decriminalizing street drugs?"

Doesn't go far enough... End legal prohibition of all intoxicants. So many of us allowing Big Brother to dictate what we put into our own bodies has begat agony that's going to reverberated down through the centuries


"Age of Consent?"

What about it? Pedos clearly have no respect for the individual liberty of their nonconsensual targets, and the state's attempt to prevent teens for rolling around in the backseat have been LESS successful than Greenpeace's stab at getting EVERYONE to go vegan/start hugging trees, rather than chopping them down for housing and firewood

"The idea that millions of Muslims can come in and put Mosques everywhere?"

Find what a house of worship espouses objectionable in some way?.DON'T WALK INTO said house of worship!!! Same way none of us is obligated to dine at a restaurant that serves fileted bat and BBQed kangaroo, sit through a two hour interview with the cast of Melrose Place, etc etc. This stuff is so self-explanatory, it's almost scary

 

[BaronOfHair]

this is due to the fact that people are different. Some are smart... some are strong... some are emotional.. some are easily controlled. Some are rebellious Some are leaders... some are scientists.

MOST are gutless imbeciles, desperate for a savior to "rescue" them from everything and everyone they find disagreeable in some way. As someone else remarked in a seperate thread: Let's WELCOME the population decline, rather than continuing to mistake this for a tragedy or a catastrophe

We wouldn't be in the sh-tstorm we're in today, had not so many twerps reproduced back in the late 60s and 70s. Said offspring had infected our institutions beyond all remedy, by time the early 90s rolled around

 

[Slowhandluke]

MOST are gutless imbeciles, desperate for a savior to "rescue" them from everything and everyone they find disagreeable in some way. As someone else remarked in a seperate thread: Let's WELCOME the population decline, rather than continuing to mistake this for a tragedy or a catastrophe

We wouldn't be in the sh-tstorm we're in today, had not so many twerps reproduced back in the late 60s and 70s. Said offspring had infected our institutions beyond all remedy, by time the early 90s rolled around

Cons... there are "stupid people".
Pros... there are "stupid people".*

*assuming one is somewhat intelligent. In the land of the blind, the one eye man is king. If u believe there is a lot of stupid people, dont try to change people but use that information in an advantage way. once u can deal with the fact that not everyone is smart, life gets more interesting and fun. Instead of trying to reform or educate the fool, play along and control the situation. Look arround, u will notice a lot of people already doing this.

Some people are not meant to think imho. Else why has slavery lasted so long? some people want to be told what to do and they will do it as long as their basic needs are met - food, available sex, comfort, etc.

If it weren't for their masters, a lot of people who arent able to think for themselves would have died out a long time ago. In a harsh world where life was precious, having a master who helped someone survive was better then dying of starvation or being killed by a neighboring tribe; or a wild boar or lion because he/she was stupid enough to go into the bush when others said it wasn't a good idea.

Society is like a beehive. For the collective good, not everyone can be the queen bee or the soldier bee. But everyone will have a place. Perhaps maybe to just reproduce and nothing more? Who know? but it is what it is...

ultimately, I'm sure there will be a natural culling... Perhaps a war... or some other malady. Right now in Russia and Ukraine there are many "stupid" people who have been killed. When someone says there's a drone flying, and some stupid person still goes out into the open field. that's just an instance of natural culling.

 

[BaronOfHair]

ultimately, I'm sure there will be a natural culling...

Already happening. A large percentage of folks in their 30s and 40s haven't produced offspring, and likely WILL NOT do so. Bring it all on...


This is the same demographic who not simply walked, but RAN to the nearest recruiting office, immediately after 9/11(Rather than flattening out their sorrows with a stiff drink or 12, then getting on with life) + Continued to believe "We're fighting Evil and promoting democracy!!!". Even after the mission in Afghanistan went to sh-t, in spring of '02.


Maker Of Life be praised that so many in my own age bracket AREN'T producing future myrmidions like themselves

 

[Slowhandluke]

Already happening. A large percentage of folks in their 30s and 40s haven't produced offspring, and likely WILL NOT do so. Bring it all on...


This is the same demographic who not simply walked, but RAN to the nearest recruiting office, immediately after 9/11(Rather than flattening out their sorrows with a stiff drink or 12, then getting on with life) + Continued to believe "We're fighting Evil and promoting democracy!!!". Even after the mission in Afghanistan went to sh-t, in spring of '02.


Maker Of Life be praised that so many in my own age bracket AREN'T producing future myrmidions like themselves

Nature has a way of balancing itself. As I grow older, when there is a rock in the way, I go arround it. I know when to cut my loses. "lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change and the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".

when you walk down a street and see a funny man acting weird. sometimes a man's role in life is to be a clown. Don't try to change that. perhaps just accept it and enjoy the slow. Maybe ask him to do a skit you enjoy, give him a couple of bucks and be on your way

I also seem to get more done now that I'm not tilting at windmills Some people are just stupid and will never learn. It's just a fact of life.

 

[Gamisch]

Of course, people have always disagreed, but I am speaking to foundational presuppositions, something higher than mundane political discourse or like matters. For example, the belief in God or gods necessitates a belief in the metaphysical and transcendental -- something greater than man itself and certainly greater than the individual. A shared ethnos and group history passed down from generation to generation also emphasizing something greater than the individual. I am not suggesting that the individual has no place among the many, but that there are consequences and that people today cannot escape the last few centuries of individualist 'framing.' To even question this is modern day heresy.

"I think therefore I am" reverses tradition by placing epistemology before metaphysics whilst appealing to many higher things merely taken for granted and yet simply taken as axiomatic. And later, an external metaphysical world and its truth is replaced by abstract mental categories of one's own mind.

Solipsism itself completely undermines truth and the pursuit and value of. Democracy, with its pros and cons, is inherently a revolutionary tool that promotes relativism since something can oscilate endlessly between being ethical or unethical, true or false. An overarching metanarrative regarding ethics does not exist like it used to, being that it has basically been replaced by subjective preferences without any need for justification. Also, consider that most people today are caught in the assumption that truth is arrived at through an ongoing dialectical process: one opinion conflicts with another, and a compromise is considered to the sensible thing to do; it may be a 'middleground fallacy' but it repeats ad infinitum.

We live in a world where things are commonly asserted to be no more than 'social constructs' as dictated by those in power. Power is often seen through a Marxist lens as being oppressive, where once hierarchy or levels of power was simply the norm. Gender being an expression of its biology is now wholly divorced from its 'fascist' biological 'binary' origin; you apparently are whatever you believe you are. Men are women are apparently no different, and everyone is equal. The idea that the 'nature' of a lion vs a bear vs a human is evident can now commonly give way to nominalism. The so-called 'fascist' boundaries of nature once upon a time discovered are dissolving more and more everyday with new 'understandings.'

But the cognitive dissonance that results is astounding.

If you consider Jordan Peterson as one of endless examples, a man whom I have mixed views on. He is critical of post-modernism, and rightfully so it is a destructive force without a solution that leads to chaos. His presuppositions primarily come from modernism, but he fails to realize that his modernism with its utopic idealism is what undid pre-modernism; yet, he looks to pre-modernism (ancient cultures, religion) for some kind of answer for the failings of modernism. His worldview is a syncretic buffet table of beliefs that are incoherently tied together, and often seen through unverifiable subjective psychoanalysis.

God is dead and we have killed him... We can selfishly rescue ourselves from nihilism with existentialism and liberate ourselves from any restraints, but are we truly better off worshipping ourselves? I can't help but think were are on a downward trend.

Cmon now..if anyone's attitude is creating division is yours. Dudes like you who happily suffer just to see others suffer as well.

Extremely hypocritical if you claim anything else. You basically spent an entire thread confirming you ENJOY the division and hatred just because " it's fun".

In my native language we say" improve the world and start with yourself". I geuss in English it would be something like" lead by example ".

 

[BaronOfHair]

Dudes like you who happily suffer just to see others suffer as well

Those who bemoan "a lack of unity" in our society yearn for everyone to "unify" under whichever ideology THEY blindly ascribe to. Irony of this is that The US has essentially been in the midst of a gang war between self-described Red Pillers and Blues(Those who identify as Progressive, who universally vote Democrat)for the past decade(Same way our slums are divided between Crips and Bloods), made possible by entirely too many of us being witless and cowardly enough to fall in line with one of these camps

Wouldn't have happened, had more of us possessed something approaching a spine, declared out loud to the dogmatists on both side: "I'm not going to agree with every last one of your talking points, and I expect you to respect my autonomy, just as I've respected yours, by not expecting you to agree with all of my beliefs"

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Individualism is for suckers.

Rip up the constitution, I say. High time for some communism to stamp out this individuality thing once and for all.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Rip up the constitution, I say. High time for some communism to stamp out this individuality thing once and for all.

Don't encourage anyone. There's no shortage of folk on ALL side of the sociocultural spectrum who wish to do that very thing

 

[Aguirre]

The “unity” you’re describing existed largely because most people were deliberately kept uneducated, materially dependent, and punished for deviation. Medieval peasants weren’t unified around metaphysics: they were illiterate, struggling to survive, and excluded from interpreting law or scripture for themselves. Deviating didn’t just risk social disapproval; it could mean expulsion from land, loss of the right to farm, and effective starvation.

Once expelled, the “choices” were grim: forage and likely die, or steal to survive, which often carried capital punishment. When dissent places you in a starvation-or-execution trap, silence is not agreement.

As literacy, printing, and basic security expanded, disagreement didn’t suddenly appear, it simply surfaced. That’s why mass education correlates with reformations, heresies, and revolutions. Visibility is being mistaken for novelty. We are not more divided than ever; dissent is simply more visible, especially with the rise of 24/7 social media and the "spin" of media.

Let's not pretend that Christianity is unique in providing moral structure or meaning. Many religions offer similar ethical frameworks, social cohesion, and metaphysical narratives. Recognizing that doesn’t diminish Christianity, it just undermines the claim that it once achieved some singular, unified consensus humanity has now lost.

And for the record, this isn’t hostility toward Christianity. I’m Catholic. Acknowledging how religious institutions historically functioned as mechanisms of authority and control doesn’t negate the faith’s theology or moral insights. It simply rejects the myth that it ever produced universal agreement without coercion.

If “unity” only exists when people are uneducated, economically trapped, or afraid to speak, then it wasn’t unity, it was enforced compliance.

Again, you are focused only on history and the abuses of the Church. Christianity could have arisen at a different time (including today) and there is no reason to believe that the results would be identical to the past. But all revolutions involve conspiracy, and not one institution on earth is exempt from being corrupted. Christianity does not promote utopia, but that we are fallen in a fallen world and are all sinners. The fact that Christianity has lasted this long truly says something. Christianity can still thrive today in the ‘information age’ and by peoples' own volition rather than by coercion, but often Christians are encouraged (often by their own Churches) to embrace antithetical ideas and yield to the propaganda of the day.

When you say that Christianity’s history “does not negate the faith’s theology or moral insights” – this is what I am arguing. I did not mention theology previously because I did not know you were Catholic, but Christianity easily meets the requirement for a sound philosophical worldview, coherently answering the three main branches of philosophy. It does this better than any alternative I am aware of and this line of thought can be useful when discussing the topic with non-Christians who automatically discard anything to do with theology out of disbelief. But just because there are other mythologies or religions, it does not follow that they are even coherent or true. Nevertheless, something of the sort is perhaps better than nothing.

I’m really confused as to what kind of Catholicism you believe. Do you reject the authority of the Vatican because of past abuses? Why do you not believe in one grand unified Christian narrative as spoken of in the beginning of the Bible? The pagan cults arose in defiance and/or ignorance of God’s created order and chose to venerate their ancestors and tell bastardized tales to their generations, so how can you place them on the same level? But since you speak of the past so much, how do you not see how the lessons of the Bible speak directly to what we are now experiencing? I am assuming you must have some familiarity with the occult? I won't ramble on too much about this topic but transhumanism is directly opposed to Christianity and explicitly seeks to corrupt Man's being made in the image of God similarly to how foods have become GMO. The renaissance and enlightenment which follow the ‘dark ages’ directly speak to occult traditions and beliefs and echo the notion that Man can deify himself (apotheosis rather than theosis) with promises of progress, immortality and gnosis.

Have you ever read The Brothers Karamazov? In the novel a character writes a fictional short story called The Grand Inquisitor that deals with how the Catholic Church in medieval Spain responds to Jesus when he comes back. A cardinal proceeds to lecture Jesus (who remains silent the whole time) and basically tells him that while he has been gone the Church has improved upon things and is better off, no longer even needing his return. It is very prophetic to how the Catholic Church exists today, continuing to wend to worldly liberal and antithetical values.