All Philosophy Is Bunk

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:44 am "Philosophy has given us a bunch of wankers in academia who don't have two brain cells to rub together"

Yes, but they're not stupid by any stretch. Many of them have strong linguistic-verbal intelligence but are lacking in logical-mathematical intelligence. The continental philosophy vein is stronger at the former while the analytical vein is stronger at the latter.

For example, take Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Both were master writers, but you'd never find them writing something like Russell and Whitehead's principia mathematica. Likewise, neither of these guys would ever pull something off like N's beyond good and evil or K's either/or.

Also consider that analytical philosophy purty much ended philosophy as an academic subject matter. Most of what exists today are extensions of some prior trend or some variation of post-modern obscurantism. But all the major systems and schools of thought have already been established. Today all you'll see in the way of novelty is a few new designer trends that are either insignificant and with little real substance, or recapitulations and reproductions of something already done.

If new progress is to be made, there must again be some new circumstance in the natural sciences... or some major change in the physiology of human beings. Unless this happens, we've 'maxed out' our possibilities for philosophy.

This is why I insist that philosophy is dead, and why politics, sociology and economics are now more important than ever... 'specially at this epic moment in history; the full maturity of capitalism and the dangers it presents.

Really stand back and look at this for a moment. The most advanced first-world country in the world could actually have someone like Trump as a president.
''The most advanced first world country...'' Really? Based on what?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

Bro just google the stats. Ermerica is the best at the end of the day. Due to a combination of things, obviously. But I'd call the most fundamental reasons being a super-strong working class and an extremely resourceful landmass. That's what it always comes down to... how a country takes the lead. Good workers and an abundance of materials to work with. And this lead is even counting the capitalist parasites that live of those workers and resources, and the political clowns that run the country and pander to the capitalist parasites, so ermerica is like double badass.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:01 am Bro just google the stats. Ermerica is the best at the end of the day. Due to a combination of things, obviously. But I'd call the most fundamental reasons being a super-strong working class and an extremely resourceful landmass. That's what it always comes down to... how a country takes the lead. Good workers and an abundance of materials to work with. And this lead is even counting the capitalist parasites that live of those workers and resources, and the political clowns that run the country and pander to the capitalist parasites, so ermerica is like double badass.

'Just google blah blah'. Terrific answer :lol:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:00 pm 'philosophy', then, as an analytical function of the cerebrum, serves the same ends; the acquisition of pleasure and power. the relevance of philosophy as the process of logical problem solving depends entirely on the kind of problem that is being solved.

semantic and symbolic logic is generally irrelevent; it deals only with the rules of a language and does no real physical work.
mathematical logic is more relevent because it deals with, and is applicable to, physical features of the environment, serving to enable humans to better control and manipulate it; engineering, techne, medicine, industry, science, etc. these fields would not be possible without the advanced logical problem solving ability of the cerebrum. semantic and symbolic logic has relevence only insofar as it adds veracity to the use of mathematical logic for the above ends.

finally, the most irrelevent of philosophy is the esoteric, or the metaphysical.
Your thinking is too narrow and shallow in this case.

You jumped in hastily without even defining what you are talking about, i.e. "what is philosophy."

To be effective re "what is philosophy" one has to be exhaustive to understand the essence of 'what is philosophy' within human history, not merely from the West, but also East, and everywhere else.

When you are thinking narrowly and shallowly re what is philosophy, you are likely be influenced by people like Saunders who are brainwashed to interpret philosophy more to academic philosophers and by the bunch of people who just want to condemn whatever they are ignorant of without any rigorous research into what the subject-matter really is about.
The philosophy that is most condemnable are those from academic and armchair philosophies which focus merely on words and no actions nor useful purposes.

It is said that the number of definition of what is philosophy is the same as the number of people who attempt to define it. That is quite true.

I don't believe the term 'philosophy' was coined without it relating to some essence and human function and impulses of human nature.

To understand what 'philosophy' is about, I have done extensive research into it.
I have gather and read more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' [from West, East and everywhere] with a wide variety and diversity of meanings [wisdom, blah, blah, blah] attached to it.

From the wide variety of definition of what is philosophy there is a core essence of what is philosophy, i.e. philosophy-proper.

This core essence of philosophy-proper is related to a fundamental overriding human function to promote continual progress for the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity. The basic tool of such a function is 'wisdom' whereby philosophy is commonly defined as the 'love of wisdom' but that is not the only tool philosophy relied upon. Philosophy will rely on whatever tool and resources that is necessary to achieve its purpose, i.e. well-being which is not directly happiness and pleasure.

Philosophy is a fundamental function within all humans but the problem is, it is not active in the majority of people. Thus there is a need to expedite to trigger the philosophical function in the majority in the future. This will depend on those philosophers who has a more active philosophy-function within them.

Those who condemn philosophy by ignorance of philosophy-proper is doing a disservice to mankind.
Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
Philosophy has always played an essential role in the development of science, physics in particular, and is likely to continue to do so
By Carlo Rovelli on July 18, 2018
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... s-physics/
Why philosophy is so critical as human evolves is because as human evolves with greater knowledge of reality, humanity is also aware of more dangerous threats to the species, e.g. climate change.
Humanity is also aware the human species is under serious threat as population increases that resources on Earth is limited.

A rogue asteriod could appear from nowhere and blast the Earth to smithereens. Though the event is slim Scientists are not providing for this contingency and humanity need philosophy-proper to co-ordinate all the different fields to work in harmony to ensure effectiveness.

So note your thinking is too narrow and shallow in the case of 'what is philosophy' in term of its essence and original drives.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:22 pm Is there any evidence that 'philosophy' makes any difference to anything? Humans seem to be just as stupid as they always were. You find the greatest thinkers in the scientific world, not the philosophical world. Philosophy has given us a bunch of wankers in academia who don't have two brain cells to rub together. And yes, filling your head with whatever cock-eyed ideas others have come up with does, indeed, invite insanity.
Couldn't have said it better!
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

Here's where a defender of philosophy is going to have trouble.

With the exception of a specialized study of logic and the rules of inference, what else CAN'T be talked about with ordinary language, but has to be discussed with and through the use of abstract jargon that usually can't be qualified without reference to more of the same?

Say you eliminated metaphysics and ontology entirely from the corpus of philosophy, limited epistemology to the field of the study of logic and the rules of inference, limited the study of morality to the study of normative ethics, and allowed the natural sciences to produce knowledge for all other aspects of reality and human existence. What would be left for philosophy to do? What would be left that needed philosophy as a means and medium to be discovered and understood?

Narrowing human inquiry down in the ways I have done, really leaves no room for philosophy to operate. Aesthetics and 'the meaning of life'? Ordinary language handles that quite well. 'God'? That's not even a real concept, so there can be no discussion about it, anyway.

If you look around carefully enough you might find that the vast majority of philosophy has created its own imaginary problems... problems that evolve out of a systematic (sometimes) distortion of ordinary language by people who often had contempt for it.

Here's more from the Rosanator (the T-1000 model):

https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... Twelve.htm

Now all this gets really exciting when you make the historical connections between what philosophy has been producing through the ancient, classical and enlightenment stages, with the political and economic environments that currently exist. When you discover that all this is connected, and not something accidentally developed, yer like 'holy fuck, Pro! Bruh. Where have I been?!'
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

Here's another clue. You never hear scientists arguing about what words mean, do ya? They argue about such things as the completeness or scope of a theory, the circumstances of an experiment, the accuracy of observations, the preponderance of evidence, shit like that.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

I used to not be a phiconoclast tho. Imma tell you what happened to me. Kay you know how when you hear a song or group on the radio that you used to listen to in school when you were hanging out with Joe and them.... but then you stopped liking Joe and them because they became asshats and you found out what flakes they really are? So now, every time you hear that song or group on the radio, you're reminded of Joe and the asshats... which makes you not like the song or group... because it's associated with Joe and the asshats.

Well that's what happened to philosophy, for me. Most of my public philosophical activity is spread out over a twenty year period almost exclusively at some forum or another. And it's during this time that I discovered, rather painfully, that I was, indeed, surrounded by and in the company of, Joe and the asshats. Hey that should be a band name. Not a bad one, really.

Anyway, so now every time I see or hear about philosophy, I'm reminded of what it became in the minds and mouths of Joe and the asshats. Philosophy is therefore guilty through association, and this is a bias that isn't fair to philosophy per se.

But then when I found Rosa the Red, and found out what a scam philosophy is, it all began to make sense why joe, and his company, were asshats. I watched the whole story unfold before me... like a zoologist might watch a group of monkeys and check off on his clipboard, all the behaviors he expected to see, confirming his theories.

The problem here is the same kind of problem religion has. You know how you'll hear something like 'if you find a corrupt Christian, you can't blame Christianity, yada yada'?

Oh yes you can, and have to, because it's the nature of the thing that makes corrupt... just like it's the nature of philosophy that makes asshattedness.

When I finally realized this, I experienced a profound crisis and knew my integrity was hanging in the balance... so I had to ride, ride like the wind, to be free again...
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:44 am The most advanced first-world country in the world could actually have someone like Trump as a president.
You actually believe there is any significant difference in politicians? Once you get beyond the lying rhetoric, they are all all low-life crooks.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by Impenitent »

sleeping on the ship of Theseus while she navigates the proverbial estuary without means of locomotion...

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 2:37 pm Here's where a defender of philosophy is going to have trouble.

With the exception of a specialized study of logic and the rules of inference, what else CAN'T be talked about with ordinary language, but has to be discussed with and through the use of abstract jargon that usually can't be qualified without reference to more of the same?

Say you eliminated metaphysics and ontology entirely from the corpus of philosophy, limited epistemology to the field of the study of logic and the rules of inference, limited the study of morality to the study of normative ethics, and allowed the natural sciences to produce knowledge for all other aspects of reality and human existence. What would be left for philosophy to do? What would be left that needed philosophy as a means and medium to be discovered and understood?

Narrowing human inquiry down in the ways I have done, really leaves no room for philosophy to operate. Aesthetics and 'the meaning of life'? Ordinary language handles that quite well. 'God'? That's not even a real concept, so there can be no discussion about it, anyway.

If you look around carefully enough you might find that the vast majority of philosophy has created its own imaginary problems... problems that evolve out of a systematic (sometimes) distortion of ordinary language by people who often had contempt for it.

Here's more from the Rosanator (the T-1000 model):

https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... Twelve.htm

Now all this gets really exciting when you make the historical connections between what philosophy has been producing through the ancient, classical and enlightenment stages, with the political and economic environments that currently exist. When you discover that all this is connected, and not something accidentally developed, yer like 'holy fuck, Pro! Bruh. Where have I been?!'
Again,
Your thinking is too narrow and shallow in this case.
You jumped in hastily without even defining what you are talking about, i.e. "what is philosophy."

Again, based on research,
This core essence of philosophy-proper is related to a fundamental overriding human function to promote continual progress for the optimal well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
The basic tool of such a function is 'wisdom' whereby philosophy is commonly defined as the 'love of wisdom' but that is not the only tool philosophy relied upon.
Philosophy will rely on whatever tool and resources that is necessary to achieve its purpose, i.e. well-being which is not directly happiness and pleasure.

As I wrote in the other thread, philosophy-proper is fundamentally the specific managerial expertise needed to sustain optimal well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Philosophy-proper will rely on whatever tools and resources and if metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics, [even science of shit] whatever is needed, then it will be used in that philosophical operation in a strategic and effective manner.

From the beginning, the essence 'philosophy' [which is ubiquitous] was entangled and confused with almost every field of knowledge and human endeavors [science, politics, history, natural philosophy, arts, poetry, etc.]. Then the varieties of entangled knowledge earned their independence and was separated to be on their own, e.g. science.
In future we can expect logic, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics-proper, ontology, and others to be independent from 'philosophy' but philosophy-proper as an essence will ground all these independent fields of knowledge.
  • Note the lessons re the essence and fundamental principles and process of 'management' which is supposed ubiquitous in every human activity in various degrees.
    Subsequently this essence was extracted as a separate faculty of management.
    Currently, whatever is expected to be effective and productive in any human activity requires the application of the essence principles of management as specialty while all other functions are independent from management-proper per se.
The analogy of the essence of management is similar to the essence-of-philosophy-proper.
Why it is not recognized by the majority is due to ignorance.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

"Once you get beyond the lying rhetoric, they are all all low-life crooks."

Well yeah because a) the anatomical structure of governments have allowed that corruption to happen, and b) opportunities for personal financial gain present themselves to politicians because of a).

To date the Russian soviet model of government was the closest government has ever come to being perfectly done. The more direct and immediate the democratic decision making process is, the less corruption... or rather, the faster corruption can be dealt with.

There were countless reasons why the Soviet style government didn't work/last, but the biggest obstacle to its proper functioning was the lack of speed and efficiency at processing the information and communication for/of the democratic decision making.

That's no longer a problem in the digital age, though.

The basic premise behind representational government is that there is simply no way millions of people can conduct legislative procedure, so a hierarchical system is set up... but one in which representatives can't be directly recalled by the people they represent. From this, corruption follows. And if you put a model like this in a capitalist economy, the corruption increases exponentially.

Anywho the vertical Soviet style direct recall/mandate system with digital communication capabilities will be the model of the future.... if capitalism, and the elite wealthy classes that influence government, don't continue to prevent it from happening.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:20 pm There were countless reasons why the Soviet style government didn't work,,,
What, exactly, would a government be that did, "work" be?

A government is corrupt in it's fundamental nature. A government is an agency of force that exists for the sole purpose of making some people (the governed) behave in ways others (the government) wants them to. At the retail level they are called protection rackets. At the wholesale level, they write constitutions to legitimize their crimes and call themselves presidents, congresses, and parliaments.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

^^^ this pleases Stirner.

However, most folks aren't cut out for the mad max life style, so we, the untimely ones, must forge a government for the people.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:55 pm ^^^ this pleases Stirner.

However, most folks aren't cut out for the mad max life style, so we, the untimely ones, must forge a government for the people.
You obviously have no idea what it means to be a truly successful human being. It is certainly the opposite of a, "mad max life style." It is true, 99% of the mankind will never always will fall for the lies of politics and believe it is the solution to all their problems--and suffer the consequences.

This is from an old article, "Never Take Any Of It Seriously."
Mencken On Politics

No one describes the nature of politics better than H.L. Mencken:

Politicians, political candidates, and elections, beyond their entertainment value, have no importance whatsoever. All politicians and would-be politicians are buffoons who are incapable of producing any product or performing any service anyone would willingly pay for. I'm not suggesting they are without ability or talent, they are all consummate con-men successfully accruing to themselves as much unearned wealth and undeserved power as possible.

"Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more or less, poltroons." [H.L. Mencken, Damn!]

The success of politicians actually has little to do with any ability of their own beyond their psychopathic ability to lie without compunction—the success of politicians, as well as any others whose success depends on popularity or notoriety, lies in the incredible ignorance, gullibility, and paranoia of the mass of humanity.

"So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots." [The New Mencken Letters, (1977), "Letter to Upton Sinclair, 14 Oct. (1917)]

When Mencken refers to, "the inferior man," he means the 99 percent of them who are idiots. It is important to understand this to understand his correct view of politics.

"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear—fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety." [H L Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)]

"The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex—because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious." [The Impossible H.L. Mencken]

The inferior man, who may be identified as any member of the TV viewing public, is therefore willing to believe anything any leader, religious teacher, or authority says that promises easy answers and simple solutions. He is thoroughly gullible and credulous. He even admits it; he calls it faith.

The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. [H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)]

"The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible." [H L Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)]

Thus, what seems inexplicable about politics, and civilization itself, is explained:

"Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." [H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women.]

Justice Prevails


Is there terrible oppression in the world, crushing poverty, incredible cruelty, sickness and suffering? Yes there is. No one wants to hear it, but all the misery one hears about every day is exactly what those who are suffering it deserve. It is not some omnipotent being imposing some kind of punishment, it is simply the consequence of defying reality.

In a truly moral society, most of the people living today would be dead, because most people live by mooching off the productive efforts of others, or live totally irresponsible lives which would kill them if others were not forced to clean up after them. Far from instituting justice, all governments defy justice; every government policy and law flies in the face of justice producing the greatest injustices imaginable. Nevertheless, the justice of reality prevails, and all the horrors, misery, and suffering of the modern world are not injustices at all, but the ruthless justice of reality.

The ultimate moral principle is, produce or die. The requirements of human life are not provided by nature. Human beings are not, like the animals, provided the equivalent of instinct to know what the requirements of their lives are. Every individual human being must discover or learn what those requirements are and then choose to work and produce what their nature requires.

One Gets What One Deserves

Those who refuse to be engaged in some effort or work that produces some product or provides some service of value to themselves or others deserve to die. Those who claim they cannot work, have no more expectation of life than those who cannot breathe, or cannot digest food. Anyone who claims they cannot work, which claim is almost always a lie, is claiming they cannot live, and should not. They would not live in a just society. Any society in which those who produce nothing are able to live is an evil society which makes slaves of those who do produce for the sake of those who do not. "Produce or die," is the principle reality imposes on humanity. Where the unproductive live reality is defied and the consequences are always tragedy and disaster, both individually and socially.

All governments are an attempt to provide people, or at least promise to provide them, what reality forbids—the unearned and the undeserved.

So to worry about the terrible "injustices" one sees every day in today's society, or the world, is a distraction from what is really important in life. It is one of those things one should never worry about. Not only is it something one can do nothing about, which one should never worry about*, it is, in fact, an affirmation of the principles of truth, of the ruthless implacable justice of reality.

[*NOTE: There is nothing to worry about. There are only two kinds of situations in this world, those you can do something about, and those you cannot. One should never worry about those things they can do something about, they should just do whatever it takes to correct or improve the situation. One should never worry about that which they cannot do anything but learn to accept and adjust to the inevitable facts of reality. Wisdom is knowing the difference.]

You Can't Save the World

One of the things you cannot do anything about is the world. The aim of all activists is to save the world, or at least some aspect of it, like their society or their country. However different they are, the solutions all activists propose are political solutions. In a 2010 article entitled, "No Political Solution," I explained why all supposed political solutions are actually "social engineering," and none of them will work, because they require changing people.

Here are two things: a fact and a principle, that are the basis of all social values, the true nature of politics in the philosophical sense:

1. The fact is there is no way to change other people. There is no way to make a society the kind of society anyone supposes they would like. It is not possible because it is the kind of people that make up a society that determines the kind of society it is. It is not a society's political system, dominant philosophy, level of education, religion, ideology, or anything else that determines the nature of a society; it is what the individual people in a society choose to believe that determines a society's political system, dominant philosophy, level of education, religion, and ideology and the only way to change any of those things would be to change the people whose choices, beliefs, desires, and superstitions they are.

The reason people cannot be changed is because every individual is a volitional being. Even if one can influence another in some way to make changes, those changes must still be chosen by the individual. One can use force to make people behave in certain ways sometimes, but one cannot force anyone to think or to think any particular thing.

2. The principle is it is immoral to ever interfere in the life of another human being. It is meddling, presumptuous, intrusive, arrogant, tyrannical, and morally wrong.

The common idea is that interference in others' lives means using force or the threat of force. The use of coercive force is certainly immoral, but it is not the only immoral method of interfering in other's lives. Those who consider themselves "activists," who advocate any method of producing the kind of society they decide is the right kind, whether it is a totally "free," "capitalist," or "libertarian" society they are "working" for, their methods are as immoral as those who are working for a totally collectivist or statist society.

There is only one method by which individuals may morally deal with one another, the method of reason. Any other method is an abandonment of reason in favor of an appeal to the irrational in others, their feelings, their desires, their sentiments, their fears, their superstitions, their ignorance, or their gullibility. To appeal to any of these is as immoral as using threats of force. It is an attempt to manipulate others by means of their own irrational weaknesses. These are the methods of the con-man, scam artist, and politician, not a rational moral individual.

The truth is, no society is anyone's society to make into the one he would like. As noble as the activist's ideas might be, and however good an activist's intentions, the desire to save the world is actually a desire to make other people what the activist would like them to be. Mencken got that right too:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." [H.L. Mencken, Minority Report]

None Of It Matters

Any concern with the world, society, or mankind is a wasted concern, which means there is no political or world-wide issue that matters. The so-called, "founders," of the United States believed, or at least expressed belief in human progress. It was Jefferson that wrote that all men were endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it is apparent, even when men are free to pursue happiness, they never achieve it. Again Mencken expresses it best:

"I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy. [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

There is only one moral requirement: to be the best human being one can be in all things, physically, mentally, and morally. Everything else is a distraction from that moral imperative and must never be taken seriously.
Post Reply