100% There are things I know and have had to accept about myself. I don’t avoid those things (impatience, addictive tendencies, etc), I structure my life to make the best use of them that I can and put up barriers in a few places to keep me on track. All in consciousness of these downfalls.
1 Like
i’ve realized that the more i resist, “it” persists.
the “it” can be anything
i’m learning to rather shake hands with it and say goodbye
2 Likes
There’s a lot of sentiment lately about how deep-diving simply for the experience of learning more when we have the time is nothing more than a ‘flex’, but I often wonder how we collectively skipped over metaphorical ‘exercising’; or maybe it’s that we somehow (or most of us, including myself for a while) forgot how to be curious and find the ‘fun’ hidden beneath the surface.
I’m looking at reclaiming this idea of ‘exercise’, through and through. Even in workout lingo, somehow even that idea has transformed into ‘training’ over the years. What are we training for again, the Olympics? It’s kind of weird when everything starts to have a corporate ring to it; almost as if it’s considered detrimental to do something just to keep yourself in physical or mental shape as you age. As if it only benefits you alone, and not the people you care about, too.
I think countering this ‘flex’ sentiment, even in my own head, with “exercise” helps me to solidify what I’m actually trying to accomplish. It doesn’t always look like much on the outside, but I think it’s worth it to do every once in a while. Or for some of us who genuinely enjoy it, as often as we can.
1 Like
we all forget how to have fun all the time. it’s crazy. literally it’s part of the word fundamental.
2 Likes
Humans are bad by nature and must be kept in check
Or
Humans are good by nature and can be left to rule themselves.
_____________
Humans are equal in their capacity to do both good and bad
It is not the thing that is a problem it’s how people use their free will. Example a pencil is neutral object it is neither good nor evil. However John wick used a pencil to kill somebody in that instance the pencil is evil. But if somebody uses a pencil to write a love note to somebody that loves them then the pencil is good.
Sometimes I think some of these famous philosophers didn’t have any good friends.
Remembering all the philosophy in school and then seeing it in the context of modern human life and how people live differently.
Sundays at church to rinse the demonization of the week
wordplay intended
1 Like
Choich and organized religion,
People can be religious without organized religion or some fancy cathedral…
But also having a community of people that share beliefs does help.
But politics has become religion now, instead of it historically being when religion became politics.
Different religions are different paths to the same destination.
What if someone said to an overthinking philosopher.
Stop having so many thoughts feelings…deal with your own shit on your own…no one gives a fuck.
Respect yourself. When faced with hate.
Enki and Ninhursaĝa | Religion and Philosophy | Research Starters | EBSCO Research Enki and Ninhursaĝa | Religion and Philosophy | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
The Sumerian creation story bears some resemblance to the biblical creation story…the main difference is that the roles are reversed…instead of eve the woman being the one to transgress…it is the man who transgresses first and gets cursed.
Different cultures have different creation stories and other stories…they are different in some ways and similar in sharing some commonalities.
These stories were passed down from word of mouth and changed over time to reflect the values and culture of those who told the story before they eventually got written down. The truth is that there a reason for the changes over time and a lesson behind each different story as well as each respective version of those stories.
Backtracking theology and seeing the commonalities between the mythologies of different cultures.
Saw some posts on social media that some of the pagan gods are interpreted to be fallen angels.
But…
Also came across other information in regards to the Trinity…
Some gnostic traditions believe in Sophia aka the holy Ghost the divine feminine aspect of God as well as the female counterpart ot Christ.
So what am I getting at is how people interpret information and put the puzzle pieces together to try to figure out how history blends with our different religions.
Occams razor…someone got high trying to explain how the universe works or made up some stories to explain things away…or didn’t have the brain power and interpreted reality differently…and passed it on like a game of telephone and that’s how we get different religious beliefs with some similar themes.
1 Like
Nietzsche as much as I posted about his ideas…from what I remember of them..
I have my own thoughts
Morality…good and evil…good is harmonious, kindness, humility, compassion, is respectful, protects innocence, exercises fairness, whereas people help each other, are considerate, and don’t engage in vice. Evil is abusive, selfish, corrupts, hurts, causes chaos and pain to others sometimes for no other reason than the result itself..
Good and evil shouldn’t be defined by political programming zeitgeist or by what we dislike or like…
Are good and evil objective in regards to the human experience? Yes and no…because morality is molded by people into whatever framework we desire whether it be in terms of self or the collective group…however this idea of conveniently reshaping morality results in being detached from any real life consequences. So Instead of thinking of morality in terms of virtue or individual or group existence..or subjective interpretation it may be better to ethically weigh all the potential consequences of choices made to all parties those choices that it will affect. Not on the terms of who benefits but moreso as defined by whether it does harm or it positively contributes or heals.
So morality isn’t objective, subjective or created by some dominating force…it is simply measured and defined in terms of consequential impact and intent of choices.
Individuality is self defined and we are a master of our destiny but our existence is very finite and to think that our existence is significant to the universe is arrogant. Our existence is only significant to us…so we should make the best of it making reality our own heaven instead of making reality our own hell. For we are all vibrations moving in a sea of other vibrations moving interacting with each other…in a sort of chain reaction of causality. We are not the primary movers of the universe…we are simply a part of it experiencing itself..
Society shouldn’t have hierarchies based in ego and bullshit. Society should be contrived of those who have a choice to operate in fulfilling roles with the societal system functioning solely through merit. Keywords choice and merit. Roles are chosen and determined by an individuals innate qualities/traits that make them talented at certain things of which are further developed through work; and those who have power their sole purpose is fulfilling responsibilities and meeting obligations.
Societal ethical and cultural values shouldn’t be created by some dominating force. Nor is it a conflict of collective individualistic free expression. It should be determined by all, agreed upon by all, shared among all, and upheld by all.
Individuality it isn’t a chaotic expression of personal delusion whereas individuals impose upon others and force them to bend or accept their fleeting fickle delusions of the moment.
Individuality should be grounded in reality, should be a function of personal excellence, and should be exercised within the constraints of morality. Because the freedom of individuality isn’t an excuse to transgress towards others. Just because you are able to do whatever you want…doesn’t mean that you should because of morality and how it will affect the quality of your life and others lives.
Purpose is self defined…some pick to serve society and humanity and nature…some pick other options..its your choice…because we all have choices but it’s important that we understand that we must live with our choices.
1 Like
Christianity has a big beef with this. I’m kind of a shitty christian because I don’t take as much umbrage with it as I’m supposed to, because…
It’s really not my place to worry is it? I can’t tell you how much better my life has gotten by deciding to not care about stuff as much and just enjoy what I have here and now. Doesn’t mean I don’t still have goals and shit, but I don’t let them own me, dominate my thoughts.
Easily said, hard done, but yeah. Enjoy the little things. Appreciate how the paint peels off that billboard you drive by every day. There’s so much in life we don’t have control over. But we do have control over ourselves (at least I still believe in free will). Happiness is partly a choice to not worry about what you can’t control or what doesn’t affect you. When you start thinking that way you realize how little in life really matters.
I still fall out of this thinking and back into more worldly concerns all the time every day, but when it gets to be too much I just take a breath and remind myself that I probably won’t care about this particular problem next week. And then I move on.
1 Like
Who are you?
And you can’t use your name politics religion gender or ethnicity to say who you are…
Thought food.
Howard Thurman and Mahatma Gandhi…
The predecessors to Martin Luther king.
A fools wisdom or the divinations and musings of an arrogant genius…
Some of the philosophers…and the background of who these philosophers are how they lived their lives and what they did in their lifetime…
Marcus Aurelius came from a wealthy family was an emperor that believed in virtue and service to the people of the empire…as a Roman empire the era of Roman prosperity ended with his reign…according to some accounts he held contempt for people who rebelled against the empire…couldn’t find any more information…
Nietszche was committed to a psych ward…and was a perpetual bachelor I could be wrong…
Miyamoto musashi…was a martial artist/samurai that fought many duels and lived to tell about it…
Confucius was a legalist bureaucrat and an advisor to Chinese emperors..
Buddha aka siddartha was once a prince that abdicated royalty to live a spiritual life.
Etc…
Their life is a testament to the validity of their ideas…considering they were authentic and lived in accordance with their musings and reflections…
Lamence terms…
The mythology of an honest crackhead…the bullshit of a wealthy business man…or the reasonable practicality of the blue collar guy…or the ramblings and ethics of a slacker content with mediocrity…
Asked chatgpt to analyze Adam smith Karl marx baron de Montesquieu and John locke…
Here is the answer
Yes, to a significant extent—but it depends on which claims you’re evaluating. John Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith each advanced ideas that Karl Marx criticized from different angles. Whether their ideas “hold up” depends on whether you’re asking about their logical consistency, empirical accuracy, or their usefulness today.
Here’s a comparison.
Thinker Core idea Marx’s critique How well has it held up?
Locke Natural rights, private property, limited government Property rights reflect class power and enable exploitation Strong influence on liberal democracies, though debates over inequality and property remain active.
Montesquieu Separation of powers and checks and balances Political institutions ultimately serve the ruling economic class Separation of powers remains a cornerstone of many stable constitutional systems, though wealth can influence politics.
Adam Smith Markets coordinate economic activity through competition Capitalism concentrates wealth, exploits labor, and tends toward crises Markets have proven highly productive, but Marx’s concerns about inequality, business cycles, and labor conditions have also found support.
Locke vs. Marx
Locke argued that people have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that governments exist primarily to protect those rights.
Marx challenged the idea that private property is a natural right. He argued that ownership of productive assets allows one class to extract value from another through wage labor. To Marx, property rights are historical institutions shaped by economic systems rather than timeless moral truths.
Modern evidence suggests both perspectives capture important aspects of reality:
Secure property rights are strongly associated with investment, innovation, and economic development.
At the same time, unequal ownership of capital can generate persistent wealth inequality and unequal political influence.
Montesquieu vs. Marx
Montesquieu believed liberty depends on dividing governmental power among separate branches.
Marx accepted that political institutions matter but argued they cannot be understood apart from economic power. If a wealthy class dominates the economy, it can often exert substantial influence over political institutions regardless of constitutional design.
Experience suggests:
Constitutional checks and balances do help prevent concentration of formal governmental power.
However, campaign finance, lobbying, media ownership, and economic influence show that wealth can shape politics in ways Montesquieu did not fully address.
Many political scientists today study both institutional design and economic power rather than treating them as mutually exclusive explanations.
Adam Smith vs. Marx
This is probably the most direct confrontation.
Smith argued that competitive markets generally allocate resources efficiently, encourage specialization, and increase prosperity. He also warned against monopolies, collusion, and excessive privileges for business—positions sometimes overlooked in popular summaries of his work.
Marx argued that capitalism contains internal contradictions:
workers produce more value than they receive in wages,
capital accumulates in fewer hands,
competition eventually reduces competition through concentration,
recurring economic crises are inherent.
History has produced mixed evidence.
Smith was largely right that:
Market economies generate remarkable increases in productivity and living standards.
Competition and decentralized decision-making can outperform centralized planning in many contexts.
Marx was largely right that:
Capitalist economies experience recurring financial crises.
Wealth and corporate power often become concentrated.
Labor can face exploitation or poor bargaining conditions without legal protections.
Markets alone do not guarantee broadly shared prosperity.
Marx’s strongest prediction—that advanced capitalist societies would inevitably experience proletarian revolutions leading to classless communist societies—has not been borne out. Instead, many capitalist countries developed labor laws, unions, social insurance, progressive taxation, and regulatory institutions that addressed some of the problems he identified without abolishing markets.
Overall assessment
A common view among historians, economists, and political theorists is that:
Locke’s defense of individual rights remains foundational to constitutional liberalism, though his theory is often supplemented by concerns about economic inequality.
Montesquieu’s separation of powers continues to be regarded as one of the most successful constitutional innovations, even if it does not eliminate the influence of economic power.
Smith’s analysis of markets remains central to economics, while Marx’s critique highlighted genuine problems of inequality, power, and instability that many economists and policymakers continue to grapple with.
Rather than one side completely refuting the other, modern liberal democracies often combine elements of both traditions: they rely on markets and constitutional government (Locke, Montesquieu, Smith) while also incorporating labor protections, social welfare programs, antitrust enforcement, and financial regulation in response to concerns that Marx helped bring into sharper focus.
Asked the same question but reframed it to see if there’s any bias or if AI just tells you want you want to hear..
Short answer: No. Karl Marx’s critique does not invalidate the ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, or Montesquieu. It challenges many of their assumptions, identifies what Marx saw as contradictions in their theories, and offers a competing framework. Whether those critiques are convincing is a matter of philosophical, economic, and historical debate.
Here’s how Marx relates to each thinker:
Adam Smith
Marx admired Smith’s analytical abilities but criticized his conclusions.
Smith argued that:
Markets coordinate economic activity through voluntary exchange.
Division of labor increases productivity.
Self-interest can produce social benefits under competitive conditions.
Marx agreed that capitalism was extraordinarily productive but argued that:
Workers create more value than they receive in wages (his theory of exploitation).
Competition pushes firms to cut costs, concentrate capital, and produce recurring crises.
Capitalism contains internal contradictions that eventually undermine it.
Modern economics accepts some of Marx’s observations (such as the tendency toward market concentration in some industries) while rejecting others (especially the labor theory of value as an explanation of prices).
John Locke
Locke argued that:
Individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Governments exist to protect those rights.
Property originates when people mix their labor with nature.
Marx challenged Locke’s concept of property by arguing that:
Private ownership of the means of production allows owners to appropriate the labor of others.
Property rights are historical institutions, not timeless natural rights.
Liberal rights often reflect the interests of the economically dominant class.
Many liberal philosophers respond that secure property rights are essential for individual freedom and prosperity.
Montesquieu
Montesquieu argued that:
Separating legislative, executive, and judicial powers prevents tyranny.
Political liberty depends on institutional checks and balances.
Marx did not primarily attack the separation of powers itself. Instead, he argued that:
The state generally serves the interests of the ruling economic class.
Constitutional structures cannot eliminate class domination if underlying economic inequalities remain.
Critics of Marx point to constitutional democracies where independent courts and elections have constrained powerful economic interests, though others argue that wealth still has outsized political influence.
Did history prove Marx right?
The answer depends on which claims you’re evaluating.
Some ideas that many scholars think Marx identified effectively:
Capitalism can generate inequality.
Economic power often influences politics.
Markets experience cycles of boom and recession.
Businesses often tend toward consolidation in certain sectors.
Ideas that remain widely disputed or are often considered incorrect:
The labor theory of value as a general explanation of market prices.
The prediction that advanced capitalist societies would inevitably experience proletarian revolutions.
The expectation that class divisions would increasingly simplify into two opposing classes.
The belief that socialism would reliably evolve into a classless, stateless communist society.
Overall
Marx did not “disprove” Smith, Locke, or Montesquieu in the way a mathematical proof can invalidate a theorem. Instead, he:
Critiqued Smith’s economics by arguing capitalism is inherently exploitative and unstable.
Rejected Locke’s theory of natural property rights as historically contingent and supportive of class power.
Argued that Montesquieu’s constitutional safeguards cannot fully secure freedom if economic inequality shapes political institutions.
These debates remain active in economics, political philosophy, and history. Contemporary scholarship often draws insights from all four thinkers rather than treating one as having definitively refuted the others.