Thank you, I’ll keep that in mind! I should have taken more time to explain this example, but instead I summarized my views on free will too quickly. Much appreciated!!

i dont get why my comment is absurd when it makes total sense and what i really dont get is why you r asking my address, even as a joke. whats the relation?

I am not against other people raising money for a cause. I am not interested in raising money. I don't want to be controlled by the wishes of those who give the money nor am I interested in buying talent and telling other people what I want them to create.

I just want to inspire, be corrected by and collaborate with other people who are trying to achieve the same goal. If we have differing goals but can find some goals in common, then that is fantastic too. If one or more of the team wants to raise money to further the ideas we've worked on, that would be great. It is just not the role I want.

That may all change. For now, I just want to create a forum where people who care can discuss the issues. I've got some ideas and these ideas need criticism. I want to hear the ideas other people have. Once there's some momentum, let's see where we all want to go from there.

It’s fine, I’ve written some pieces that read the same in hindsight; You’re certainly going to have moments like that as a writer.

The piece about the chair was the point I was looking to grab hold/sink my teeth into the article. But, I found myself reading it several times to really absorb it. I eventually got what you were trying to say, but when I break down concepts in my writing? I insert myself and space out my ideas to where it sounds and looks more like a conversation instead of a paragraph.

“For example, we say that a chair exists because we perceive a chair to exist. We don’t call a chair “something that causes the perception of a chair, but which objectively we cannot call a chair since its existence as such is subject to our perceptions of it.” Instead, we call it a chair.”

If I had to rephrase, it would look like.

“Let’s say we are looking at a chair. It has the traditional characteristics… Four legs, a seat, and a splat/seat back.”

“We wouldn’t look at it and say “It’s the culmination of four legs, a seat, and a splat, giving the image that some would perceive of a chair”… If it were created with the purpose of being a chair? Then, its purpose isn’t up for subjectification; It’s a chair.”

Ok that's fine,sorry to let you down,that's my address tho,don't leave me hanging

All I have is diamond sanding paste, should help with the physical body freedom though.

/s

Edit: Dang, I searched the address expecting something like a YMCA or "freedom center" or some such thing.

Anarchy in a political sense does not mean no laws. It means no vertical hierarchy however people would still be in leadership/managerial positions chosen and rotated and without absolute authority.

I discuss my views on free will here. Like all of our inductive knowledge, free will exists as perception and experience. This is what I mean by actual freedom. And its this freedom that sets the boundaries of our moral universe (who are the members of the moral community and what ethical rules can be created).

4127 Harvey drive NY , don't forget the lube

Exactly! We're always under the constant influence of social programming. It's like our lives have kinda been designed already, in a way. Not in the destiny and fate way, but yeah.

Not OP but I agree with you, just want to nitpick a bit - anarchy isn't absence of rules, it's the absence of state. Early nomads were quite possibly anarchic so you're right.

Absolute freedom is a wild concept, even if it's a construct that can never see fruition. Because our actions don't exist in a vacuum and therefore we're restrained by the consequences. I think Sartre says something along those lines?

True too. Though I feel in this particular scenario it's...Really unnecessary.

Unfortunately, since you are replying for my comment about the summary of OP's writing.

This reply better off be sent towards OP instead of me. I am not the one making this philosophical take, the OP did.

Theres some I agree and some I don't.

Yes there is a social contract which shapes our moral law and grounds our legal system. I discuss it here and my substack newsletter is dedicated to the topic. If you have concerns with contractualism/contract theory, let me know and I'll address them in a future post.

The contract doesn't rely on literal consent, but what our consciously free selves would accept or our free selves that act in accordance with our principles. So we cannot reject the terms of moral law. We can only obey or violate it.

"Actual is... the perception of..."

Red flag.

>Morality is defined here as that for which we are held accountable by others, when we work together towards joint goals.

You exclude by definition a personal morality, even though you say, finally, that,

>Again, there's always going to be a tension between interpersonal and intrapersonal morality (the conscience and how we treat others, and behave) and cultural morality, which may dictate just the opposite of compassion and justice.

I agree that we live within a historical moment influenced if not hegemonically constrained by value systems, and that this context brings us "head to head" with "cultural mores of the day."

But it is a bit of a stretch to then say our notions of right and wrong are necessarily those of an "in-group." (I am reminded of Wittgenstein's rejection of private language – with which I disagree.) Being cognizant of the rules of others does not rule out one's own; in particular, it does not rule out mutancy – e.g., that of Nietzsche "Most people would not do that" does not deny the exception to the rule, including the exception that may become the rule.

I am not qualified to comment on Michael Tomasello's, or your, evolutionary theories of morality. That said, they don't cause me particular concern. Indeed, without expertise on the matter, I observe behavior in species more distant to us than Homo erectus that I could accept as "moral."

At an even more rudimentary level, I am sympathetic to the observations of Kropotkin and others: inter-species co-operation, or at least constructive co-existence, is commonplace in nature, and, at least possibly, a foundation for morality. In short, we share the evolutionary experience of the ecosphere. Arguably, ecosystemic existence encourages notions of right and wrong that presage the pragmatic needs of our species, moreover the inherent sentience, consciousness, intelligence of such existence has not only a past but a present and a future, and thus a potential for agency.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but for me it sound like actual freedom in political terms would be anarchy and the other one is the freedom we produced by having a state with laws.

So the former is more like a concept that has never been achieved (I imagine even in early nomad like human groups there were some rules that could make you enemy of the group while breaking)

Philosophy thrives on unnecessary distinctions based on customized definitions of concepts.

Hi! Need help on a philosophical reflection on this statement:

Dialogue is required in creative fidelity. The obstacles to genuine dialogue are seeming, speechifying, and imposition.

I kinda agree this feels like overcomplicating things.

From what I understand, which I could be wrong; the writer makes 2 differentiation between Freedom

Actual Freedom which is the definition of Freedom: Do whatever you want.

And Conscious Freedom: A "Freedom" to choose to limit yourself so you don't do what society consider as bad. Such as society/law telling us Murder is bad and we shouldn't do it. And we have the "Freedom" to agree to it and practice it; that is, not committing murder.

Feels like unnecessary to make them different tbh. But that is my personal opinion.

Is there a social contract in the first place? Can the terms of the contract be rejected?

To me it describes willingly conforming to negative freedom. The freedom where you only act within a set of constraining social norms telling you what not to do. It's just explained from a different angle. It's literally though shalt not because of social norms, except you're sooo happy and consciously free because you're not exhibiting full positive freedom beyond social norms.

Apologies. I try to write clearly but I could have been better here. Reading it over, it did seem very abstract. If you have any advice on how to make writing like this more engaging, I’d love to hear it.

Assume that this universe isn't eternal and there is no higher realm this universe is part of.
(It has a beginning and an end and is all that exists.)
Then it might only be up to us, observers, that the universe exists right now. Why?

Most of us believe that everthing in this world follows logical steps,
from the atomic scale to the astronomical scale, from physics to chemistry to biology
and so on. With this deterministic view we can imagine the Big Bang as step s0,
the next step would be s1, s2, s3, (which contains the formation of particles and galaxies)
and so on, until we reach step sN, the creation of a conscious observer.
From now on, it could still be a long chain of steps sN+1, sN+2, etc.
until the final endpoint sE is reached, the end of the universe.

Now if the universe isn't eternal, there is no universe at all before s0 or after sE, only in between. It's like a huge calculation being made and after the calculation is finished,
it has no use anymore, (because there is no higher realm which could make use of it, see above). It's like baking a cake with a recipe, step after step, and when the cake is ready, it has noone to eat it after. Or imagine a rendering process. From the very start of a 3D model a computer calculates the materials and the light to render a final image. But the image is never used after its creation.

Now imagine, that the universe had never created a conscious observer or imagine,
all of humanity and other living things ceased to exist. What is the universe now other than a predetermined calculation from s0 to sE, where calculation time doesn't play a role anymore because there is no observer which would check the steps in between (sN, sN+1,...)? So, in other words, sE is already reached in no time, and therefore s0 to sE is nothing more than a timeless (call it:) very huge algorithm, without a use because there is no higher realm to use the algorithm.

So without a conscious observer there are no steps sN, sN+1, .... to be observed in time. We could still argue that the universe would exist without humanity, it would do what it does, but if the determism is true, sE is already reached with the start of s0, so that it becomes obsolete, without any further use and without any observer to check the steps in between.

Without any conscious observer the end of the universe would be reached in no time,
and this equals no universe at all.
So without any conscious observer there is no universe at all.
It's only up to us, that the universe exists right now.