That makes me sad. I guess I'm speaking from a place of bias because one of my best friends is a biologist and has never looked down on my lack of knowledge/questions, in fact we usually go back and forth, me asking medial/biological questions, and him asking me history/philosophy ones But that undermines the entire point of science does it not? Like someone else highlighted in this question, shouldn't knowledge be treated as some borderline collective activity? In fact, all the knowledge we currently have, in any given field, is because of the intergenerational collective building of information, knowledge, and inquiry... ridiculous that people are so entitled, even when they might have some right to be (ie. via decades of work and time spent). I always try not to be like that, even when I'm faced with people with no real understanding of what philosophy is, or when everyone is just high and talking "pop shop" politics/philosophy. Sometimes I get annoyed, usually by their sheer arrogance, and in those cases I stay quiet, but usually I try to guide the discussion or at the very least, give my two cents.

I like your optimism...

Regarding the original quote lambasting the existence of online philosophical forums/discussion ect. I am slightly unnerved...
Why is it philosophy (alone) that must be held to such serious (elitist) standards for it to even warrant the "title" of philosophy/philosophical discussion? Almost every other hobby/interest/skill can be practiced (without judgement) at different levels and degrees of ability, advancement, and seriousness. For example, what about guys that go and shoot some hoops after class occasionally? Does their lack of basketball training or their obvious lack of advancement (they all know they are not going to play in the NBA) negate the reality that they are still playing basketball? If only to the best of their ability? What about amateur radio operators? Small time botanists with some vegetables in their green house? All of these people are humble enough to admit their inabilities, but yet, are the 'professionals' of these skills the ones mocking them? More often than not professional basketball players donate much money and time to encouraging an interest in the sport, in children's basketball programs, in the construction of basketball courts ect. I doubt any professional athlete, artist, ect. would ever say or downplay the abilities or skills of those obviously less skilled; because they care about the sport/art/skill in question, they are interested in encouraging people's interest in them. Online discussion of philosophy then, flawed and off-topic as it may very well tend to be at times, is just the result of thousands of different voices, opinions, and skill-set levels, having-a-go, and in that sense, and in many ways, I think it is better at bolstering interest and allowing those with the skills and experience, to better encourage and help those new to the subject than the stuffy classroom of exhausted and stressed out undergrads. Just as I think @ProbablyTrue was saying.
Even in the serious sciences, do you think "real" scientists discourage personal research? Experiments? The whole impetus of science is to search for answers, to want answers, why would any "real" accredited scientist discount the interest and fascination of those less experienced than him?

Also the collapse of the humanities is a very real threat in universities. As a university student currently in the process of completing my second undergrad (first in philosophy, currently in law), the undergrad university has entirely become a daycare for middle class kids to help train them for "jobs". Philosophy, even more so than English/history/geography/anthropology is collapsing; @Pfhorrest I concur with some of your feelings. I want my PhD, and I much preferred my philosophy BA to this "practical" law degree I am taking now (as I'm writing this I should be actually doing my law work)-and I face the ridicule from friends and my family. Money-wise I could never justify it, I need a job...hence the law school.

@Phil
Not to call you out, but I believe it was you who noted that you don't regard Orwell or Camus as "real" philosophers, but rather as literary artists ect. ect. But what is literature if not philosophy? Philosophy is a wide ranging discipline-undisputable in my opinion; look at its obvious connections (and historical impetus for) science, art ect. Camus wrote books as well as essays; including journal articles, pamphlets, and plays; all with very deep, complex, and relevant philosophical themes and inquiries. I adore Camus but my point is not to defend him, but to defend all the philosophical writers and thinkers that have not fit the keyhole of "academic"; why necessarily is "academic" the benchmark for professionalism of philosophy? Or as someone else pointed out, how can a subject such as philosophy in the traditional sense; the love and pursuit of wisdom, be squared away as the mere accumulation of a certain strata of knowledge? I prefer the definition of philosophy as the love of questions, of raising thought-provoking, introspective, relevant, and important questions that otherwise get sidelined, dismissed, or overlooked in the daily act of living. To view philosophy as a merely academic-institutionalized activity is to view it only relative to contemporary standards, which obviously, historically, is incorrect.

Of course, I have great respect for academic and professional philosophers; as people have noted, these are individuals who did win "the lottery" and as someone who wants to earn a PhD myself one day (but likely won't), I have only great admiration for their capacities, perseverance, and aptitudes. I have met some great philosophy professors and philosophers in my day-of course I think there needs to be a degree of separation between the ability to teach philosophy and the ability to academically DO philosophy; as other people have noted, I have met some pompous and terrible philosophy professors that did just not teach in a way that students would fully comprehend-but again, that is not to say that they are not 'good' philosophers-teaching is just a whole other skillset. I could probably decently teach a class of high school philosophy for example, I know enough, and I feel very confident in my teaching abilities; but by no means would I then say I am a "professional" philosopher. I am merely a person who loves philosophy.

Interesting, I appreciate you linking this to me. Maybe I'll run my own study once I get back to Canada-start macrodosing daily with CBD tablets vs. the daily/THC high ... I've smoked CBD weed before; mainly because it doesn't get you high means I could still drive, but I dont recall feeling much. Then again it was only once or twice. I assume its potency is more apparent over continued and regular use.

You might want to check out the synergistic effects of caffeine and THC, which is amazing! God I wish I was back in college and didn't self destruct by altering my neurochemistry too much...

I have the opposite of ADHD in many regards, not really having any issue focusing so much as only motivation when I go through my periods of severe depression/anxiety...I do enjoy getting high to do 'fun' research (ie. not research for a marked paper but rather for my own projects/interest). All summer I dealt with my anxiety at having to move countries and end a long term relationship quite productively, that is getting insanely high via cannabis oil (legal in my country) and surfing the web while my parents watched TV. I had never been able to sit and really watch TV before-at least enjoy it in the same way. Marijuana not helped me sleep, eat, and 'relax' (to some degree). I have ASD so...not sure about the links between cannabis use and autism, but I'd be interested in seeing some studies.

I'm no scientist in any form. Merely someone with some time on my hands and a laptop and an enjoyment for random academic reading.

I think that cannabis can certainly affect "productivity" and generally result in some disorganization in areas of life...like any substance with temporary effects, it does effect behaviour during that time and after. But in no way is that a comparable longterm health effect. A case could be made that having a romantic partner also affects "productivity" ect.
I think that genetic predispositions to schizo diseases and their relation to psychiatric effects of marijuana is an interesting correlation. I read somewhere that while there is some evidence that marijuana can trigger these predispositions, I also read in a conflicting study that there is a cause and effect reversal, people already suffering from subconscious/underlying/untreated effects of psychiatric illnesses, schizophrenia, depression etc. are just that much more likely to use marijuana, therefore the health effects exist prior to any smoking of marijuana, and therefore marijuana can be considered only minimally impactful, if it all, and no effects diverging independently from cannabis use.

From personal experience? I have gone through periods of depression and anxiety that really have no correlation with my personal cannabis use at the time, exempting the fact that I generally use cannabis more when I am suffering from extreme anxiety or depression.
Do I notice any long term effects that I can isolate as solely from marijuana? No. Depression and anxiety has at times effected my focus, my ability to read, eat, sleep, socialize appropriately ect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

Super long Wikipedia page if anyone is interested for some reading...I'm in a boring public law review lecture right now; teaching us how to write a discussion question...so am enjoying the good reading material.

Have tried CBD, will probably will return to it at sometime in the future. Funny how you can drive to your local Shell station and buy cigarettes (directly linked to death and every other bad physical health effect) or any number of over the counter medications which have unpleasant side effects or addictive potential (diphydramine, paracetamol, pseduophederine) ect. ect. or in the United States and the UK alcohol! Which is also directly linked to addiction and death ect. but still no CBD or THC which still, have not been shown to have any long term isolated health effects....

"Right now, federally, marijuana is a highly restricted Schedule 1 substance, making research on the drug hard to conduct even as its use spreads widely and law enforcement efforts become ever more difficult to justify. If the bill does becomes law—and that’s a big if—cannabis would be reclassified as unrestricted and people who’ve been charged or convicted of certain marijuana-related crimes as of the act’s passage would not face criminal penalties and could have their records expunged."

I think theres an important difference between decriminalization and legalization. Canada (my country) legalized weed, largely because the government needed the revenue such a large legal market would produce (the illegal marijuana trade was considered worth something upwards of 2billion dollars). Legalization eschews economic opportunism, while decriminalizing focuses on 1) overturning wrongful sentencing for possession 2) research; both of which in my opinion, are more important than big $$. Proud of the United States for this.

In fact if one considers how much progress has been made in these topics I think philosophers, even great ones, have barely managed to drop the "bro" from the question "what if nothing is real bro?"

You're probably right. Perhaps this connection between drugs and this frame of mindset is the inherent thing that needs to be explored then.

I'm fascinated that this post has generated so much interest; and if anyone is curious in continuing this topic, I have a new question to pose for discussion for the topic of marijuana and philosophy;
It seems to be a consensus that marijuana plays some role in imaginative, abstract thinking and can be used spiritually or as a mental healing mechanism...whether or not it actually leads to concrete philosophy/academic work is disputed, but its role via this imagination/relaxation/opening consciousness, seems to be a general tool to those inclined to philosophy...so where is the modern philosophical thought and theory on this topic? There has been some work done on hallucinogens to be fair, but I haven't seen much of a body of academic and philosophical work on marijuana, beyond some psychiatrical reports; with the typical label that marijuana can cause schizophrenia (something largely disputed in other studies, but nonetheless in Canada, forced to be printed on all marijuana sold).

I think a lot of the legal repercussions of marijuana are still related in some moralistic fad-partly due to control, and partly due to people's sheer fear. Also a bit of racism and classism...(hatred of the poor black people often stereotyped of using the drug). The American government has always been a regressive and moralistic cess post of control, prohibition, sexual morality rooted in judeo-christianity ect. all just about control. The bran enjoys various washes of hormones, whether through sex, drugs, or alcohol, and these are potentially destabilizing-not just individually, but politically (look at the counter-culture of the 60s ect).
Timothy Leary was sentenced to thirty years in jail for marijuana possession (back in the 50s) before his appeal overturned the Marijuana Act of Texas 1937.

Big fan of Sartre, lot's of people participating in this discussion probably are.

Interesting that you identify as mildly autistic-I too, kind of self-diagnose myself as that, and people close to me have agreed. Am currently working my way through the long public channels to get a proper diagnosis, could use the extra support in post secondary ect. also for my own peace of mind.

@Grre noticed because she cares about me. We had a fictional marriage that was ordained by Plato. He just told us no sex. I said no problem, but Grre got angry and demanded a prenup. I had nothing to offer so, she said Marx has to be the ordainer.

Marx needed the money so he was willing. But then Engels got mad because the family is just a unit of the bourgeoise economic oppression - I agreed with him, on the basis of Emma Goldman's marriage is oppressive to women (it is) ... then we all decided to trip balls with Joe Rogan instead

"But does it exist?" Laugh all you want this shit is so fucking important to me, that I feel like I have to write a paper sometime in the future, just to get invited to talk with professional philosophers.

Literally me. I have asked that very same question. And I am currently completing an undergrad degree in philosophy-so trust me when I say, people laugh, my parents laugh (cry) as they pay for schooling they think is well-useless.

Why the turnover rate?
1. Philosophy isn't viable. Theres enough stress on young adults to secure funding for education/job training and then to secure a stable job...let alone secure educational funding for a path that doesn't guarantee them any payback in return. I am in a dual degree program currently; have done two years of undergrad philosophy, and now in my first year of law school...does law school (currently) speak to me on the same level as philosophy did? Do I feel engaged in class? Excited to do the readings? No...but I can't sustain myself on a minimum wage job...I won't be able to afford to go to grad school (for philosophy) without securing a job for myself, law is a practical degree; I try to see it as a stepping stone. As much as I love philosophy, I also want to live a quality of life; I'm not materialistic, I don't expect to be rich, but I want to be able to support myself, and travel, and enjoy life while I'm here...

2. Philosophy is under-taught/badly-taught. I have held that almost everyone has the right mindset for philosophy when they are children, I've worked in kindergarten classes and the curiosity, imagination, and tenacity of these children is shocking; the honest, the realism, the engagement...where does it go? Crushed by the education system for the most part; critical thinking is not something pragmatic to teach children in this system we live; we can't have people asking WHY we do things; let alone if the things we do are REAL...that would destabilize the very basis that our lives are built upon. We are taught to merely answer the questions, follow the rubric ect. There is very little room for creative thinking (especially high school level) let alone critical thinking; therefore people suppress these skills, lose them, become complacent and indoctrinated, and subsequently lose the interest in knowledge for knowledge's sake...knowledge is an investment = money. Thats all.

3. Philosophy is hard and time consuming. Not to sound like a boomer (I'm actually gen Z) but our reality has changed-we are assaulted with messages, media-all day-everyday, we are over-connected, constantly connected, and this allows for very little room for long periods of reading, reflection, and deep thought-it takes stupendous effort (and practical allowances like not having to go to work) to set aside chunks everyday-uninterrupted, to give philosophical texts and ideas the studying and contemplation that they warrant and deserve. I have a list of 100+ philosophy books I want to read-essays I would love to write; an anthology I started the planning and researching for this summer, but never finished. Philosophy is a past time accumulating dust; despite its practical application in everyday life (philosophy is everything) - it is not seen as necessary, it is seen as silly, it is not given the same weight it was given (to some degree) throughout other periods in history. Most people don't even know what philosophy is when I tell them.


I am with you. I hear your pain. Philosophy is beyond words-important to me too, not in any dogmatic way; its just the way I think, talk, question.
I tell all the younger people I know to try to take a philosophy class in high school; my school had one for grade twelve students; and most of the class hated it and failed...you either hate it or love it at that point. For me it changed my life and made me realize I had been doing philosophy long long long before I learned the words and terminology for it. It is inescapable part of who I am; I have always considered myself a writer of some sort, I've wanted to be a writer (or a teacher in some cases) since I was six or seven... now I realize philosophy; doomed or not, is also interwoven. I would love to read, and write, and teach-philosophy.

Can we do something?
Ya. I mean, of course we can. I always try to bring up philosophy into everyday conversations (annoyingly sometimes I admit), I try to apply it to people's lives, I try to use it to help people with their problems, I give people philosophical books as presents that I think are relevant to them...I 'dumb' down abstract concepts, I make philosophy jokes and post philosophical content on my social media. I get people high and then force them to watch documentaries and podcasts on metaphysics or formal logic, I 'blow' their minds.

Relevant link I found relating to my earlier comments on how inherent philosophy, in my opinion can be, to not only deconstructing and understanding/comprehending one's life, beliefs, social strata ect. but for mental health and overall wellbeing.
https://apple.news/Ayy3RPwHkT4SyIt0EBG4gYw

I think that studying and learning anything new, for at least most people, has the added benefit of absorbing one's attention, focus, energies, and thus distracting/finding a new outlet for current issues. That being said, I personally owe philosophy my life, if it hadn't been for reading several key (and relevant) thinkers like Albert Camus, Sartre, Becker, and feminist thinkers-Goldman, Wolf ect. I would have probably killed myself-or in the case of the feminist writers; been extremely lost, confused, victimized ect... philosophy is so crucial because it addresses real and relevant issues to everyday life, everyday frustrations, and everyday suffering. Psychology is boring in comparison. Watered down neuroscience imo.

I don't think we exist much beyond our subjective understanding/feeling/cartesian understanding of ourselves. Outside of that, what is to say?

I 100% agree, from-both a theoretical and experience how that could be true. Love the tidbit.

Marijuana doesn't just "open" your mind in the cliche sense, I mean, it does, it lets you pay more attention to sensory input and all that-but for me at least, its a different way of operating my mind; it slows it down, but it also speeds it up; it lets me work through things in a different manner/light, especially when I really put my head to it (like a creative high brainstorming session)..in this way I think marijuana and other psychedelics can be especially effective in trauma therapy and working with other forms of neurodiversity; like with my autism. It slows my mind down enough to let me compute certain things (like enjoy watching television or youtube channels more)--and it lets you examine trauma/circumstances/"reality" in a different light, that, when it fades away, you can still remember and reflect on that perception and then work on replacing your current perception with your new one.

Idk i'm just rambling here. but remember DRUGS R BAD and CAUSE SCHIZOPHRENIA duh BAD BAD BAD totally not the illicit nature of drugs...or the criminalization/stigma factor...or the lack of research...or the cause and effect---i was already fucking depressed and anxious before i took drugs...it didn't "heighten" my mental illness; and there's no way to prove that my mental illnesses wouldn't have progressed "worse" if I hadn't smoked during that time..sorry i just feel big pharma smirking right now...

Its ok, I tirade less in here than I do on my Instagram, as far as I'm concerned the people on here should be educated/critical enough to already understand much of these issues...as for the masses, well..I try and I usually don't succeed much beyond getting lots of hate hate hate

I have a lot of research done on Systems Theory, started at a sociological level (chrono, macro, exo, ect.) in understanding privilege, social workings ect. and then turned into something of my own personal meta philosophy-everything in life is a network of systems; random, chaotic, interlocking, what have you-possibly "Complimentary" (Bohr) in a lot of ways. I can't elaborate right now as I should be studying, but I am happy to continue the discussion or look at various literature.

Its not meant to solve problems, just grow and grow and grow and absorb everything in its wake; it makes the rich richer and circumvents the rest; barring whatever limitations or regulations or social service policies we attempt to put on it...those too are being circumvented by the cultural mindset that capitalism enjoys, entails, and perpetuates...consume consume consume

Will go and check out your thread promptly.

I should have checked this forum last night when I was high! Looks like a good video, unfortunately right now currently in a contract law lecture...not the time and place for great metaphysical concepts. Will watch though and update on my thoughts re: it.


I like the way you summarized that. Perhaps I should frame it on my wall?


I know exactly what you are talking about. The amount of parochial posts and threads I've read on here is concerning for what is supposed to be a community of critical thinkers...if I see one more post lambasting social media or how silly youth are now ect.. I posted a thread a while back (also in the field of philosophy of mind) discussing concepts of neurodiversity and I was met with just backlash of disbelief in basic learning disabilities...no academic discussion.
I will look into your essay you posted. I have a reading list a mile long and no time to do it; my days are overtaken by law law law, the only time I can allot to philosophy is in lecture; am not the type to be able to learn in a lecture hall so at least i can stay productive.

Philosophy has been replaced by scientism. And the free market, which values knowledge only as per it can be commodified and used to make cold hard cash. Ignorance has always been the problem of the masses; now it is mass communicated via social media. The tools that could save us; namely save the environment, are not utilized. Not since WW2, has the world is more divided, extremist, and ideological-even established human rights and principles are being attacked. The Elites have full dominance and have the masses even defending their right to oppress...no taxes for the rich...substandard services for the rest-or privatization, which makes the rich, well, more rich!

Remember this is fake news.

Across worlds in what way? Connecting with the worlds of nature? The deeper earth? Or the stars?

My eyes are wide, but mostly because I only got 2 hours of sleep last night and currently am sitting in class with a good 7 hours of law studying to do following this.

I agree and love your point. Reality changing and subversive experiences are inherently important to better exploring and interacting with the world around us. Close minded and rigid thinking is, in my opinion, a great crime one can do oneself-our lives being meaningless and all, we must learn and experience all we can-we must always seek to overcome our subjective lives that we are so horribly tied to.

I agree, with possible-whats to define the limits of plausibility. The definition of impossible is 'not able to occur or exist' so then we are faced with the primary issue of what is "possible' for the definition of worlds, and then, what is "possible" for the love of two involved.


I got science fiction vibes at first. Now I'm just thinking inter-species connectivity. The love I share with my cat is something beyond sublime and sacrosanct, than the love I even have with my family or close human partners.

I think it does have a lot to do with mindset and environment. The mind is always in flux, is it not? So at times, some mind altering substances, such as alcohol or marijuana, will affect you in different ways and at different times in your life. It also depends a lot (and this is understated in literature but unanimous with every marijuana user I know) on the method...bongs, vaping, edibles ... all induce different responses and feelings. Vaping for me is kind of "tedious" like you mentioned, it just feels kind of muted and fuzzy-I much prefer the intensity of edibles or the sudden rush of bongs.

Fascinating article, I dont have a lot of history in biology/neuroscience, but I did get the gist, especially this part.

nfortunately, scientists have looked only at one side of the coin due to the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking. A paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices that constitute ways of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline

Seems once more that so-called "objective" science is not objective at all is it? Irritates me though, when cultural values-especially those based primarily on racism, withhold scientific progress that could improve people's quality of life. AD is a terrible disease.


I watched my friend grow and tend cannabis all year, and it was a hobby that brought us all closer together. Plants and horticulture are not valued in our society-economically or culturally, probably because of the industrial food system and how we can just go to any grocery store at any time of night and get any type of food-packaged, pressed, and injected with chemicals-yum! But what can we do? This is our reality-"vegan" or organic food or whatever people wish to market it as, are just that much more expensive, and there is still that central and inherent denaturalization element-we do not produce what we make, instead we sell our labor/time-there is something isolating about the worker being isolated from this final product (as Marx pointed out).
People against cannabis often argue that cannabis produces ineffective/random results in different people...this is correct to an extent, but consider the method people use for cannabis, the majority of cannabis is consumed haphazardly by untrained amateurs through trial and error-and this cannabis is bought from random sources, untested, no growing procedures ect. Of course this produces a wide array of results...I am proud of my country (Canada) as we have just fully legalized weed, and now that removes the barriers for science...I'm hoping in the next decade I will see Canadian scientists testing, formulating, and marketing forms of cannabis directly synthesized for various issues, including sleeping, menstrual/muscle pain, mental illness ect. I want us to pioneer a better future, one that leaves big pharma behind.
On that note-since I moved to the United Kingdom, I've noticed my sleep quality has decreased...sometimes I take to taking over the counter sleeping pills, not what I want to do. I feel big pharma breathing down my throat, all I want is my weed...
I too learned to read better on cannabis, and write... A lot of the posts I wrote on this forum even, were written incredibly high. It helps take the anxiety I always feel with regards to writing, it feels softer; more sensual an activity, rather than a vigorous and fast-paced activity. Also, as an individual with autism-I suffer at times with hyper-focus, meaning I struggle to change the course of my focus or to pull my attention away from a thought or project, which is primarily why I struggle to sleep at night and induce a lot of my own anxiety...I love the distractibility weed brings.

Hey there!

I'm glad someone was interested in bumping this thread, as since my posts five months previously I've come across several relevant points,
-There has been a direct link between big Pharma paying off well-known medical professionals to denounce marijuana as harmful or of no benefit
-due to its history, much of the discrimination towards marijuana comes from entrenched racism and xenophobia, funny how drinking is an established "right" and cultural norm in much of Europe and North America, everyone drinks-its okay as long as you do it in moderation...yet marijuana, a drug from central Africa/Asia originally (or in some cases, like hallucinogenics in Indigenous cultures) has received historical persecution from eurocentric countries and cultures...hmmm

There is also an interesting link between the act of growing marijuana (substance farming/horticulture) and the spiritual connection people feel for the drug and its effects. It's like a reverting to some form of primitivism, something that in our highly industrialized and urban lifestyles has otherwise been taken from us...I think this is another thing that threatens big pharma and perhaps, our entire industrial system, imagine the people being able to grow their own drugs! Not have to pay inflated insurance, be subject to marketing ect. ect.

I'm also really glad to hear that cannabis has allowed you to better continue your research...I will always hold that mairjuana helped me in a time that I didn't have a lot of other options; at least not short term stop-gap solutions, I'm disappointed in modern philosophy for not taking more of a lead in drug use-especially philosophy of mind, but that is a symptom of a bigger flaw in academia in general I think

I disagree.
By judging animals by their trainability: ie. their ability to learn human commands is inherently anthropocentric, we are judging animals based on their ability to follow HUMAN commands...how can that be a natural assessment of their cognitive abilities? A flimsy metaphor for this is that this is like asking a person who only speaks Russian, to write a physics exam in Chinese...this is a flimsy metaphor because at least humans are the same species...
Also I believe dogs are a bad example of intelligence re: human training, not because dogs aren't smart, I love dogs and they certainly are jesus, they are intuitive, compassionate, eager, and generally lovely companions for their ability to cohabit with humans and in human societies so successfully, but one must remember the domestication history of dogs; their close association with humans to the point where this domestication process changed many of their physical and psychological features to make them better to serve as human companions, hunting partners, and guard dogs. So is that really a measure of "intelligence" in the purse sense of the word? Or rather of trainability or malleability? I don't think trainability is necessarily an element of intelligence at all, I mean computers can be trained...does that mean they possess spontaneous and creative intelligence, consciousness and cognition in our understanding of the word?

@Seneca Advocate

Greta Thunberg uses social media platforms as a principal form of delivering her ideas and campaign or advocate for climate change; which we know digital platforms abuse the consumption of fossil fuels that harm and prejudice our environment, this shows an inconsistency with her views and advocating for actions to solve and help climate change.As she could be doing his movement with other campaign or platforms alternatives that would not harm the environment.

I'm confused...like what platforms? Social media is paper-less, resource-less, and if I'm not mistaken Greta used wind power to travel across the ocean and fuel her basic necessities, ie. like internet...

Her being an eleven year old, it is not hard to see why she may not grasp certain concepts of statistics and data.

She's sixteen, not eleven, and while I agree she is not a qualified climatologist, she is an outspoken public speaker with a huge following; have you ever considered the reason "real" scientists have not publicly come out with science change (though thousands have, its just that common people can't be arsed to read their papers/discoveries/understand what the jargon means) is that scientists with direct data on climate change are under persecution by regressive right political groups? The Trump administration has fired dozens of scientists I read, regarding this very issue, including cutting government funding to universities studying climate change...didn't the head scientist of climate at NASA quit because no one would believe him?? A sixteen year old in comparison, has no risk of career to lose, is not risking her livelihood because she is still supported by her parents, and in my opinion, is a brilliant writer and speaker; much better than some of the 40+ year old politicians we have quacking on and on

Here's the good news...it appears squids will do quite well from climate change ! If nothing else will...

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/squid-could-thrive-under-climate-change

Yes, just another false narrative to justify our power structures and institutions...funny also how the loudest regressive right people are usually those who stand to lose the most by the deconstruction of these systems...ie. Donald Trump and his wealthy empire...or even a trend I'm noticing in my age cohort, youth-particularly white, male, upper middle class youth, feeling threatened by climate change, not because it affects the planet, but because in order to address it (ie. deconstruct current economic/social systems) means that it threatens what they perceive as their entitlement or birth right...by virtue of being rich white boys; they all seem themselves as the next millionaire, and don't like when women, POC/Indigenous, the poor, disabled are beginning to rock that particular boat...

If I recall we have agreed on a few things in the past :yum:

‘there is nothing we can do’ is just trash.

Agreed!

Important to note that individualistic actions (as has been promoted for the last twenty years by neoliberal agendas) that places the onus solely on the individual (like turning off the lights!) is not only ineffective but false, and hides the true evils responsible at the centre of our economic and cultural systems, not just ~capitalism~ as it contemporarily it is, but the Judeo-Christian concepts of environmental domination, extractivism, and accumulation of resources beyond that merely needed for sustenance...culminating in modern day consumerism

Amazing post, very informative, even for someone who has done a good deal of research in this area the past few months...mostly to combat online idiots who are indoctrinated by what I (and others) have termed the regressive right...this is a political growing trend in a lot of countries, not just Trump's United States; the regressive right not only seeks to deny and continue the false narrative of infinite economic growth, but plays on people's fear of this reality. It is easy to deny something that you do not have the scientific reason to, or willingness to understand...why would you want to accept this reality? It is mind boggling.

Stupidest argument against climate change I've heard so far: "if climate change was real why are banks giving out 30+ year mortgages if there isn't going to be anyone alive to pay it back DUH"

At least this debate is bringing to light the mass ignorance and indoctrination of the world's global population..."Ignorance is the most violent element of society" -Emma Goldmam

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just thought this book might be relevant to some of the OPs initial queries. It's a really great (and largely unheard of) book when understanding death anxiety and its effects and purpose.

Have you read Ernest Becker the The Denial of Death?

Hegel I have not learned (yet), he is infamously impossible to read and understand. One of the issues with very academic ivory-tower (Early Modern) philosophy.

Berkeley's subjective idealism is basically that ideas exist solely in the mind, and that God put all those ideas in there. It gets a bit more complicated than that but that's the simplest way to put it. May I suggest messaging me privately? I have notes on Berkeley from my class I took on him last semester (fourth year undergrad level) that I could take some pictures of and send to you...to help me understand I often draw little cartoons in my academic notes, which may also be helpful.

I would appreciate if you stop deleting your original points. That is mere cowardice in my opinion. If you go to all this effort to start a thread in order to discuss your opinions/beliefs, then you have to be prepared to defend your beliefs, and have an academic discussion about it. I have taken the last hour to formulate a well-thought reply to your query, only to see that under the pressure of (people disagreeing with you)? You have omitted your original points. Please just admit you were wrong then, or get off this forum if you are not going to argue and discuss fairly. We are philosophy people, not a political Twitter account.

So, men need sex all the time, while women only see it as possibly nice to have, while they can more easily do without.

I mean. Thats one sexist narrative. I can direct you to many well-educated feminist writers that vehemently show that such a narrative is just another subtle bias in society, meant to protect male sexual entitlement and at the same time disempower female sexuality. Did you know that female orgasm is actually much more powerful than the male orgasm? That women's sexual drive increases with age? That perhaps, the reason this narrative continues unabated, is because men have never cared to learn about female sexuality? Because women's sexual needs and desires do not matter the same way mens do? Ie. hetereosexual sex being hyper focused on the phallus rather than on the breasts, clitoral, or vaginal stimulation? These are sexist and oppressive sexual norms being propagated by the myth you just referenced-that men need sex more. May I also add that this very myth has been used to justify instances of spousal rape and sexual harassment?
Who are you to say that I can "more easily do without" sex than you? Who are you to deny my sexuality and desires, after centuries millines of Judeo-Christian sexual repression, abuse, and shame, of female sexuality? Fuck you.

I digress.

You sound angry for some reason. I'm angry too. But I'm also one this "stupid" generation you speak of...I consider myself pretty politically literate for someone my age, I mean I've been reading political theory since age sixteen, feminist theory since fourteen, history since, eh, middle school? At age twenty I am moving across the world to pursue law school with a speciality in environmental law...Of course, I agree, I am a minority in my cohorts, in fact I face great persecution in some of my social circles for this knowledge.

Here I will list some reasons I find compelling for why there is a "downward" spiral so to speak, or at the very least, as I do agree that every period of history has its turbulence, what is causing the turbulence of our time.l

1. Complacency: People aren't stupid. They are complacent and distracted by, as @Bitter Crank pointed out, the daily toils of living, which are, nonetheless excaberated by the RIGGED SOCIO-ECONOMIC system (in America at least) that is forever shrinking the middle class, cutting taxes and social benefits, and the regressive right is forever shouting false propaganda to make it all seem desirable, when really, it is only desirable to the major corporations and the bureaucratic 1% keeping all the world's wealth. People don't know any better.

2. Lack of education: Critical thinking (philosophical) skills are not taught in public schools. You are taught to follow rules, to follow instructions, to obey authority. These are not skills for successful innovation/problem solving/or even, to an extent leadership. They are meant to keep the system intact. Those students who are less easily swayed-who do not conform, usually drop out or fall through the cracks eventually. They turn to substances, have turbulent home lives, and very little support. They also probably have learning issues, the same ones you just mocked as "made up" are really, very real, and well documented throughout history...just historically undiagnosed until now. They are also still undiagnosed, especially in women and girls, and these account for countless other problems.

3. Cultural a-sociality and paranoia: As a culture, we now fear for our children's safety in ways historically, was unheard of. Children are not allowed to walk places by themselves, go to the park by themselves, or even play on certain "older" playgrounds due to liability issues/parents deeming it as "not safe". The school down the street from me tore down the playground and has replace it with, well, 3 large wooden poles. Thats it. Thats "safe". Bubble wrapped kids? What does that lead to?

HMMMMMM....
Have you considered that the reason children are so "glued to their smart phones" and "video games" because that's their only chance at real uninhibited social interaction and exploration? The real world isn't safe anymore. And when children are raised with this paranoia, like I was, we are a lot less likely to grow into adults who feel comfortable communicating and socializing with strangers.

We don't care of what is going on around them.

We don't know what is going on around us. We are distracted by celebrities, by mainstream propaganda (news), we are not taught the literacy or skills needed to even understand. The people in power don't want us to understand. Social media is addicting, especially when a digital iOS world is all you have ever known, we didn't get the luxury of board games and real social interaction growing up...it also ruins focus by hijacking the brains reward centre. With regards to food; we don't have the options or the knowledge

I suggest you look up Greta Thunberg, she's a fifteen year old Autistic activist nominated to win the Nobel Prize. Sorry we're so "useless".

I see now you deleted your paragraph on how transpeople are somehow a "problem" because they can't "decide what gender they want to be". Good choice, since many trans and LGBTQ youth are at the forefront of some of the most powerful social movements of this century so far-these minority and oppressed groups have been the backbone for some of the very rights we say we "take for granted".
Lastly, on the topic of rights, the American GOP is currently trying to rob women of their hard-fought right to abortions. This has angered every women I know, and I'm not even American. It's not the 20-year olds who are taking away these rights, taking these rights for granted, it's the 50 something year-old white men who are so threatened by social process and equality (read: taking back the wealth they made off the backs of women, migrants, and the poor) they feel the need to go backwards.