#anti Socrates

[khaosritual]

[accountability-movement]

Trump's Tariffs are already punishing us

Help me find more questions to hold our government accountable for what We The People have to say:

How does the administration justify imposing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico when tariffs historically lead to increased consumer prices?

What is the administration’s plan to prevent further inflation caused by these tariffs, especially for essential goods like food and household products?

Has the administration conducted an economic impact analysis on how these tariffs will affect lower-income Americans who are already struggling with high grocery prices?

Orange juice is already historically expensive. With tariffs and reactionary tariffs on Mexico, what will the government do to prevent further price hikes for basic grocery items?

Did the administration consult with economists or trade experts before making this decision, and if so, what data justifies these tariffs as beneficial to the average American?

Given that tariffs act as an indirect tax on consumers, how does the administration reconcile this policy with its claims of lowering costs for Americans?

How does alienating our two largest trading partners benefit American consumers or businesses in the long term?

Given that many American farmers and manufacturers rely on Canadian and Mexican markets, how will the administration support industries that suffer from retaliatory tariffs?

Why is the government implementing policies that have historically led to economic downturns rather than pursuing strategies that encourage economic stability and trade growth?

If the tariffs result in a recession, will the administration take responsibility for the consequences of its trade war?

If the goal of these tariffs is to punish Mexico and Canada, why should American consumers bear the brunt of the cost?

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

I read your fake smart-girl coded Taylor Swift post. Ended up on my feed because it was tagged philosophy. It was long enough that I caught a few words and actually read it. Honestly thought it was satire until I read your answers to other people.

I do not care about TS. But I do care about philosophy. You have a degree in it ? Funny, I have one too. You've read Aristotle ? I did too. But did you read though ? Did you really get into philosophy, and heard what the people you, I'm sure, can quote really well, actually said ? Because what it looks like, is that you got a degree in philosophy, but did not get philosophy at all. What makes me say that ? Your attitude, and that paragraph :

"Also, for the record, I don't think Taylor Swift knows anything of substance about Aristotle. I, on the other hand, took a three-hour long oral exam over Aristotle's life work while out-of-my-mind-high on Dayquil and pain meds after a surgery. I got an "A", and, somehow, I lived through that, I doubt the validity of Swift's claims to know anything at all about philosophy. Especially, considering how all her songs are about as deep as a puddle. "

Sounds like you're here to show off, and to make yourself look like something, without having a clue what it means to have the inclination of a philosopher. Or you know what it means, and you've lost it somewhere along the way.

If you've studied philosophy, and actually took time to read and understand the words of philosophers, you know not one of them would condone your attitude, the way you use their names, the way you're making your arguments. Having an A for an exam on Aristotle does not guarantee that you'll be able to make good arguments for the rest of your life. Nor does it guarantee that you understand his work, or are good at philosophy. It just means that, at one point, on a very specific part of Aristotle's work, you had enough knowledge to be rewarded with a good mark. It stops there. It does not mean anything else. Even if it was for your master's thesis. Sure, you know more than TS about philosophy and she fakes knowledge in her songd, but is showing off your grade and putting yourself as the center point of your argumentation the best way to convey that message ? No. You're trying to put her down by putting yourself above others. To anyone with a sense of philosophy, it just looks like you're a student who never understood the works he/she read, and focused on grades and others' approbation instead.

You care about your degree ? Re-read the books and make use of your ability to understand them. Not as a way to show off, but as a way to lean into the attitude a philosopher might have.

You write posts using philosophy ? Make it palatable to others, and show its uses. Be humble. Same thing for literature. The people whose books you read, they want knowledge to be spread. Studying philosophy should have, at the very least, helped you see that. The degree you got is here to push you to continue doing what all previous philosophers and writers did before you got to read them. Otherwise, your degree serves no purpose, other than satisfying your ego. At least, that's how it looks in that post.

Anyway, it'd just be nicer if you used your degree to show the benefits of philosophy, rather than to stroke your ego. Think about Socrates for a while. He asks questions, he makes simple arguments, he rarely talks about himself, he wants others to learn. That's the idea. Not showing off. Not being an ass to a girl you've never met. But being open for discussion, and make sound arguments, for others as well as yourself. What was the point of you fixating on the misuse of 'soliloquy' ? What did it bring to others ? And your anger towards TS, why ? Why write a whole post about it, shove it in her fans' face, what's the point ? Did anyone get anything positive from that ? And why bring your degrees and grades into the mix ? Anyone can make an informed and sound argument, even without a degree. What did it give you to say all those things ?

Fyi, I was taught philosophy in France. I know people in America and the likes get taught philosophy differently than how its done here. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a cultural difference in the way we understand the discipline. I've got a master's degree in the subject, and six years of study under my belt, if that matters to you. Was top of my class also. And I've lived with a philosophy teacher for eight years, too. In case you try saying I have no place speaking about philosophy the way I do.

There is barely anyone who gives a damn about philosophy. You're one of the few who cared about it enoigh to study it. Make good use of your degree, and don't be an ass to others.

Let me give you a piece of my mind, because, honestly, my dear friend, what are you doing? 

Is this some kind of moral flex in which you prove to be the better person because you’ve never implied that there’s no way a certain person knows anything about Aristotle? You want to seem like the better person, because I took one single cheap-shot at Taylor Swift’s intelligence amid a full literary explanation as to why she is using a specific term wrong? Are you joking? You want to call into question my entire education? Because I said Taylor Swift is not as “deep-thinking” as she claims? Okay, yeah... you’re right I guess that makes my entire education invalid. My bad. I’ll go rip up my degrees.  

First of all, let’s address your arrogance. You write, “Sounds like you are trying to show off, and to make yourself look like something, without having a clue what to means to have an inclination as a philosopher” (para.4) in response to me saying Taylor Swift probably doesn’t know anything about Aristotle. Yeah, obviously that line is a quick jab at Taylor Swift. So, what? Am I writing an essay? No. Am I writing a journal article? No. Am I writing to a conference committee with a submission of my finest work? NOpe. I’m saying that I would bet money that I know more about Aristotle while suffering the effects of surgery-induced delirium. It’s not that deep. It’s not meant to be a deep, philosophical take on the nature of Taylor Swift’s work. I’m throwing a metaphorical tomato at her, while yelling “boooo.” So, what? You say, “Play nice.” No. Taylor Swift is not my student, nor my friend. I, thus, have no obligation to try to teach, guide, or help Taylor Swift understand anything. I’m not her philosophy teacher, and, you know what, I don’t think she cares about philosophy at all. You know why she name-dropped Aristotle? It rhymes with “full-throttle” and “Grand Theft Auto” (Swift “So High School”). I’m laughing at her so-called poetical lyricism. In the same breath, I’m judging her for relegating Aristotle to a cheap throw-away line in a dumb pop-song in which she sings about how her football boyfriend makes her feel like she’s 16 again. It’s so mind-numbing.

I’m sad. It’s not anger that compels me, but sadness and disappointment. I’ve been a fan for nearly 15 years and my original post came from lamentations about outgrowing an artist I once respected.  Granted, I might have been angry while writing that post (sue me about it).  

 I do respect Taylor Swift’s work enough to criticize it, however, do not twist my words to mean that as an attack on her personally. I do not wish harm to other human beings, yet it is worth noting that I talk in many other posts about my disgust towards her immoral actions. Even still, most of my posts about Taylor Swift are linguistic or literary criticisms meant to help me process this absolute let-down of an album. I’m also just practicing my literary criticism abilities (I start Grad School in like 2 months, so I’m trying to keep my skills sharp). It’s all low-stakes.  And, you’re mad at me? You think I’m being mean? Why? You think that I’m “being an ass to a girl [I’ve] never met”? (para. 8). Taylor Swift is not a girl, first of all, she is older than me and I’m a grown woman. She is way richer, and way more powerful too. What is your point? 

Let’s talk about the next line in question: “What is the point of you fixating on the misuse of ‘soliloquy’? What did it bring to others?” I’m fixating on the term soliloquy because Taylor Swift has been using this faux literary/ dark academia aesthetic to sell her records for years now. She’s wears “my coat” (if you catch my meaning). She’s using my real-life study as a way to sell shoddy, sloppy records. I’m going to call that out. Despite her using all the aesthetics of academia, she’s not intelligent enough to even just use the term soliloquy correctly. I noticed it right away, and so did many others. If she can’t even get small details correct about literature, why should I believe that she even knows anything about literature at all? It destroys her creditability. I’ve taught students the term ‘soliloquy” as high school kids. It’s not too much to ask for the biggest pop star in the world, and someone who claims the title of “good” writer, to teach herself what a soliloquy actually is before using it in a song just because it sounds similar to “sanctimonious.” If it’s wrong, she’s just wrong. She could have hired an editor. Now, I won’t go into the context of the line here, too much, but the whole line is her calling her audience a bunch of sanctimonious morons who are talking to themselves. (Is Taylor Swift playing nice enough for you? I wonder....)  

Let’s move on. 

Now, let’s talk about your concept of “inclination of a philosopher.” 

You are correct in saying that often teaching Philosophy varies remarkably from country to country. I was weaned on the analytic philosophy, whereas I believe the French are more continental. (Correct me if I am wrong.) So, the effect of this is that I am obviously quite blunt and fond of Aristotelian logic. Who doesn’t love a good syllogism? A funky little linguistic proof? Yes? Still, I must remind you that I wasn’t really making an argumentative point about actual philosophy in relation to Taylor Swift.  

To the crux of the issue, however, I must say that I was actually showing the inclination of philosophy by correcting the intrinsic flaws of the songs I disliked so much. What is philosophy if not the spirit of seeking truth and wisdom? Critique and analyzing poetical works often tie directly into the philosophical field of aesthetics wherein the goal is true, fruitful, understanding on how literary devices and aesthetic representation actually function. If anything is also in effort of seeking truth, surely, you see that critique and correction is? And asking for better workmanship? I was only mad, because mining Taylor Swift work for aesthetic meaning is like searching for Gold in a parking lot. : (  

Next point: “to anyone with a sense of philosophy, it just looks like you’re a student who never understood the works they read, and focused on grades and others’ approbation instead.” 

First of all, this is rude. You don’t know me. You read my honest, brief anger, that I managed to condense into a couple lines in one single tumblr post, and that gives you the audacity to say I’m a bad student who sought grades above all else? Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................. Okay, tell me why I spent hours in study rooms and sent countless emails begging for guidance through things I didn’t understand. Tell me why, I’ve stood in front of people and blatantly admitted that I did not understand the readings. Learning takes time, and there is no shame in taking your time. Grades are just letters. What matters is how the strength of what you learn impacts how you act in life. I’ve learned my lessons with all the ferocity of a child falling down a hill and running back up it again. I know my own intentions, and you don’t. I mentioned my "A" in the post really just to lend credibility, through professorial authority (lol), to the fact that I think Taylor Swift is fake smart.

Next: SocRaTeS? You're Joking! What is he doing here?

In an eternal quest for my own understanding, I often returned to Socrates. Did you not see my profile picture? Socrates is my homeboy. If ever I get to choose how to die, I will die like Socrates. Willingly, and with a full-bodied credulity of my own philosophical stances.  

You say, “Think about Socrates for a while. He asks questions, he makes simple arguments.” First, he does not make simple arguments. Is it not a syllogism? He writes full dialectical structures. This is some of the most complex stuff I have ever read. Let’s talk about why: Over the centuries, we’ve come to call it the Socratic method. This method includes discursive questions meant to make people question not only others on their reality but to question the most internal mechanisms of the mind. It asks them to think about why we believe or hold the beliefs that we do. He, famously, likens it to a child's development in the womb. The questions are meant as an external way to engage with mechanistic development of thought itself- thus we untangle the dangerous thread of rhetoric internal to our own rational minds. It’s a type of meta-analysis of the self-more than it a simple game of question and answer. Like children from the womb, according to Socrates, we must develop our rational minds too. And, above all else, the Socratic method seeks truth.  

Socrates would approve of my literary criticism of Taylor Swift, because I am using it to seek a higher truth. And, in some way, I am inversely questioning my own reasons for seeking what I do. I enjoy poems for a reason. I like to ask myself why I like what I do, and what meaning it brings through my unique perspective. (Applied to others as well, I love to hear from others). I critique Taylor Swift not because I hate her, but because I want to engage with the aesthetic qualities of the material world that elevate my ability to empathize, to think, to engage, to feel the world around me. I love art. I love reading, I want people to write with intelligence. You know then, the soul-crushing feeling of realizing an artist is actually bad. She rhymed Aristotle with Grand Thef Auto... Socrates himself would shudder. Socrates would also recognize that aesthetic quality ought to undergo critique and beauty interrelates to moral value. He was of the belief, and I dare say I believe it too, that beauty, aesthetic beauty, can be likened to moral value through the identification of ways in which it reveals the truth of our very souls. To him engaging with aesthetics is one way in which to reach out and connect the metaphysical to the material, in such awe-inspiring ways.

Ever been moved to tears by a painting? I have, but the question is WHY? That is why I critique literature, poetry, art... music. Whatever I can get my hands on really. I really want to find out, WHY? why was I crying in the Art Gallery, right next to the ice cream shop and everything.

 You are perhaps right that I could make more of an effort to explain my points, and also the "moral of the story" or what I hope other people will take away from what I wrote. I’m only ever critical of something if I care enough to either love it or wish it was better so that I could love it. To be honest, I didn't think anyone would read my silly vent post about Taylor Swift, but here we are. I could do better. I usually save my real efforts for my published work, though.

And you, my dearest colleague, are apparently spineless. If your conviction on philosophy is that we must all be kind and precious to each other for fear of causing offense, then I think your career will sink like a rock. Socrates was mean as hell, though not spiteful or malicious. He was mean in the sense of asking people to take a good, long hard look in the mirror. I would ask Taylor Swift to look in the mirror too, but she has a whole song about how she’s not going to do that (Anti-Hero). As you see, I hope that I am not spiteful either. But I do want people to be better and make better art. Socrates would say the same. I say what I say and I mean it. Because I am desperate for something true and beautiful and real. There is no one on earth above reproach. There is no school of philosophy which suggests passivity is tantamount to intelligence. I will not be passive.  

You say: “Make it palatable to others. Be humble” 

How’s this for palatable: No <3. Why diminish myself? Why should I obfuscate and dance around my own hard-won intellectual skill? Why should I dumb it down? It is not egotistical of me to use my own skillset. Does a doctor not save lives? Do they apologize for using their skills? Does a mechanic not do the same? Does the poet not also do the same? What of the critic?  

I can be humble, though. Humility is being self-aware enough to recognize that some might have a skillset more advanced than your own. I seek guidance and consistently challenge myself in academic endeavors. I can recognize the authority others have just as well as I can recognize my own authority. I will not, however, shrink down because you think I’m being too know-it-all-y.  

Humility does not require that I speak only when choking back apologies for the audacity I have to speak. I am not sorry. I spent the last 6 years of my life working on two degrees while working 3 jobs. It was hard. I’m proud of myself. If someone feels upset that I speak about the field of study I have fought to participate in, well, I genuinely don’t know what to tell them. Intellect is not a threat (to most). I would say, “if you have a question, ask it.” I actually am very friendly despite my sharp tongue. I am a teacher to my bones <3 and I love my job.  

Anyway, if I missed any of your points, misrepresented them, or offended you greatly- my inbox is always open. And I love a good, well-structured argument. However, next time can we talk about actual philosophy instead of you just attacking my character, thanks. <3 Obviously, I took offense. I think you meant to offend me though, for whatever reason. Really, I did go back and crack open a few books to write this, double check some things, so thank you.

Did you get your graduate degree in America? Would love to know. I am planning on getting another Master’s after I am done with this first one. I want to study aesthetics ( LOL).  

Ps. Why can’t people show off? I love when people have a talent that they aren’t afraid to share.

[poetryqueer]

finding out the writer of an ancient biography or whateverwas just a person who knew that person before they died will never not destroy me. like what do you mean you kept telling everyone their story again and again and again for the rest of your life. what do you mean you wrote it down and spread it so they weren't forgotten. what do you mean your name is still tied to theirs two millennia later. what do you mean you suceeded.

[iselenepani]

Thats is not how i thought that paragraph was going to end lmaooo

Is he arguing that Christians don’t have a “great normal guy” and that’s a good thing? Bcs I’m going to need more convincing for that

“In Christian theology, our inescapable tendency to fall short of moral ideals is called original sin. It’s one way to make sense of an undeniable set of facts: that we know what kinds of measures need to be taken to alleviate the suffering of our fellow human beings, and that we are for the most part unwilling to take those measures. The lives of saintly people, however, open our eyes to how wicked we really allow ourselves to be. Many religions have traditions of such exemplars: Buddhist bodhisattvas, Taoist sages, and legendary rebbes of Hasidic Jewish traditions all illuminate qualities that those communities consider integral to living a good life. Notably, virtually all such people were extremely weird and frequently very annoying by the standards of the times and places in which they lived. Socrates himself was such a pest that it earned him multiple lawsuits and eventually execution by the state.”

— Daniel Walden

[plantsandpies]

I hope my teacher enjoys my work.

[jesterbells]

Tumblr New Word Dictionary

I love new words. So here's a list of recently created words and idioms I have learned through tumblr (not all of these terms were invented on tumblr but that's where I learned them--the citations specify whether the term was coined by a specific post, or cite a source for where I first heard the term even if that is not necessarily where the term originated):

blorbo: a fictional character you're a fan of. Coined by thelustiestargonianmaid.

"I'm so hungry I could get banned from facebook": coined by babyslime in response to a Wil Wheaton post

GORIMM: Gross Older Relation I Must Marry. Source: bethanydelleman

hlep: when a disabled person asks for a specific kind of help and "they do something that is not what you ask for but is what they think you should have asked for ... Sure, it looks like help; it kind of sounds like help too; and if it was adjusted just a little bit, it could be help. But it's not help. It's hlep." Source: giantkillerjack's therapist.

horse fantasy: something that is theoretically possible unicorn fantasy: something that is definitely (or almost definitely) impossible. Source: bemusedlybespectacled.

zomancy: soup divination. Source: cryptotheism.

UFOs: unfinished objects--"something that is unfinished but in hibernation," as distinct from WIPs. Source: knitting community and bylambd.

autoenshittification: turning cars into digital extraction machines to steal your data and money through digital infrastructure and microchips, and the endless repair nightmare of digital car systems and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Source: mostlysignssomeportents

nude: "when your clothes are off." naked: "when you're clothes are off when you're up to something." nakey: "when you are an animal and your collar has been removed." Source.

sideways fan: following a fandom second-hand. Source: capricorn-0mnikorn.

spoken Garamond: "the over-emphasized voice people use to read poems." Source: Frances Klein's friend.

nongry/nungry: when you're starving but also don't want to eat any of the food in your kitchen. Coined by tathrin.

scrumbling: scrolling on tumblr. Coined by the mum of anti-terf-posts.

window shipping: "any shipping done without actually watching/reading the work in question." Coined by lurker-no-more.

friend John / a Friend John answer: "when someone asks a relatively reasonable question in context and the enquiree 1) speaks at length without answering the question, and 2) implies the enquirer has injured the enquiree by even asking such a thing how could you." Coined by sileana.

bitism: a new school of media criticism which asks the simple question: is the work committed to the bit? Coined by linecoveredinjellyfish

snors d'oeuvre: having a little nap on the sofa before taking onseself to bed for main sleep. Coined by SJKSalisbury (can't find the tumblr repost now).

socratic terror: "what every athenian felt when they went down to the agora in the 5th century and saw an old man with a beard approaching them." Coined by lesbianshepard.

introvirtuous: "when you're introverted but have taken on numerous leadership and outgoing roles in your life." "I'm here to help. But I'd rather not be." "Someone around here has to get things done. and unfortunately it's going to be me." Coined by soundslikerhetorical.

grundlous: "of or pertaining to grundle." Coined by IMLIZY.

concretes: specific aspects of a character that persist across interpretations. The essential, structural essence that makes a character recognizable as the same person. Rarely physical traits; subjective. Coined by Ladylark and kayanem.

skeletonin: "the happiness chemical released when you see a ghoul or perhaps a ghost." Coined by gwentrification.

broflakes: "the weak, fragile 'alpha' males who are so easily threatened by strong women." Source: rickladd (can't find the tumblr reblog atm).

the planet of hats: "the thing where a people only have one thing going for them, like 'everyone wears a silly hat.'" Source: Star Trek fandom & TV tropes, learned via homonculus-argument.

feelings yakuza: "those who turn their personal discomfort into a social evil and try to erase the target completely." Source: Japanese fandom via マロミチャン.

Ship of Thesaurus / Rogetism: "When a student copies an essay online instead of writing it and then painstakingly changes every word to a synonym until the text no longer makes any sense." Coined by trek-tracks and Chris Sadler respectively.

Flemming's law / vibe dysphoria: "the most toxic person you've ever met over-relates to woodland creatures on social media." Coined by Chris Flemming and canadianwheatpirates.

fight with a gorilla: "any secret or invisible struggle." Coined by punksandcannonballers.

squimbus from my polls: the poll version of blorbo except for obscure fan favorite characters. Coined by yardsards.

pebbling: "the act of sending your friends & family little videos and tweets and memes you find online, like how penguins bring back pebbles to their little penguin loved ones." Source: NurseKelsey (can't find the tumblr reblog atm).

serpentineabouts: roundabouts that aren't round. Coined by paulgadzikowski.

luft: air equivalent of wet. Coined by questbedhead.

getting the good bologna: "when you experience something of better quality and then you’re doomed to no longer be satisfied." Coined by the family of kelssiel.

hypofixation: "the kind of things that you've autisticly decided you Do Not Care About." Antonym of hyperfixation. Coined by animate-mush.

[forthegothicheroine]

This is a fascinating video. King James's anti-witchcraft book Demonologie was written in socratic dialogue form, so Atun-Shei acts it out, playing both sides ("Socrates and Stupidus," as an old livejournal post once said) in his closest approximation of the Original Pronunciation.

Just a few things that fascinate me:

Although the conversation often gets darkly silly, Atun-Shei plays it straight, so instead of over the top horror movie villains, we hear calm, reasonable-sounding people discussing witches, often making understandable (if not accurate) points.

As someone who grew up regularly discussing the bible, I really want to engage with some of these arguments. Was the spirit summoned by the Witch of Endor actually the prophet Samuel, or just a demon pretending to be him? That's an interesting question! But obviously this is not a friendly discussion that James or his self-insert would have with me.

Explaining the difference between astrology-as-science and astrology-as-witchcraft delineates how narrow the divide between "science" and superstition could be.

It's a very minor point, but hearing the Original Pronunciation of the word "my" makes it clear how it became "me" in some dialects.

It's nice of James to assure us that werewolves don't exist.

People died over this. Fucking hell.

[crimethinc]

We, Too, Remember Aleksei Sutuga: The Life of a Russian Anarchist and Anti-Fascist

http://crimethinc.com/Socrates

Aleksei Sutuga grew up deep in Siberia, in Irkutsk—the city to which Mikhail Bakunin was once exiled, not to mention many other Russian rebels. Known to his friends as Socrates, Aleksei became involved in the Russian anarchist and anti-fascist movements. His life is the subject of a recently published book.

The interviewees recount how anarchism reemerged in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sharing their memories of Socrates, they explore the relationship between hardcore punk, straight edge, veganism, anarchism, anti-fascism, and a variety of other forms of activism. They describe how Socrates and his comrades became locked in a brutal conflict—first with neo-Nazis, then with the Russian authorities.

At the invitation of our Russian comrades, we have contributed an introduction to this book, exploring why his story is important for people outside Russia.

***

Socrates: It’s simple, everything is very simple. The most important thing is that people don’t aim to gain power. If they want power, then by definition they are not one of us.

Voice from the audience: What should we aim for then?

Socrates: What should we aim for? For life. For a free life, for self-realization, for knowledge, for the stars for goodness’ sake. But definitely not for power.

[cupiid-777]

Beginner’s Guide to Reality Shifting... 

Reality shifting is the practice of moving one's consciousness to another reality. That can be a place where your favourite piece of fiction is reality, or one with a few simple tweaks to here.

 

Origins 

Contrary to popular belief, shifting has existed for decades, possibly even centuries, but was recently repopularised by fandom culture. The idea of astral projection, spiritual meditation and pure consciousness traces back to many ancient cultures, but was officially made mainstream in the 19th century by theologists. Theology was the idea that humans had several bodies, one of which being a spiritual body. This is basically what we call pure consciousness today. Meanwhile shifting or quantum jumping was intronduced by Maxwell in the late 1800s, and was further expanded on in the evolution of quantum physics as a whole.  

So where do you start? 

Shifting can be confusing for somebody who’s getting thrown into the middle of modern shifting, as on most platforms (read; tiktok) the shifting community is a mess, people throwing around misinformation and entitled claims of morality like they Kant or Socrates. But if you’re on tumblr that’s already a good start. In my humble opinion, tumblr has an amazing community of shifters, and it’s easy to find friends and learn about other’s journey and yours by extension. But moving on from there, I think a good place to start is either learning the law of assumption, or the basics of the multiverse theory depending on your ratio of spirituality to scientific belief. Shifting can be explained using both. After that, I’d recommend learning to see shifting as a natural belief, like the sky being blue or brushing your teeth being good for you.  

The modern reality shifting community has developed its own set of terms and concepts that help practitioners communicate their experiences and techniques. Here are some key terms and details: 

Core Terms & Concepts 

DR (Desired Reality) – The reality you aim to shift to, whether fictional, an alternate version of your current life, or something entirely new. 

CR (Current Reality) – The reality you are currently in. 

WR (Waiting Room) – The same as a DR, but is used specifically for being a gateway to other DRs.  

Shifting Techniques & Methods 

Personally, I think methods are overated, i don’t know how contravertial that is, but it creates the illution that shifting requires anything, which it doesn’t. But there are a couple I enjoy. 

@Hrrtshape ‘s Anti-method- THIS IS AMAZING. In my opinion one of the best methods. Along with getting me ridiculously close, it has also reaffirmed my belief to the point that it’s impenetrable. 

That’s it. This is the only method. 

Community Slang & Social Aspects 

“Permashifting”- A term some use for permanently shifting to a DR and not returning to CR (a controversial concept). 

"Respawning" – Permashifting and scripting you forget your cr life. (correct me if I’m wrong) 

“S/O”- Your significant other in your DR.  

Any questions are welcome!  

[transmutationisms]

i saw ur response to the unconscious/conscious as supposedly “divided spectrums” and it got me rotating ol homoerotic duo deleuze-guattari's great anti-oedipus (and mil platôs too, for one). i tried searching up if u had written on it but couldn't find anything at all – wld love to hear some thoughts. any of your thoughts about it akshually. peace

hah anti-oedipus was my first foray into psych-critical scholarship way back in the day :')

my position on psychoanalysis has evolved a lot since then and i think most noticeably in the sense that i've become a lot more interested in historicising it and less interested in haggling over its scientificity or whatever---ie, the question to me isn't so much "is mommy-daddy-me an intrinsically organising principle of human psychology" (obviously not) but more "what are the conditions that allow the claim to be credibly made that it is?" which is i guess to say that, like, in some ways the less insightful part of a text like anti-oedipus is always going to be the assertion that the current ruling ontology isn't a transcendentally necessary one---like, of course it isn't, lol, and the analysis here would be so productively served if deleuze and guattari had a serious engagement with historical thinking; deleuze at his best is on par with like foucault as far as historicity goes.

i think the model that anti-oedipus proffers of a broadly schizophrenic operating logic of capital has some explanatory utility but i don't think that's equivalent to forming a foundation for liberatory political action. i find deleuze generally at his most interesting where he takes up the claim that the desire for one's own oppression is not just a matter of a kind of socratic lack of (self-)knowledge and is instead a genuine expression of desire under capitalism and its familialism. but for as much as this part of the argument wants to build off reich, it's also a place where the text is noticeably not building off a historical-material analysis and instead has a really unhelpful unproductive tendency to tell a psychological myth of desire as an intrinsically revolutionary force and capitalism as motivated by the need to constrain it. so again this is, at best, just not a foundation for liberatory action because it's not historically or materially grounded.

i really adored deleuze and guattari when i first read them and i would still say that anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus changed a lot about how i thought and read. but also these days i would honestly throw in for reich or like any other frankfurt freudo-marxist over most deleuze, lol

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

I read what the French anon said and I'm sorry but I laughed so much! I too study philosophy in France, granted mostly political philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries, but I stil have the basic in ancient Greece philosophy. And I'm sorry but, Socrate, a nice guy who just ask questions and try to understand others??!? Does the person knows about "l'ironie socratique"?!

Also how pretentious of her to says what philosophy is supposed to be about! For some philosopher it's supposed to be the quest for true, for other it's the quest to "individual" happiness, for other it's the quest of the best or the better society possible / social organisation, etc.

This person sound so pretentious! Anyway, no way in hell that Taylor Swift knows who Aristote is! And I totally understand your anger in you're post as an ex-fan who was so disappointed by the album, the matty Healy thing and the jet!

Ahh, wonderful, fellow philosophy person. :) Wonderful. 

Honestly, when I got to the Socrates part of that person's ask, I was the physical embodiment of a question mark for a solid five minutes. No clue how to approach answering someone who apparently thinks Socrates was just a nice guy who was just asking some simple questions.  

Obviously, that Anon should go back and read him again because Good Lord Socrates was out for blood sometimes. He suffered no fools, and, truly, neither do I.  

I didn't even address the pretentiousness part, because I felt I had made my point well enough in all other aspects. You are so right though. It's incredibly pretentious to tell someone else the exact intentions of all philosophy ever. Does Anon know philosophy is the oldest, most diverse discipline of study of Earth? LOL. Truly the only thing that unites all philosophers is a deep love of humanity. Why else ask a question, right? If not to seek an answer to some problem befalling humanity. Anyway, that's just my silly poetic take on it, and I think I said something similar in the other ask. 

Not only that but the Anon tried to tell I’m wrong about literature too.

 But, to that other Anon, to come onto to my blog and tell me I'm wrong for literary criticism, it's honestly just strange. I thought everyone knew that Philosophers are like the OG's of artistic criticism. Do they know that Aristotle wrote the first literary criticism to ever exist? Aristotle’s Poetics? Probably not ringing a bell for the other Anon, though it’s one of the most famous books in history. 

Anyway, thank you for your time and understanding. I truly am just upset about the Album being bad, and the fact that I must learn about all this terrible shit Swift hides from the headlines. I feel so bamboozled because I never seek out celebrity news or gossip, so it's all coming as a rapid-fire surprise.  

Very much a bummer for the girl that I was who bought "Fearless" back in 2009 and excitedly played it in my first car on the way to my first job. Strange to say goodbye to some good memories.  

[truth4ourfreedom]

ONE POSSIBLE WWIII OUTCOME: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES???

Posting by Julian Assange WikiLeaks

-----------------------------------------------

The Destruction of the United States

Projected by our Computer

I have often been asked why the media never runs a story on our computer, the ONLY Artificial Intelligence computer with a real track record of over 40 years, predicting every major shift in the world economy and even targeting Ukraine years in advance. The truth? The media is bought and paid for. They aren't interested in actually helping society or seeking the truth. They are pawns for the agenda.

The media refuses to discuss Socrates because it goes against their narrative. I’ve warned those in power about the impending chaos, but they ignore it. I have to accept the future and prepare. The truth is, the American Neocons always want war. They've taken control of the Democratic Party, which explains why Republican Neocons are endorsing Kamala Harris, including figures like Dick Cheney. Make no mistake, this isn’t about party politics—it's about power and control.

The West will lose this war. Just as WWI moved the financial capital from Britain to New York, WWIII will move it to Beijing. The United States will shatter into regions because the media has driven such hatred between the LEFT and the RIGHT. There is no longer any unity.

Biden has consulted with Israel about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities—a move that could spark a catastrophe far beyond expectations. Russia and China will respond, and if you needed any more proof that war is imminent, just look at Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala. These people want war and they have lost every single one since WWII. Washington is too corrupt; nobody will stop them because they’re all lining their pockets with blood money.

The Neocons belong on trial for their crimes. These so-called Republicans have no qualms about sending Americans to die for their vendettas. The 2024 election isn’t about leadership—it’s about World War III. Adam Kinzinger, who was kicked out of office, endorsing Kamala Harris only confirms it. This is a power play, and it will be the last true election. They will do anything to keep control—open borders, lawsuits against Trump, keeping RFK Jr. off the ticket. This is the endgame.

Biden was never going to be the candidate. The media put on a show to prove his incompetence, paving the way for Kamala. For the first time, we have a candidate who was never elected by the people. Kamala is a puppet, the Neocons’ choice to sign whatever they put in front of her.

We’ve already seen two assassination attempts on Trump. The second would-be assassin survived, but the government will ensure no trial ever happens. Just like JFK, secrets buried forever. The media has sold our country down the tubes, dividing the population to the point where nothing can be salvaged. This country has crossed the red line.

The LEFT always paints themselves as victims, but they are out for total control. History shows that when they seize power, they use it to destroy their enemies. They don’t run countries for the people, they run them for power. That’s why civilizations rise and fall. We can never have extended peace under these conditions.

The LEFT wants to change everything—the courts, the laws, the very foundations of our country. They hate capitalism but don’t mind using corporate power to crush dissent. They are anti-religion, and their obsession with abortion and control shows their rejection of any higher morality.

The media has poisoned this country. They have created such hatred between both sides that there’s no resolution. This isn’t just politics—this is the collapse of America. It’s happening before our eyes, and the Marxist ideas that are being pushed will destroy us from within. There is no uniting this country anymore. Prepare for what's coming.

Join and share my channel immediately: https://t.me/JulianAssangeWiki

[ccsuza]

Is C.C. a nihilist?

When it comes to the exploration of morality and the human condition, C.C. often offers a very unique perspective from the rest of the cast. Her knowledgeable, pining and pragmatic wisdom comes in many forms, from monologuing to confrontation of characters’ ideologies. Due to her common cynical quips and cold truths, the nature of her worldview and values is often questioned. Paired with her desire to end her life, and the human suffering she was forced to endure for centuries, it is thought that her outlook on life is a bleak nothingness. By consequence nihilism is often attributed to her worldview, which had perplexed me for quite some time. I decided to do my own reading on the philosophy, primarily from the works of Nietzsche, and have concluded that C.C. is not in fact a nihilist.

 In fact not only is she not a nihilist, she is actively against nihilism. Which, if we are to take this idea further, extends to Code Geass as a whole. This show is so anti-nihilist that what once started out as a desire to refute the notion that C.C. is a nihilist grew into an understanding that Code Geass goes against everything nihilism stands for. 

And so what is this nihilism within C.C. that I refute? There are several types of nihilism, however the two I will be focusing on are moral nihilism and existential nihilism. These are the two that are usually discussed when it comes to C.C., although the latter much more than the former. I’ll take turns to explain how these ideas do not apply to the show, starting with existential nihilism and then moral nihilism.

Existential Nihilism

Existential nihilism is an increasingly popular philosophy, as Nietzsche predicted, which tackles the meaning of life. This philosophy is characterized by the belief that there is no meaning or purpose in life. Like all forms of nihilism, it claims that there is simply just the world; nothing more and nothing less. Because nihilism rejects the idea that there is an inherent Greater Purpose in the world, religion and subsequently other forms of beliefs are rejected because it's claimed that there's no such afterlife. There is nothing after death and no reason for it either, so a vague life is all we have. In order to provide further context for the emergence of such thoughts, we must go back over two thousand years. 

In his work The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche details a dichotomy present in all of us, which was especially expressed in Greek tragedy: the Apollonian and the Dyonisian. The Apollonian is the rational and logical side of people, which is contrasted by the irrational, chaotic Dyonisian. He described these two sides respectively as the dreamland to the drunkenness, the rational visual art to the raw feelings of music. The most important Apollonian figure was Socrates, one who valued rationality and dialectics as the proper way of living life. Through empirical reasoning he believed that people could be able to rationalize their feelings, their thinking, and more importantly their reason for being alive. This scientific view on morality has shaped the way that people view metaphysics and philosophy, while Nietzsche believed that rationalism and dialecticism were the downfall of Greek tragedy since they overwhelmed the Dyonisian. Modern society has heavily favoured the Apollonian’s science and logic, which Nietzsche believes is the product of people deceiving themselves. The next question is how does this tie to nihilism? Nihilism rejects the Socratic method, fundamentally going against the ideals that we all value so much. In nihilism it is impossible to rationalize such a purpose for living. The ignorance of the Dyonisian for these allegedly faulty dialectics means that people’s perception of the world and the meaning of life is simply an illusion, which once crumbled will lead to a cold and dark nihilism. 

The next idea that goes along with Socratism is religion. The idea that there is an objective and logical purpose to life laid out by God. By acting rationally in accordance with religion, it’s possible to go to the afterlife and achieve a fulfilling life. This belief provides an external meaning to life, one that can be rationalized and is adopted by many. When Nietzsche claimed that God is dead, which is surely blasphemous to all that are religious, he also claims that once those external meanings and values are gone, people will be left with nothing. Naturally this extends to all forms of external meaning for life; any form of greater purpose is rejected by Nietzsche. 

Are these ideas present in C.C.?  Not really. 

To present the argument for her being a nihilist fairly, I will start by showing the key argument for it. When C.C. reveals her death wish she engages in metaphysical dialogue with Lelouch, namely about the nature of life. He asks what is the reason and meaning people are born into the world, to which C.C. answers that those notions are simply an illusion. In a vacuum this answer is certainly nihilistic; the idea that a higher purpose of life is a human-made illusion fits nihilism. Her solution to this problem is to end her life, which has some interesting ties to Birth of Tragedy. There is an ancient Greek story where Midas asks the intelligent Selinus what was best for humanity, and this is what he answered:

 "Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is forever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die."

This passage highlights the horrors of life that the Greeks perceived, which is adopted by C.C. here. If C.C. is unable to not be born, as we all are, then her only solution to life is to end it. Since she is unable to die through conventional means, her salvation lies in passing on her immortality. 

Thus far I have painted a picture of a woman who has lost all meaning in living, choosing to end her existence in the face of a bleak nothingness. By rejecting all greater purposes in life, there is no difference between her choosing to live on pointlessly and dying. However this is where I flip the script and introduce a new philosophy: mono no aware, or often translated - despite being hard to translate - as the “pathos of things”. It is a bittersweet acknowledgement that life is impermanent and transient. To give an example for this Japanese idiom, cherry blossoms arrive in the spring, but can only have their intense beauty be appreciated for a short while before the flowers die. The pink leaves carpeting the ground are a reminder that there is beauty even in death. Human life is fickle, fleeting and fragile. On a personal level, people enter our lives just as often as they leave, such an uncontrollable fragility making life valuable and precious.

As a Japanese philosophy, naturally, it is present in many many Japanese works. A very popular one would be Demon Slayer, a story that has a heavy emphasis on the transience of human life and the transgression of immortality. Demons are portrayed as having overwhelming individual power, however their sense of reason is withered and their desires perverted. Their long lifespans and regeneration is written as inferior to the fragility of human life, in which humanity is able to find their strength in how they handle their fleeting existence. 

Following the trail of thought presented by Demon Slayer, immortality goes against mono no aware. There is no beauty in C.C.’s immortality, an existence that is completely severed from the cycle of life. A life with no end is a run-on sentence. By her own words C.C. states that her lack of conclusion makes her not truly alive. 

“Endless accumulation of it without death can't be called a life. That's just experience.”

In order to be considered human, one must complete the full cycle of being. Birth and death, no matter how sudden or delayed. C.C., someone who has been frozen in the human life cycle, is unable to truly feel human. She is fundamentally detached from humanity and the ideals of mono no aware. 

This is the key part of C.C. that is most misunderstood. Her death wish does not stem from her belief that life is meaningless, rather, it is the opposite! C.C. believes in a very profound meaning of life, which is why she wants to become part of it. She wants to give her life meaning by dying.

“That is where the providence of this world lies. Life is defined by its limits.”

Truly, it is in completing the circle that life has meaning. She has observed this countless times while being immortal, a spectator to it. And by attributing meaning to life, a greater purpose, she has effectively rejected nihilism. Her character arc results in deciding to live on and finding her own meaning in life without abiding to mono no aware, while observing and appreciating it in the world. Her existence is fundamentally different from mortals, yet that shouldn't stop her from being human or enjoying the world. 

Now to return to Greek tragedy, C.C. has a very Apollonian view of life. Throughout the show she very often engages with rationalism, which I will elaborate on further when it comes to moral skepticism. What matters right now is that despite her cynical remarks, she puts a lot of value on finding a reason to be alive. In season 1 episode 7, she agrees with Lelouch that he should be allowed to fight Britannia if it makes him feel alive. They converse frequently throughout the show about philosophy, the nature of morals and the purpose of living. Such conversations could be considered dialectical in nature, and Code Geass certainly puts a large emphasis on rationalizing thinking and feeling. 

Before I move on to moral nihilism, I will tie up some loose ends and address some possible questions which may arise from my analysis. 

There seems to be a contradiction in C.C.’s words. How can I claim that she believes that death gives life meaning, while she also claims that the meaning of life is an illusion? The idea that life has no inherent meaning does not necessarily mean that she is nihilist, but the idea that death gives life meaning is completely against nihilism. There is another branch of philosophy that is closely related to nihilism which has a different outlook on the meaning of life. 

Existentialism is a philosophy in which individuals must form their own meaning in life, and that the pursuit of meaning is important even if life may not be inherently meaningful. This philosophy aligns with C.C.’s worldview much more, as well as the characters and central themes of Code Geass. C.C. believes in the possibility of people finding their own meaning and happiness, she just feels completely detached from humanity. With no inherent meaning in life, she cannot find meaning as an immortal as she could if she was a mortal. As such we return to the counter-argument I presented: even though she claims that life’s inherent meaning is not real, she still believes in a form of fulfillment and a meaning she constructed. Nihilism is still refuted. 

Moral Nihilism 

Moral nihilism is a form of moral skepticism, which is the belief that nobody truly has knowledge of morals, and that morality is a man-made fabrication that has no bearing in reality. This means that it is impossible to do anything that is objectively good or bad, as there is no value in such judgements. There are two main ideas to consider here: that objective morals do not exist, and that objective morals cannot be known. These two points are important when we consider the mode of thought that people employ when it comes to morality. 

The foundation of moral nihilism is the devaluation of the highest values. These highest values are the absolute truth; an objective construct of what is good and bad. The most common example would be religion, in which religious beliefs are decreed as the highest values that believers must abide by. It’s important to note that in nihilism, religious ideals, as well as all other sources of highest values are external and have no basis in the world. As I have explained previously with existential nihilism, since it’s believed that there’s nothing beyond our material world there is no place or reason for external values. If there is no Afterlife or greater truth of purpose to the world then there is no objective basis for people to hold morals and values. This results in the moral nihilist rejecting morals on the basis that they are simply man-made and as meaningless as they are subjective. 

Here is where Socrates becomes a much more important figure in respects to nihilism. Due to the prevalence of Socratism and the dominance of the Apollonian, a large emphasis is placed on trying to decipher morality and trying to understand and uncover them through reason. This was previously established, in which the socratic method is the opposite of nihilism. Does C.C. follow the socratic method? Is she a person of reason and logic, or has she forsaken it all as her morals have jaded over time? 

The book Beyond Good and Evil, also written by Nietzsche, tackles such ideas about morality. As the title implies, it tries to view human behaviour beyond the scope of a binary good/bad. While C.C. and Code Geass explore shades of morality in a thorough manner, it still does not shy away from presenting good and evil as a dichotomy. In C.C.’s own words, I quote: 

“In this world, there is evil born from good. There is also good born from evil. In the end, how will the people treat the actions that Lelouch has taken? Is judgment inevitable in this world?”

Not only do these lines outline said dichotomy of good and evil, they also state that such actions will result in judgement. Lelouch, Suzaku and C.C. spend the whole show seeking atonement for their wrongdoings, an admission of higher values that they all follow. C.C. believes that her actions are sinful and deserving of punishment, which is the farthest thing from being a moral skeptic. These characters are entrenched in their upholding of moral values, wrestling with their conflicting morality among all the good and bad they commit. It is very difficult for me to come up with a line from the show that isn’t about highest values or where morals are upheld to the utmost importance. The closest thing that could be seen as nihilism in C.C.’s morality would be her cynicism. Conflating these two belief systems would be a massive blunder and the comparison should be discarded immediately. C.C. has a dash of cynicism to her worldview where she believes that people are often motivated by self-interest and other less honorable reasons, which extends to her criticism of Lelouch and humanity as a whole. It must be noted, however, that for how much she comments on the evil humanity is capable of, she always juxtaposes it with the possibility of good. This is to say, she is not necessarily a cynicist, nor is she a pessimist. 

Her worldview is shaped by Socratism, which serves an important purpose in the anime as a source of wisdom. She often is the bulk of the philosophical exploration in Code Geass, in which her vast knowledge and experience allows her to communicate ideals such as the nature of good and evil as well as sin and punishment. This is done using an incredibly rational approach, a blend of abundant empirical knowledge and dialectics between the characters. The work of Code Geass as a whole is Apollonian, as its narrative value heavily relies on this socratic method that I have detailed so much. 

To summarize my points, C.C. has within herself a very strong sense of pathos and morality, which she always makes sure to lecture the characters and the viewer about. She categorically rejects nihilism by believing in a greater objective truth, namely about morality and the purpose of life. Her death wish comes from her seeing her existence as something undesirable and incompatible with what makes human life valuable. Her morality comes from a rigorous rationalism that fundamentally opposes nihilism as she possesses a pathos similar to Lelouch.

[nicklloydnow]

Illustration by @steve_fagiano_art

“Chigurh stands up to God with an unflinching, uncompromising belief in predetermination—no free will or human choice, no mercy or sentiment, no giving in or letting go or giving up. Principled in the purity of his work, he defies sentiment and falsehood and betrayal. A pure born-again agent of death, anti-Christ Calvinist Chigurh is a man of his deadly word, a relentless avenger, an implacable killer defying God, no less than the diabolic Judge in Blood Meridian. "How to prevail over that which you refuse to acknowledge the existence of" lago was never so clear-minded, Ahab no more manically fixated, Kurtz no less obsessed with his mission to exterminate losers. "The horror! The horror!" What more can a man say of pure evil?” - Kenneth Lincoln, ‘Cormac McCarthy: American Canticles’ (2010) [p. 144, 145]

“Chigurh again adopts the Socratic method in his final encounter with his fellow hitman Carson Wells. Although Wells isn't given the privilege of a coin toss, Chigurh nevertheless engages in an incisive dialogue with his victim. While holding Wells at gunpoint, Chigurh asks, "If the rule you followed led you to this of what use was the rule?" When Wells replies, "I don't know what you're talking about," Chigurh elaborates: "I'm talking about your life. In which now everything can be seen at once." Knowing that the moment of death has arrived, Chigurh wants Wells to examine the path that led him here, claiming that the present situation "calls past events into question" (175). Even though Chigurh admits that he and Wells are in the "same line of work," he finds it necessary to distance himself from the other hit-man: "You think I'm like you. That it's just greed. But I'm not like you. I live a simple life" (177). This distinction between the two hired assassins suggests that Chigurh transcends mere criminality. The "simple life" he leads imbues him with the ascetic austerity of a monk pledged to evil, a satanic reversal of traditional, spiritual roles hinted at by other descriptions of Chigurh as a "faith healer" and a "prophet of destruction" (7, 3). In his study of the portrayal of evil in literature and cinema, Paul Oppenheimer points out that evil often "begins in criminality" but then "surpasses criminality, and finally, by comparison with criminality, overwhelms and belittles it, causing it to seem oddly cumbersome and even childish" (21). Chigurh lives by a different "rule," not motivated by the usual spectrum of human desires and thus remaining largely inscrutable.

It is significant that Wells is given a premonition of his own death exactly three days before it takes place. While examining the damage caused by a shootout between Chigurh and Moss at the Eagle Pass motel, Wells notices "two bulletholes in the windowglass" of a "second floor level" apartment across the street. After knocking on the door and receiving no answer, Wells lets himself in and finds the corpse of an old woman: "She'd been shot through the forehead and had tilted forward leaving part of the back of her skull and a good bit of dried brainmatter stuck to the slat of the rocker behind her. . . . A second shot had marked a date on a calendar on the wall behind her that was three days hence" (147). The path of the stray bullet converges with the path of the unsuspecting woman, much as Chigurh's coin converges with the equally unsuspecting gas station owner earlier in the novel. The woman's death reminds Wells of the inexorable machinations of fate: "Not what you had in mind at all, was it darling?" he asks (148). Wells correctly interprets the mark on the calendar as a portent of the day of his own impending death.

During the final encounter, he tells Chigurh, "By the old woman's calendar I've got three more minutes. Well the hell with it. I think I saw all this coming a long time ago. Almost like a dream. Déja vu." Well's words reveal that he had a vision of his own death long before he saw the calendar. Nevertheless, the question posed by Chigurh, namely, "How did you let yourself get in this situation?" suggest that it was still within Wells's power to make different choices, live by a different "rule," and thereby change his fate. Chigurh encourages Wells to engage in a final moment of self-reflection: "I thought you might want to explain yourself. . . . Not to me. To yourself" (178). Chigurh's questions seem to be directing Wells toward something akin to the existentialist concept of authentic existence, which, though "not clearly defined by the existentialists . . . implies an attitude of sincerity and honesty and the absence of self-deception" (de Silva 1). Furthermore, it is a mode of existence based on "a realization that one is what one makes oneself by one's acts" (Manser 20). It is worth mentioning that Sheriff Bell strives for the same realization: "It's a life's work to see yourself for what you really are and even then you might be wrong. And that is somethin I dont want to be wrong about" (295). Despite the fact that Bell and Chigurh are diametrically opposed in a Manichean battle between good and evil, respectively, both men insist on the importance of authentic existence arrived at through knowledge of the self.

Existentialist themes are also apparent in Chigurh's attempts to make his victims come to terms with the inevitability of death. He accuses Wells of believing that he can keep death at bay: "You think that as long as you keep looking at me you can put it off." Wells denies thinking such a thing, but Chigurh insists, "Yes you do. You should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it. I'm trying to help you" (176). Behind the "existential preoccupation with the theme of death" is the belief that "living authentically is living constantly in its presence, for then alone can we attain 'freedom in the face of death" (Dutt 80). When Wells accuses Chigurh of thinking that he is "outside of everything" and reminds him that he is "not outside of death," Chigurh replies, "It doesnt mean to me what it does to you" (177). The reply can be read in two ways, the surface reading being that Chigurh has adopted an existentialist approach to death. More subtly, however, the words hint at the idea that Chigurh is no ordinary mortal and may perhaps be Death itself, albeit a modern version that carries a pneumatic stun-bolt gun instead of the traditional scythe.

Wells grows weary of the conversation, announcing, "I'm not interested in your opinions. . . . Just do it. You goddamned psychopath. Do it and goddamn you to hell." Despite the verbal command, Wells's body language suggests that he is not quite ready: "He closed his eyes and he turned his head and he raised one hand to fend away what could not be fended away. Chigurh shot him in the face" (177). Although there is some discrepancy between Wells's words and his reaction to the shot, the fact that Wells commands it enables him to reclaim a certain degree of control over his fate, however insignificant it may appear. Furthermore, McCarthy makes a point of informing the reader that the "new day was still a minute away" (178), thereby emphasizing the fact that the old woman's calendar was not entirely accurate. The fact that, by asking Chigurh to shoot him a minute early, Wells refuses to die on the prophesied day suggests that even within a universe ruled by seemingly inexorable forces of fate, minute degrees of free will and personal agency remain.” - Petra Mundik, ‘A Bloody and Barbarous God: The Metaphysics of Cormac McCarthy’ (2016) [p. 268 - 270]

“The Coen brothers built a story of war between two teams: one team represent the human mind wish to understand the world and the second team represent the universe as a chaos. During the first half of the movie the war looks good for the human mind team but then the human mind team lose – a beatiful metaphor for absurdism.

(…)

Result of the war:

Anton kills Carson, Llewelyn is killed by Mexicans, and the sheriff is retired loosing hope in the world.

The Coen brothers message in this film is that they do not think humans mind will ever be able to understand the world and we are doom to internal ignorance. Depressing.”

[aloneandforsakenbyfateandbyman]

One of the most psychotic things to me is that people find Joe Rogan’s podcast to be…. Controversial. And some even think it should be banned for “spreading disinformation” LOL. Over time I’ve grown to appreciate Joe because he’s an inquisitive meathead who makes complex topics accessible for Americans who don’t read or engage intellectually with subjects bc their brains are fried by screen damage and tiktok, so I actually think he’s doing our dumbed down society a favour by being the modern day steroided Fear Factor version of Socrates.

Like he’s made zombified reactionary leftists defecate themselves once again bc he had RFK Jr on his show eviscerating big pharma and poor khoevid decisions which led to a literal Great Depression 2.0. They freaked out and called RFK Jr an anti-waxxer and “far right” etc. The latter of which has no meaning anymore because anybody who isn’t on a permanent CNN IV drip is apparently “far right.” We’re living in a timeline where Bobby Kennedy’s son is considered the equivalent of a /pol poster lmao.

It’s not like RFK Jr is a perfect candidate but I think Joe had a lot of guts to bring him on his show. And I’m stunned at how Bobby JR has the nerve to point out that the CIA literally murdered his dad and uncle bc he’s putting his own life on the line to do so. Not only that, but he called out the industrial military complex and the US funding of massive wars etc so I feel like he’s going to be the newest whacked Kennedy soon RIP I hope he and Joe both lift and inject TRT together and have some happy last days