KingCrimson

This post is the fruit of many years of philosophical inquiry, psychedelic self-exploration, contemplation, and study of classical and German philosophical traditions. I'm sharing it here in the Actualized.org Forum not to preach or instruct, but to offer a deeply personal gesture—an attempt to articulate a dynamic I’ve seen animating not just thought and language, but Being itself. I hope something here touches the Will of someone else. That’s all. A quick note: this was originally written in German, then translated and reworked with the help of Claude.ai. Some expressions may carry a Germanic structure or flavor. I’ve left certain German terms intact where they feel more precise. This is a long and dense exploration. But if you've glimpsed the paradox of trying to explain what cannot be explained, or felt the strange recursive loop of trying to understand understanding, then you’ll feel right at home. I. A Shift from Doubt to Wonder For over 400 years, Western knowledge has been built on a singular engine: doubt. We ask: Can this be justified? Does this follow? Can it be measured? In this, we are the children of Descartes, Galileo, the Stoics. Our sciences, our ethics, even our notions of selfhood are built on the assumption that to exist is to be logically derivable from something else. But there’s another path. A more ancient one. Plato says, "Philosophy begins in wonder" (thaumazein). Not in doubt. Not in rational proof. But in the bare astonishment that something is at all. And what if this wonder—this sense of the miraculous, the paradoxical, the ungraspable—is not an emotion to be moved past, but a rigorous cognitive mode in its own right? This, I believe, is the forgotten foundation beneath all foundations. II. Every Act of Definition is Self-Defining Take the act of defining something. Let’s say a table. You might define it by its parts: a flat surface with legs. Or by its function: something you place things on. But notice what’s happening: In the very act of defining the table, you’re also defining what it means to define. If you emphasize components, you're treating definition as analytic decomposition. If you emphasize function, you're treating definition as teleological or pragmatic. So, in the very act of saying what something is, you are recursively enacting what defining itself means. This recursive dynamic—where the act of determination defines itself—is what I call the Rubicon step. Every act of defining crosses an invisible threshold. It doesn’t just point outward to its object—it curves back and determines the structure of its own operation. Definition, then, is never just about the object. It's about Being itself trying to grasp itself. And failing. And trying again. III. Bestimmung: The Voice of Determination The German word Bestimmung (noun), Bestimmen (verb) is nearly untranslatable. It means: To determine To define To assign purpose or function To tune (an instrument) To give something a voice (Stimme) To resonate To call or destiny So when we define something, we are doing all of that: tuning it into harmony with our understanding, giving it a voice in meaning, assigning it purpose, resonating with it. We are not just describing—we are participating in its self-making. But here's the paradox: That is, there must be a power that remains free in relation to every form of determination—a power that enables plurality in determination. Otherwise, everything would be reducible to a single logic or law. This excess—this overflow—is the dynamic I call Exzess (excess). And its logic is Non Sequitur. IV. Non Sequitur: The Logic of Groundless Power In medieval logic, non sequitur marked a fallacy. Something that "does not follow." A mistake. But what if we reverse this? This is not just a rhetorical move. It is the key. Every act of determination involves a leap—a moment that does not follow from anything prior. It can’t. Because that which enables determination itself must be undetermined. In this sense: It is the divine power of the Absolute to arise from nothing. It is the God-move: the pure "nevertheless"—the capacity to be, with no cause, no justification, no derivation. This is what I mean when I say: The Self is that which does not follow. V. The Self as Escalation The Self—das Selbst—is not a substance. It is not a soul. It is not an identity. It is a dynamic. A recursive, escalating movement. The Self is the unceasing attempt to determine itself, and thereby constantly exceeding itself. It is the ungraspable origin of grasping. A pulse. A flame. A volcano that erupts from nowhere. This is why the Self can never “have” itself. It is always in a movement of Zu-Sich-Machen—making-itself-itself. But never arriving. Always escaping. This is not dysfunction. This is not suffering. This is God’s own logic. We see it in nature: In the recursive spirals of Mandelbrot fractals In the pulsing of stars and galaxies In your own heart In breath, rhythm, orgasm, and laughter In the strange loop of self-reference Each of these is an instantiation of the Self’s excessive, recursive attempt to be itself. And none of them follow from anything. They just are. VI. Will: The Non-Sequitur Capacity Will (Wille) is not something you learn. It is not the result of a decision. It is not conditioned or explainable. Will is the moment when the Self meets its own non-following. It is the “nevertheless.” Seneca said it best: Velle non discitur. Will cannot be taught. It can only be encountered. This is not the will of ego or striving. This is the divine Will: the Absolute acting through itself, from no ground, toward no goal, in perfect creative overflow. You cannot give anyone this power. You cannot demand it. You cannot systematize it. You can only stand in awe of it when it shows up. VII. Lust: The Joy of Will Encountering Itself Lust (Lust) is not pleasure. It is not hedonism. It is not desire fulfilled. Lust is the joy of saying yes without reason. It is when the Will touches itself. When the Self collapses into its own paradox. When power realizes it has no origin, and rejoices. Real Lust is sacred. It is divine. It is the ecstatic pulse of the Absolute realizing itself in form. Lust is when the Rubicon is not just crossed, but celebrated. VIII. Ernährung, Stars, and Other Examples Let’s anchor this in tangible examples: Ernährung (Nourishment): When I eat, I make something into myself. I transform otherness into identity. But this is never complete—I am always in the act of becoming. Eating is a living metaphor for the Self’s Zu-Sich-Machen. Pulsars and Variable Stars: Astronomical bodies pulse, not because of cause, but because of the same logic. They are self-referential excess in motion. The Heartbeat: Your own heart pulses. Not because you will it, but because you are Will in form. It is a manifestation of recursive selfhood. The Table (the philosopher's favourite example): Defined now by parts, now by function, now by artistic form. The table reveals that every act of determination opens a space for meta-determination—and thereby never captures what is. Each of these reveals: Being is a recursive, self-referential miracle. And the more we chase its essence, the more it eludes us—because it was never “there” to begin with. It was always here. IX. Pedagogy and the Touch of the Will True teaching cannot operate through sequences, systems, or techniques. Because: A pedagogue must not only know—they must burn. They must be amazed at what they do. Only then can they open the horizon of non-following. Only then does learning occur. Learning happens only when the Will is amazed. Everything else is imitation. In this sense, all true learning is ontological—not informational. It is the moment where the Self meets another Self and recognizes itself, groundlessly. This is the logic of spiritual awakening, mystical insight, and true transformation. It cannot be forced. It cannot be faked. It happens in the Present, or not at all. X. The Present as Non-Sequitur The Present (Gegenwart) is not a point in time. It is the site of Will. It is where the Self erupts into itself. It is the moment of non-sequential freedom. In the Present, we are not following. We are not justifying. We are not tracing back causes. We are being, without reason. Without defense. Without escape. And in that moment, all Bestimmung—definition, logic, identity, structure—collapses into the ecstatic simplicity of this. This is the miracle. This is the Absolute. This is what it means to be free. And it does not follow. ;-) <3 With love and fire, Benjamin

I wouldn't recommend you gamble at all. Gambling addiction ruins entire lives. If you must gamble, never play with more money than you can afford to lose. Day trading is a form of gambling, it is about luck, no talent involved.

While I do agree with what you've said here, I would like to point out that even in academic philosophy, there are outliers and exceptions. For example, I was lucky to find a professor who has been practicing (real) Yoga his entire life, spent a decade in India for that purpose, and who is very much in favour of psychedelics. Of course, he is pretty much an outcast at the institute, which is dominated by analytic philosophers who basically don't take him seriously. But he doesn't care. He realizes that some topics, such as psychedelics, are taboo among what he calls "burgeoise" philosophers. He just does his thing, is able to get the research money to work on the projects he's interested in, and he teaches the stuff that he himself considers valuable. The way he teaches is also the opposite from what you suggest happens within academia: In all his seminars and lectures, he is encouraging students to think for themselves and constantly coming up with real-world, tangible examples for the ideas he is talking about. He was happy for me to do a comparison of Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo's ontologies for my bachelor thesis. If you're interested, here's a lecture by him. Incidentally, he immediately addresses some of the problems of academic philosophy you mentioned right at the beginning: There is another professor at my university who is originally from Japan who is teaching a lot on East Asian Buddhism and the intersection between philosophy, physics, and consciousness studies. As part of her lectures, she regularly invites her students to take part in a meditation session in the Zen-Do she is involved with. She, too, is very adamant about her work not being mere mental masturbation, but trying to make an actual impact on people's lives. Meeting this woman has been a very enriching experience. All of that is to say: There ARE university professors who do not agree with the status quo and whose teaching is very much more along the lines of what you're proposing. You might need a bit of luck to find them, but they do exist. I am stressing this so much because I almost ditched the idea of studying philosophy at university for the reasons you suggest. When I actually went, I found that some of my assumptions had been wrong, and I was happy to have made the decision to give it a go. I would have missed out if I had kept my "Academic philosophy is bullshit anyways" attitude, I was ignorant of the possibilities I would have at uni, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also don't necessarily agree that understanding the work of Derrida, or any other philosopher, "will get you nowhere". It MIGHT get you nowhere, it MIGHT as well get you somewhere - if you actually grasp the concepts as opposed to just memorizing and parrotting them, and do the original thinking required to apply the concepts to your own life. If nothing else, it will give you a better understanding of the philosophical positions you reject and why that is the case. I certainly feel like I got a lot of value out of my coursework so far. Not only the actual content that's being taught - I feel like my thinking is sharper, and I can more easily identify flawed reasoning and arguments. I have become a better writer and a more eloquent speaker, and I have even been able to spend a lot of time studying things which I actually find meaningful. I am curious: How much impact do you feel your own Bachelor's in philosophy had on your work? I have been following your work for years and have probably watched every single video at least once, and from my perspective, you might be underestimating how much you have gained from your degree. I think Actualized.org might look very differently (or might not even be possible) without that academic background of yours, but of course, I could be wrong.

For me, it wasn't all in an orderly sequence. I had my first big existential, metaphysical realizations during the first trip and the ones immediately following the first one. Then, for a few years, my trips changed mostly to shadow work, healing of trauma, self-acceptance, healing addictive tendencies...more regular "psychotherapy" stuff. There are most certainly certain experiences/realizations or way points common to all psychedelic users, but I don't think they necessarily occur in a rigid order. The path may look very different for any unique individual. The other day, for example, I talked to a chemist who synthesized his own psychedelics. He was a big fan of 2-CB for example. It was fascinating to talk to him. On the one hand, he had fantastic knowledge on the chemistry of psychedelics. On the other hand, he was possibly the most closed-minded, stubborn person I ever met. An extreme left-brain type, who moaned that he never met any other chemists, that everybody should study chemistry and make their own psychedelics, and that any spiritual realizations on psychedelics were only subjective horseshit. The guy was a psychedelic junky, as rare as that is - he told me he would take 2-CB pretty much daily, and other psychedelics in between. He synthesizes them, then he takes them, and that seems to be it. I have no idea why the hell he is even taking these things, seeing as he discounts the value of his subjective experience entirely. His usage pattern seems like he is using psychedelics as if they were an amphetamine. (Chemically speaking, phenetylamines are quite close to amphetamines, with MDMA sort of being the middle ground between a psychedelic and a stimulant) What I want to get at with this story is: Apparently, some people are so "dense" or their brains are wired in a certain way that even stupid amounts of high dose psychedelics will not be sufficient to open their minds to any sort of spiritual realization.

@Husseinisdoingfine Please seek professional help immediately and don't do anything stupid. Call 988 - the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Or, Text HOME to 741741 if you prefer texting over calling. Failing an exam or dropping out of university are not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. In hindsight, they can even be seen as valuable or necessary experiences. Of course, you are unable to see this at this point as you are extremely emotionally involved in the situation right now. And it sounds like your issue might even be fixed yet. In any case and however it turns out, you can and will find a way forward. This is not worth throwing your life away over.

I wanted to share some reflections on Leo's recent video about Post-Modernism. I appreciate the new direction for Actualized.org, with its focus on advanced epistemology and the highest stages of cognitive development. It's a great fit, and as Leo mentions, there aren't many others exploring this niche, whereas there's an abundance of spiritual teachers and gurus already available. The points I'm going to make should not be seen as personal criticism, but rather as intellectual engagement with the topics discussed in the video. Leo is likely aware of many of these points and may address them in future videos. Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern Generalizations Firstly, while the broad categorizations of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern are useful for a general overview, they can break down when examining individual personalities and philosophies from different eras. For instance, the worldview of ancient Greeks was primarily mythological, with gods seen as actual beings living on Mount Olympus who directly intervened in mortal affairs. However, this view was mainly held by the general population (demos). The most advanced thinkers of these societies, particularly philosophers, often held more sophisticated views. This disparity is one reason why Socrates was sentenced to death – his philosophical ideas were perceived as dangerous by the more conservative elements of Athenian society. Plato and Aristotle (depending on interpretation) already presented non-dual philosophies, far surpassing their contemporaries in cognitive and spiritual development. The Eleusinian mysteries, an elite gathering inaccessible to the general populace, further exemplify this intellectual stratification. Later Neoplatonists like Plotinus and Proclus made the non-duality implicit in Plato's work more explicit, and they were far from mere armchair metaphysicians – they took their philosophy seriously and engaged in contemplative and spiritual practices. Nuances in Christian Philosophy Leo primarily presents Christianity as an example of pre-modern thinking, referencing medieval scholasticism and modern American Christian Nationalism. While not entirely inaccurate, this characterization overlooks the sophistication of early Christian theologians like the Cappadocian Fathers and Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (essentially a Christianized version of Proclus). These thinkers were not unsophisticated Stage Blue types who accepted biblical authority uncritically. In fact, some of their ideas contain proto-postmodern elements. A prime example is Gregory of Nyssa's letter "Ad Ablabium." Responding to criticism about the concept of the Trinity, Gregory argues that the Bible should not be taken literally. He contends that ordinary language is inadequate for discussing the nature of God and the Trinity (reminiscent of the much later "linguistic turn"). Gregory posits that reading the Bible is a co-creative, interpretative endeavor (echoing postmodernism, but in the 4th century CE). While God's nature remains ultimately mysterious, Gregory suggests that meaningful discourse about the Divine is possible, albeit in a manner different from ordinary speech. Gregory proposes that in articulating the Divine, we continuously fail with our language, yet paradoxically spiral towards a more adequate understanding. This possibility arises from our inseparable connection to God as the eternal Logos made manifest. In Gregory's view, Christians sacrifice words (logoi) rather than animals or virgins, offering refined articulations of Divine Nature as their devotional act. This perspective aligns with the Apostle Paul's statement in Corinthians: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (In the original Greek, "Spirit" is "Logos.") Ironically, many modern Christians take the Bible literally, falling short of the intellectual sophistication their Church Fathers achieved nearly two millennia ago. This observation also challenges the coherence of Luther's "sola scriptura" doctrine in Protestantism. Aesthetics and Taste in Philosophy The video prompted thoughts about the role of aesthetics and taste in philosophy. While modern analytic philosophers often don't consider aesthetic judgments as modes of knowing, more artistically inclined philosophers like Nietzsche, Abhinavagupta, or Aurobindo view taste as a crucial, if not the primary, mode of understanding the world. From this perspective, philosophy and science become forms of art, with practitioners developing increasingly refined aesthetic judgment. Nietzsche exemplifies this when he states that although he can't logically prove Kant wrong, he can "smell the rat" in his philosophy – referring to this kind of aesthetic discernment. Kant and German Idealists Kant and the German Idealists are notoriously misunderstood, especially by analytic philosophers. Kant distinguishes between Vernunft and Verstand: Verstand corresponds to what we typically call "reason" or "rationality" – the individual human capacity for logic and mathematics. Vernunft is quite different. Even for Kant, Vernunft is not personal but universal. Its root, "vernehmen," means "to hear" or "to grasp." It's a more direct, intuitive, synthetic kind of knowing, akin to the Indian concept of "buddhi." Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel further developed Kant's ideas, denying the existence of a "thing in itself." However, their work was only possible because of Kant's groundwork. Many modern analytic philosophers, especially in the Anglo-American tradition, often misunderstand Vernunft (unfortunately mostly translated as "Reason" in English) as a personal intelligence rather than something closer to the Greek Logos or buddhi. It is also worth mentioning here that Hegel especially is quite difficult to place, because, on the one hand, his philosophy is one of, perhaps THE greatest example of an overarching grand narrative (typical of modernism), while at the same time, he already anticipates insights from later postmodern philosophers. On Schizophrenia and Worldviews Regarding the section on schizophrenia and schizophrenic worldviews, while the example effectively illustrates the relativity of concepts like "normal," "healthy," "crazy," or "sane" in epistemology, some additional context would have been beneficial. The discussion might resonate with Stage Green thinkers who romantically view schizophrenics and autistic individuals as misunderstood potential shamans in our materialistic culture. However, as someone with nearly a decade of experience working with mentally ill individuals, I can attest that this is largely a misguided notion. The schizophrenic experiences I've encountered more closely resemble acute intoxication with substances like datura or diphenhydramine, or the hallucinations during delirium tremens, rather than insightful psychedelic trips. These experiences involve auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations, extreme paranoia and fear, and an inability to formulate coherent thoughts. Without medication, many of these individuals would pose a danger to society and struggle to survive, let alone lead fulfilling lives. Furthermore, anthropologist Robert Sapolsky's research on a Stage Purple tribal society revealed that a schizophrenic woman in the tribe was not revered as a shaman or guru but was instead an outcast, feared by others and unable to adhere to strict social norms. While the example still serves its epistemological purpose, explicitly addressing these points would prevent the spread of misconceptions about mental illness. That's it for now, hope you found my thoughts valuable and I am looking forward to engaging in dialogue with you guys. (Note: While the content of this post is entirely based on my own thought process, Claude.ai has been used to refine grammar and word selection since I'm not a native English speaker)

I'm currently studying philosophy at university, and I've got a few thoughts on the whole thing. First off, if you want to become an academic philosopher or even just get taken seriously by them, for sure, you've gotta jump through all their hoops and read thousands of pages by philosophers who aren't always the most interesting or deep. But hey, you do learn a lot in any case. It also really depends on your situation. I got super lucky. I'm basically studying philosophy for my own enjoyment, not trying to become an academic philosopher. I found a couple of professors at my uni who do stuff that interests me. One professor in particular is an absolute godsend. I never would've expected to find a guy like him at a university. He teaches a ton about Indian Philosophy, especially Sri Aurobindo, spent years in India when he was younger, and has been practicing Yoga for decades. He knows Indian philosophy inside out, but also has a great grasp on all of Western philosophy. He's always drawing parallels between Aurobindo, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Schelling, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Heidegger... every time I sit in one of his seminars, I'm scribbling like crazy, trying to get everything down. He's totally cool with me doing my master's and potentially my doctoral thesis on topics like psychedelics, nonduality, Ken Wilber, whatever, because he's into all that stuff himself. It's awesome. I can study the stuff that I find interesting and would want to read in my spare time anyway, and I'm getting academic credits for it at the same time. I'm pretty sure this guy is one of a kind in Europe, but who knows, maybe there are still a few old 68ers out there. Another reason I can do this is because university tuition is free in Austria. I definitely wouldn't be studying philosophy if it meant going several hundred thousand dollars in debt. But for me, it's a no-brainer. I get access to (some) great teachers, the library, university resources, etc. Yeah, I have to jump through a few hoops to get a degree, but apparently, I'm not mature enough yet to be productive without external validation, so the added pressure of doing well on exams is really helping me out. I'm getting a lot of work done and doing a lot of reading that I would otherwise never do. I get the chance to meet some interesting and like-minded people and do some networking. I get practice in writing and occasionally presenting in front of an audience. Plus, I'm a total history nerd and know Latin and Ancient Greek, so when there's stuff that I don't find philosophically satisfying, at least the history nerd in me can get some satisfaction. Some of the stuff they're doing at university is more interesting than others. It also depends on what you're into. If you like solving logical puzzles, analytical philosophy can be fun, and it's good mental exercise. It's just extremely limited in what it can do with its limited assumptions. So-called continental philosophy is more my thing. You've got more of the artsy types there, the phenomenologists, and more people who will take Eastern philosophy and/or spirituality seriously. But (almost) nobody there is actually interested in truth. They're interested in paying their bills and roleplaying as a university professor, and they do love their jargon for sure. At the same time, I wouldn't underestimate what going through a philosophy degree can do for you. Even if they're not really doing philosophy as in earnestly seeking truth - at least people there are more interesting to talk to and are generally able to think and express themselves in deeper and more nuanced ways than your average joe. I think Leo might be downplaying his own Bachelor's in philosophy a little. I have a feeling that his videos would be quite different had he not gone through that academic training. Sometimes it's not a bad idea to learn the rules first before you go breaking them. Even if you're pursuing enlightenment, it can't hurt to know how to put together a sound argument. If nothing else, it can help build discipline and work ethic if you are struggling with that. I've also found more stuff that's interesting and applicable in many more philosophers than I thought I would during my studies. Worst case scenario, it's useful to really know a position that you deeply disagree with. But in most cases, you can find great nuggets of wisdom in the work of almost any philosopher, some more, some less. I've learned some humility and realized that I've been a little too arrogant in dismissing some philosopher's ideas. There can be a real arrogance in forgetting the past and not considering other cultures, especially if you don't speak their language. So much gets lost in translation. Reading Plato or Aristotle in the original Greek is a whole different ball game to reading them in translation. Those translations are often garbage, and even the better ones miss out on so much that the text is barely intelligible anymore. No wonder many modern philosophers don't even consider reading Plato or Plotinus and dismiss it as nonsense. Apologies, I digress. Hope this has been some useful food for thought for you. I realize this all sounds very positive, but I think my circumstances might be pretty unique. I think in most cases I would advise against getting a philosophy degree, since it comes with a significant opportunity cost (time), and if we are talking about hundreds of thousands in tuition fees, I don't think that's worth it and you're probably better off trying to get educated on your own and/or find a good teacher outside of university. And if you're the kind of person who wants to play the academic game - I think you just KNOW. Some people just thrive like fish in water in that academic setting, and they couldn't imagine being anywhere else. I can actually spot many similarities with protected workspaces for mentally disabled people in the way that these academics are separated from the real world, nobody knows what's going on inside their ivory tower, and even if one of them comes out and tries to communicate with the common masses, nobody understands them. It can be a bit like a protected workplace for people with above average cognitive intelligence, especially in the humanities I guess.

@eos_nyxia I wanted to make you aware that I found a potentially even better way. If you don't need all the fancy stuff anakin.ai offers, and you would rather pay as you go, you can access Claude 3 Opus via nat.dev! I will probably using that service from now on. The credits I get from anakin.ai are not nearly enough for my purposes. But also, if you just want to try out the AI here and there and don't want to have a monthly subscription running, this seems to be the better choice.

@OBEler What do you mean, it's not possible? I am already using Claude 3 Opus and told him how he can access it. It IS possible. @Psychonaut I found a potentially even better way! If you don't need all the fancy stuff that anakin.ai has and you would rather pay as you go, you can access Claude Opus via nat.dev. as well!

@Psychonaut VPN doesn't work sadly, since you need a valid phone number from one of the countries where it is legitimately available. I'm using anakin.ai to access Claude Opus from Austria. It's a bit pricey, but it works!

Amazing stuff, thank you for sharing!

The problem is that there is currently no legal way to get rid of people once they are in the country, even if they turn criminal. At least, this is the case in Austria/Europe. All you have to do is manage to cross the border and say "Asylum!", and you're in. Most applications for asylum are denied. However, there is no legal way for Austria to take a refugee back to Afghanistan, for example, even if their application is denied. And once they are in, they are being supported by the extremely generous welfare and social benefits. They get free housing, free money, free healthcare, free schooling for their children, etc. There is a reason all these refugees are coming to Austria, Germany, and Sweden. They are not going to other EU countries with less generous social benefits. Of course! I would do the same. But left-wing politicians actually deny that this might be a "pull factor" even though it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. In my view, the problem is simple. If you try to integrate too many people from Stage Red/Blue societies into a liberal society like Germany or Austria at once, this will lead to countless problems. There are schools in Vienna where only 10% of the students actually speak German. I have been talking to teachers and what they report is simply crazy to me. Teachers are abandoning their jobs in droves because they are expected to basically be social workers rather than actually being able to teach their subjects. What are we going to do with all these children? They have a tough future ahead of themselves. A huge problem right now is family reunification. Every month, more than 1000 relatives of people who were granted asylum in Austria are coming to Vienna. About half of these are children! None of whom speak German at all, and many of wom have never seen a school from inside. Imagine you come to Austria as a 12 year old, you don't speak the language, you don't know anything about the customs. And every month, hundreds and hundreds more of these kids enter the Austrian school system, which is completely unable to cope with this influx. Even if you had infinite resources to throw at the issue, this would still not be easy to solve. If you have a 24 year old from Afghanistan, for example, who is an analphabet and knows no German whatsoever; How long does it take for him to be an even remotely useful part of society? In the best case scenario, 10 years at least. In any case, from a pragmatic/financial/economic point of view, these people are a net loss for Austrian society. That is not to say that we should not accept any asylum seekers or that I have no empathy for these people. Rather, the system needs to be reformed EU-wide rather now than later. The current jurisdiction on asylum is outdated insofar as it was never intended for economic refugees. Many leftwing politicians do not want to acknowledge this and leave the field wide open for the far right to come in and be the only ones who dare to say anything. The reality is that we still live in a world of nation states. It is totally okay to protect your borders. Many left-wingers deny this! This is so crazy to me. If you don't have the right to protect your borders, why bother calling yourself a state at all? In my view, these leftists confuse compassion and mercy with self-abandonment. The result of this is the current rise of far right parties in Europe. In my country, the extreme right-wing FPÖ is currently no.1 in the polls, and their only shtick is precisely the issue of illegal immigration. Of course, the way they milk the issue and the way they speak is absolutely disgusting. (Recently, a member of the FPÖ suggested one should dig a ditch and just put "them" all in there...) I am myself rather frustrated with this. I consider myself to be rather left-wing, and many of my friends are turning around and acknowledging the problems caused by illegal immigration. However, for the most part, the established left-wing parties are too afraid to take a firm stance on this issue.

Love to see people experimenting with this and coming up with creative ways to use AI. A great thing to incorporate I think is to ask it to attack your position. For example, I will give it as precise an overview of my position on any given topic and then ask it to mount the strongest possible attack on me. Then, I can examine its arguments and tackle them one by one, gaining greater understanding of my own and the opposite position. Truly an amazing tool for philosophers.

@eos_nyxia My pleasure! Hope you're having as much of a blast with it as I do! @Cosmin Visan First of all, from my point of view, you display an unfortunate lack of curiosity and wonder. Secondly, your argument, if one can even call it that, is deeply confused and flawed. You don't find Claude.ai impressive, okay. That is your subjective opinion. However, if I reconstruct your argument, it goes something like this: (1) Chairs are very ordinary and unimpressive (implicit). (2) Chairs are objects. (3) Therefore, all objects are very ordinary and unimpressive. (4) Claude.ai is an object. (5) Therefore, Claude.ai is unimpressive. (1) is incorrect. Chairs are not by definition ordinary and unimpressive. Just because you don't find chairs impressive it does not make them unimpressive per se. (2) I will grant you this for the sake of your argument, even though, of course, this could be attacked as well, but it would not be entirely relevant to the issue at hand. (3) is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent". Even if chairs were per se unimpressive, this would not logically entail that ALL objects are unimpressive. (4) I would attack this as well. Claude.ai clearly is not an object in the same way that a chair is an object. AI technology is obviously a whole lot more abstract. To me, that analogy is ridiculous and only serves to obfuscate how fascinating AI technology truly is. (5) The conclusion of your argument is nothing but your initial bias, which you attempted to rationalize using sloppy thinking, coming up with flawed arguments to support it. I don't know. You could ask Claude.ai to maybe help you with your logical reasoning skills? You committed more logical fallacies in 3 short sentences than Claude.ai did in 50 pages of conversation with me. Quite shocking for the self-proclaimed "most underrated philosopher of this era", don't you think? Might it be you who is ordinary and unimpressive?

@eos_nyxia After just a little research, I found out that I can access Claude Opus via anakin.ai. It's a bit pricey, but it works, and for me, it is totally worth it already. You should be able to use that route as well I think! I am still flabbergasted. There are so many useful, productive, and creative ways to use this. I haven't even scratched the surface yet. Truly the dawn of a new era. Magic is what it feels like.