Someone here

What about sexual details ?should I write that too ?

@Preety_India yes we broke up a year ago and I'm looking for a new one.

Yes, I want to know too! I need to practice this a lot. Well actually I don't need to, I don't even have a desire talking about petty, unimportant shit and I only say as much as I need to say about the topics that I wanna talk about, but we all know that people skills are just important to live in the matrix. Especially if you wanna attract girls and be funny, or attract clients. And I want both. So it doesn't matter if I like that idea or not, I must practice this skill. Being good at smalltalk and being funny is a powerful people skill. I have never liked small talk or been good at it. I have tried to fake it many times, because I thought that was what you were supposed to do on dates. But then I just got very annoyed and bored with the faking. I decided that the person who I'm meant to be with has to like me for who I am. When I was on the first date with my current serious girlfriend, I was actually really nervous, because I liked her a lot. Therefore what came out of my mouth was a mix of bad jokes, bizarre comments and on my past and childhood traumas. I made like every imaginable social conduct mistake ever. The date was a blur of sweating, embarrassment and other emotions. Several months later we started to talk about our first date. She said she had thought that I was absolutely adorable and that he actually fell in love with my frankness and the ability to share deep stuff so soon .why ? Should I write on the dream board that my dream girl should be blonde lol ..like is that how you go about this dream board business ?

I like playing music and reading books .hiking sometimes.

Existence is empty .

Solipsism! Oh boy that's a huge one for me lol. This idea started haunting me since I was a child.. I always had this feeling from my early childhood.. That I am actually the only "real" one out there and everyone else are just characters in my dream. Zombies.."cardboard cutouts" in my world. However you wanna call it or think of it. Obviously other people exist as objects of perception in my direct experience.. That's undeniable.. I go out.. I see people everywhere. But are these things" subjects"? Do they have internal self-awareness as I do? Is there someone behind their eyes? It there anybody out there other than me?. The solipsism philosophy doesn't say yes or no to that question contrary to what most people mistakenly misunderstood it.. Solipsism states that one's own mind or subjective experience of the world is the only "certain" thing to exist.. And the existence of other individual minds is "impossible to verify". In other words you are absolutely certain that you are aware right now.. But it's impossible to be certain that I'm (someone here) aware.. In fact why I'm talking to "you"? .. I should say I am aware and "you" are the unsettled mystery. The problem with solipsism is not whether it's objectivey true or not(is it actually the case that I am the only one out there)..but is that it is absolutely true subjectively regardless of that. You are trapped inside your own subjective experience in any case.. So even though I am aware right now from my pov.. From your pov that doesn't matter and there is no such thing.. There is only your awareness.. There is no such thing as "my awareness" in your awareness.. There is only these words in front of you right now and that's the actualilty of what is.. Anything else is just assumptions you add on top of it.."ofcourse there is someone there writing these words.. They couldn't just write themselves lol".. Really?. In your dream.. The entire dream and all the people inside of it..and their actions.. Are nothing but your creation.. They have no Reality of their own outside your imagination.. The only real thing in the dream underneath all the scattered phenomenon is YOU.

I agree that if extreme wealth is a problem then it is mainly a problem of the power that it confers, although I note Ecurb's point that their power is no greater, and probably less, than that of the leaders of the past. It seems to me that one of the most useful commodities that this wealth buys is better access to the machinery of the law. So how about this for a start: make private law firms illegal. Make hiring a lawyer to make one's case in court as strange seeming as buying off the judge and jury. Compel everybody, regardless of wealth, to use court appointed lawyers, and pay those lawyers from general taxation. I'm just spit-balling here. Shoot me down in flames if it sounds mad.

@Medhansh I don't smoke. I stopped smoking ? for a few months now .

It is true, of course, that billionaires wield power. But it seems to me that we tend to exaggerate our own problems. Do the rich in the modern West wield more power today than they did in ancient Egypt, or Rome, or Medieval Europe, or Enlightenment Europe? I doubt it. The rise of democracy has limited their power -- although they still control things more than Joe Schmoe does. In addition, we should recognize that huge strides forward in terms of human well being have arisen with the rise of Capitalism (i.e. in th last 200 years or so). Correlation is not causation, but there might be some connection between increases in average wealth, improved conditions even for the poor, and the leaps forward in infrastructure, health care, and general well-being that we have seen. Indeed, these improvements seem to have stagnated in countries that limited capitalist enterprise. It may well be that the main reasons for improved living conditions are only tangential to capitalism: human longevity has doubled, but medical care, immunizations, samitation, more plentiful food, and safer water might have been introduced without capitalist vigor. Still, looking back on human history it seems strange to complain TOO much; when would any of us rather have lived? Is all this prosperity sustainable? Who knows (least of all me). Can we tax billionaires more aggressively? Of course. Cn we regulate capitalist enterprises to protect the environment? I don't know if we can, but we should. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Maybe not.

the human life in a nutshell is nothing but a doomed to fail helpless attempt to freeze formlessness into form and to avoid dissolving into infinity

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem. In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms. So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change. The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change. It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

believe your line of thinking here is quite interesting. Of course it seems ridiculous that nothing outside you would truly exist (and that therefore anything that does exist would be part of you), but then you basically quint like the guy in an action movie and say "that's just what I want me to think!" I find this line of thought interesting because it opens up the question of the psychology of God. The way I'm hearing you, and something I think about too, is that God would get bored, or worse, incredibly anxious about just constantly existing and not being able to stop. So therefore, God would want to come up with some semblance of difference in order to have some form of escapism, ecstasy- instead of just sitting around in perfect timelessness all the time. As for whether you would know better, my thoughts on solipsism focus on the paradox of absolute unity. For example, our idea of language only makes sense when I am here talking to you, and every word means something different. But if "I" am the only thing, then there are no different words, different people, or different things- only me. Anything in particular that we would say exists really doesn't, since it isn't really what we normally think of it as being. Therefore you could as easily say that I (God) am nothing as that I am everything, since nothing that we typically think exists really exists as we think it does (as a discrete object).

just want to add, that though solipsism and radical skepticism are logically difficult if not impossible to refute, I myself am not willing to test whether they are practical. I'll eat my breakfast and assume that my friends and family exist outside my imagination. Until I can alter the laws of physics, and prove that I am the source if reality, I will make the intuitive presumptions that we all make every day we wake up.

I jus watched leos recent episode on solipsism and I have some questions for y'all about solipsism and I hope you guys can answer them. I feel like im getting a misinterpretation about the idea and it would be great if you guys could clear everything up. To begin, i am wondering if what if as a god I created the idea of solipsism to be less probable to comfort myself into the world? and the second one being why would "I" create my own suffering if "I" am a god, wouldn't I know better? Lastly, is there any concrete agrument against solipsism? Like if I were to transfer into another body or somehow and then come back to mine, would that help disprove it? Adding on to the topic of solipsism, I wrote down some discussion about solipsism and am wondering if you guys could confirm the accuracy of the statements I am about to make about solipsism. Against the idea of solipsism I have written down Occam's Razor does not support it and secondly it creates an extremist version of the first cause dilemma (where did I come from) this wouldn't matter if only solipsism wasn't based on its ability to answer the hard problem of epistemology. Therefore the belief system as a whole fails. Finally, there would be infinite possibilities of the world that could be taken as true; I could be actually a dragon dreaming on mars right now.

No ! It was very deep and I enjoyed. Respect your decision tho?

I guess it basically stems from the fact that there is no way to know for certain anything beyond your experience and that what you experience does not necessarily imply the existence of an exterior. For all you know, you could be projecting/imagining/creating "exterior" reality instead of receiving or observing it.

Schopenhauer once said that solipsism "could only be found in a madhouse: as such it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure." Yet, if you take yourself into the madhouse and think about it, you cannot disprove solipsism in any way. It's ok to find it distasteful and disparage the idea as ridiculous, but it still won't go away. Why not? Why can't you connect to another mind and see the world through another's sensibilities and mind and thoughts? Is it and will it always be impossible, or is it something that may reasonably be seen as technologically possible in a far flung future?

Despite the warning. I have the balls to watch .

Supposedly the Taliban, now apparently in charge of the nation of Afghanistan, do not treat women as equals - In fact they are accused of treating women as lesser entities that are there to do Man's bidding - They say they have changed and as long as it fits their concepts of what is known as Sharia Law, women can have relative rights. Now in many ways Texas and the 'Christian right wing South' have similar rules - Women are equal except when it comes to reproductive rights which are owned by the state - A women's reproductive organs have been confiscated by the State of Texas so even if she is raped if she becomes pregnant she must have the child who is protected by the State of Texas - Who, in spite of the Constitution of the United States functions under Christian Fundamentalist law. Now I have two questions: 1. Is Texas part of the United States of America and functioning under the laws and Constitution of The United States of America, or is Texas an independent country functioning under Fundamentalist Christian law {America's Christian version of Moslem Sharia law} 2. Is a woman today better off in Texas or Afghanistan - Or does it really matter

I find it tragically humorous that folks who don't want the state to regulate their bodies when it comes to Covid vaccines, feel perfectly comfortable with the state regulating pregnant women's bodies. Let's not miss the deep philosophical questions, besides women's right to own their own body, this so-called 'right to life' issue raises They claim murder of poor defenseless babies who never asked to be born or conceived in the first place. And then in their same mindless agendas swear before their magical god that they must defend these unwanted babies to preserve the rights of the unborn. God {if there is one} save us from these excuses for Human intelligence - These baboons {I apologize to baboons} have become politicians, governors of some states {Texas, et al, and until 2020, one was even President of the US}. I stretch my imagination in an attempt to believe these so called 'right to lifers' really believe the crap they are trying to bury the world in. The Catholic Church has a long, long history of this and we can understand - But others, whether Christian or otherwise - Do they really believe in a divine right to bring unwanted life into the world

Yes .that's the cover-lie. Women are seen as a threat. They're smart, co-operative, organized and far-seeing. Once you stop subjugating them by physical force and legal sanction (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), they gain power, and if they gain power, the whole system will change. As it did in developed nations: the birth rate declines; tolerant, inclusive laws are introduced - next thing you know, they're coming for your guns, SUV's and cattle. Which is why the right wing resurgence of white-supremacist, Islamist, fundamentalist factions are so keen to subjugate them again

I was just listening to an interview on NPR {National Public Radio} of a woman who wrote a book on the history of abortion in the US. According to her the new Conservative Supreme Court may hold up the Texas law and a bunch of other state anti-abortion laws which would not only overturn Roe vs. Wade but might even lead to abortion becoming illegal on a nationwide bassis

@Nahm is there any specific breathing exercises or anything that can help me get grounded when I experience the anxiety attacks ?

Yes. He prescribed them for my anxiety.

The new Texas anti-abortion laws are, apart from anything else, apparently cynically designed to promote "bounty hunting" against anyone who even drives a woman to the Texas border. But I don't think they're motivated primarily by misogyny or the desire to subjugate women as such. I think they're motivated by a pathological fixation on the concept of the sanctity of human life in the abstract, without any thought for what it means in the real world, or for the quality of that life in the real world. In restricting abortion to before most women know they are pregnant, even in cases of incest or rape, they clearly don't pay much heed to the welfare of women. But it's not the welfare of living things they care about. It's simply this fetishizing of "human life" which leads to the idea that a single fertilized human cell ought to be afforded more rights than a fully formed, thinking, living, breathing non-human. It's interesting to wonder if they would feel the same way if the recent extinction of our nearest hominid relatives (homo erectus etc) hadn't created such a relatively large evolutionary divide between us and our nearest extant relatives. If birds had brains that were sufficiently developed to have moral opinions about abortion similar to ours, I wonder if stage blue would regard single-celled blue tit embryos as deserving more rights than fully formed great Keep in mind that, in both places, women profess the same religion as the men. A great many right-to-lifers are female, just as a great many advocates of women's reproductive rights are male. The divide is between the sexes; it's between political factions. In Afghanistan, there is no effective government or law-enforcement, now that the US puppets have gone the way of their imperial predecessors. The militant fundamentalists constitute federal authority, army, police, court and church. When all the warlords are defeated or assimilated, the Taliban will have absolute control.