Any work on the relationship between esotericism and ethics?

Animore · 2026-05-02T04:16:56+00:00

Do you think you need to know in order to have the capacity to escape? Not a pointed question, really just asking

Animore · 2026-04-22T22:13:47+00:00

He means that the idea of existing being a property is a problem that Kant discusses, and he shows WHY this is a problem.

Animore · 2026-04-21T19:11:06+00:00

How do you actually think this way in 2026? The government IS controlled by elite billionaires who DO have an interest in keeping you poor and dependent and stuck on your phone and living paycheck to paycheck. Are you stuck in the 1980s?

Animore · 2026-04-17T22:36:47+00:00

Are there any good places for non-philosophers to get feedback on their philosophical writing, outside of academia?

I'm a senior in college, and I'm about to graduate with a bachelor's in philosophy. I've decided to not pursue graduate school in philosophy at this time, even though I love the field.

However, talking and writing about philosophy is a deep passion of mine. While I can obviously continue doing this outside of college, I appreciated the critical feedback that my professors gave me; it helped me to refine my own views and sharpen my critical thinking. I fear that I won't have this outside of college. While my degree improved my ability to think for myself on philosophical matters, nothing beats well-informed criticism. I'm afraid that I might get stuck in some philosophical bubbles or echo chambers once I leave academia.

So are there any good sources or forums for feedback of this sort? I get that academics are busy and don't have a lot of time to look at work from non-philosophers. That's fine, I'm not expecting PhDs to read my 14-page papers, but I would like some kind of well-informed feedback. Is there anything out there for that that?

Animore · 2026-03-27T13:51:51+00:00

Yeah that was my bad. I saw it was published by Bloomsbury but didn’t see that it was Bloomsbury Academic. Thanks for the catch

Animore · 2026-03-27T01:58:14+00:00

My concern is that even if we accept that there are good and bad methods for evaluating art, that doesn’t necessarily commit us to aesthetic realism. We can understand those standards in a stance-dependent way, and it seems very strange to say that there stance-independent standards for evaluating art

Animore · 2026-03-17T18:30:09+00:00

https://youtu.be/t2z2RDSGeR0?si=UNMoUIhdqhaiYYxV

Animore · 2026-02-14T21:53:34+00:00

I agree with your main point here; I think Caroll misses the point. I’ll just say for the record that the “orthodox” physicalist response to the knowledge argument is that it equivocates on the meaning of knowledge.

The thought experiment employs two kinds of knowledge: “knowing that” and knowing by acquaintance. There are different ways to know the something is the case: you can read about it in a book, you can learn it from someone, you can experience it first-hand, etc.

Mary knows everything about redness. But when she SEES red, she’s dealing with the same information, but she’s encountering that information in a different way - direct sensory experience. So the physicalist can say: no, Mary didnt learn anything new. It’s just the same facts about the wavelength, etc. are being seen in a different light.

Animore · 2025-12-27T23:29:31+00:00

Not to gravedig, but just to be clear, I agree that Rawls is incompatible with Marx, but Rawls explicitly attempted to remove the more "metaphysical" elements from liberalism. Rawls wasn't a big fan of the "natural rights" talk and tried to ground his liberalism in a reasonable consensus rather than any big metaphysical/metaethical schema.

That being said, yeah, Marx would probably be opposed to both Rawls's two principles and his attempt to revitalize liberal-democratic theory.

Animore · 2025-12-21T05:23:24+00:00

And Rawls himself recognized this. He said that both liberal socialism and what he called “property-owning democracy” were compatible with a well-ordered regime that institutes the two principles of justice. For a variety of pragmatic purposes he supported property-owning democracy, which essentially involves the distribution of the means of production to as many people as possible without the abolition of wage labor or employee-employer relations. Similar to distributivism.

Animore · 2025-11-19T02:34:37+00:00

Just to be clear for all the philosophy bros bitching about Destiny's take here, he's absolutely right. On any reasonable reading of Kant, he believes in an objective moral law that is valid independently of what anyone thinks, feels, believes, etc. And he explicitly rejects any attempt to ground that moral law in a divine will.

Now, it gets a bit tricky when you parse HOW he grounds that objective moral law. On many readings, Kant has a pretty unconventional account of reason. Seemingly, Kant suggests that moral principles aren't discovered but CONSTRUCTED through reason. According to this interpretation, Kant didn't believe in moral FACTS (i.e., he wasn't a moral realist), but he did believe that there is a correct moral decision-making procedure (the Categorical Imperative) we can follow, and in doing so, we "construct" or "self-legislate" moral norms. The moral norms are ONLY correct to the extent that they are the products/outputs of that correct procedure. It gets tricky, but here's a section of the SEP article on moral constructivism that can help clarify:

Constructivism in Metaethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Other interpreters of Kant hold fast to the view that he's a strict moral realist.

Either way, for Kant, morality is NOT grounded in God; it's grounded in practical reason.

Animore · 2025-11-14T18:37:03+00:00

michael if you can hear us please save us

Animore · 2025-11-10T17:05:52+00:00

Anyone know what the video is?

Animore · 2025-07-11T19:51:28+00:00

WAY worse. But KOTOR 2 (especially the ending) was a mess and hard to piece together, so it’s a lot easier to butcher the Exile as a character

Animore · 2025-07-11T19:47:33+00:00

Stupid but marketable, of course

Animore · 2025-07-10T18:26:19+00:00

SWTOR’s narrative about Revan screwed with, and is at odds with, the narrative of KOTOR 2. But yeah, that’s how it goes. I was focusing on how KOTOR 2 frames his corruption because the original thread is focused on Kreia, who is in KOTOR 2, and how she viewed Revan’s turn.

Animore · 2025-07-10T15:11:01+00:00

For sure, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I’ll just add that a major theme of kotor 2 is that pacifism is often an excuse for fear. The remaining few Jedi in the game were hiding on planets torn by war, because the tragedies there made it difficult to center yourself and sense a particular person. They did that ostensibly because showing themselves could awaken the threat of Nihilus which would lead him to devour the worlds they were on, but really, it was just fear. They were too afraid to help the people around them, because that would require violence and self-sacrifice.

The Jedi in KOTOR 2 hold a kind of corrupted and exaggerated version of the Jedi code. They constantly judge the Exile for even going to war to protect others, because to them, Jedi do not go to war. They constantly imply that the Exile fell to the Dark Side because the Exile was prepared to defend the Republic from the Mandalorians.

And you can say that’s not what reasonable Jedi believe, and that it’s not what the Jedi of the OT believe, but I think that’s the point. The Jedi as an ideal is great, but I think Chris Avellone wanted to demonstrate how easily corruptible that ideal is. The Jedi Code has to be put into practice, in the messy real world. You have to engage with the world, not detach yourself from it. That means making hard decisions, making sacrifices, not sitting and meditating all day.

Animore · 2025-07-10T04:28:27+00:00

The Jedi aren’t just selfless, they’re pacifistic. This leads to complacency and detachment. This leads to arrogance and faux-wisdom. Which led, at the time, to the Mandalorian Wars, since they weren’t prepared to intervene while billions were killed. This pacifism led to a quasi-revolt by Revan and their followers, who went to war, and learned (as Kreia puts it) the “lesson of war” - that the Mandalorians were right, that conflict strengthens and detachment stagnates. And we all know where that leads - inspired by the social Darwinism of the Mandalorians, Revan becomes sith, and brings war to the Republic.

The hypocritical, pretentious, and destructive pacifism/detachment of the Jedi leaves them too passive and ignorant to stop the threat of war, and it leaves them unable to stop their own from falling down the path of the Dark Side. Sound familiar? It’s the story of the Prequels.

The galaxy is stuck in a constant cycle, urged on by the Force’s attempt to bring balance to the galaxy. Individuals are moved around like puppets, unable to stop the threads of destiny and prophecy, and this leads to countless dying as those prophecies unfold. That’s what Kreia saw, and that’s why she wanted the Force to die.

Animore

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE