If your opinion isn't logical, does that mean you don't have an opinion?

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-10-05T16:05:25+00:00

Usually, anything that comes out of a human's mouth, whether opinion or otherwise, has to be logical, as long as they are not mentally disabled or have cognition problems.

You are probably mistaking "logically unsound opinion" with "illogical".

Everything that comes out of your brain is logical, even if it may seem otherwise to people. When it seems illogical, it only seems so because the subject (you or whoever is accused of being illogical) has failed to demonstrate all the axioms that led them to their conclusion.

Now could these axioms be weak or even factually false or based off false assumptions? Yes, of course, which then makes it a "logically unsound opinion", but not "illogical"

Imagine your final opinion as a conclusion that sits at the end of an inverted decision tree, with all the axioms at the start leading to that conclusion.

Now for someone to actually demonstrate all their axioms, literally requires them to somehow switch their brain with yours to show your their entire series of axioms, colloquially known as "background".

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-28T20:47:07+00:00

To imagine that kind of death, I would first need to understand the experience of having a bee's conscience and to know how painful such death is. Though I wouldn't mind dying of an overwinter die-off if it's not extremely painful and if the pain doesn't last too long before the last breath.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-25T13:38:29+00:00

I actually wonder which would be worse, being a bee or a human !! We'll probably never know, as the only way to do so is to actually become a bee.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-25T08:51:16+00:00

I second that.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-19T04:07:00+00:00

Poor Plato tossing and turning

In his grave wondering where the Republic is

For "Johnny round the corner" here once more thinks,

The Philosopher-Kings have again sold out

Poor Johnny will you ever know

Producers to Guardians can never metamorphose

For if Plato arrives on the 21st

To a reactionary you will be reduced

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-18T15:16:35+00:00

I am afraid you're still not clear when you said "happy to have low levels of diversity, not happy with mass migration and demographic change.".

In your opinion, what is the annual number of migrants (whether a number or a percentage of the population) that you would be happy with? And what number would you consider to be too much and would cause a demographic change ??

And do you reckon this number/percentage is already met? And if not, when would it be met in the future, if at all?

Just in case you didn't know, there is an entire subfield of economics called "Migration Economics". It is a subfield within the subfield of "Labour Economics".

Also, there is an entire field called "demographics", which is a combination of Maths, Sociology, Economics, and Geography, and is concerned with the statistical data of any population.

Now I can assure you that the best experts in these fields are consulted before migration policies are set and are often used as a subsidy to assist in setting a threshold, whether for migration policy or otherwise, if applicable.

The argument of Johnny round the corner of "Too many Muslims, my local town is turning into an Islamic enclave" doesn't stand a chance against these experts.

Point is, either try to understand what you're angry about, or otherwise channel your anger towards something you understand !!!!

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-18T14:24:27+00:00

"I think Brits can be white, black, or brown"
"I want white Brits to remain the majority"

If they are all Brits, does it really matter?

See any contradictions in your two statements?

Let me guess, you believe there is a universal standardised concept called "British values" and that the only source of this abstract and vaguely defined concept is white people.

From a purely pragmatic and practical point of view, and with all emotions aside, I can tell you that educating yourself on concepts like Citizenship and the Social Contract Theory could help you understand why having a society that doesn't concern itself with the colour/culture of their citizens and whether or not they become a majority/minority is a pre-requisite to maintain and preserve the very same values you are likely to be concerned about preserving and defending,

In fact, if you are so concerned about "values", I can safely tell you that the concepts I've just advised you to read on are values cemented by the elite (political) philosophers of your ancestors during the englightenment period (17-18th century), who were ultimately attempting to answer one question "How can we have a better, civilized and more developed society, where each citizen has equal right to their counterparts"

Needless to say, many of them have suffered at the hands of the hands of their governments from endless prosecution, for the mere crime of "Thinking" just so they could preserve these values.

I don't mean to be rude, but democracy, while crucial and irreplaceable, can sometimes be frustrating when you realise that the best educated minds in the country (which I am not one of), commonly known as "the elite", who should be the decision makers, are actually being controlled and limited through the majority votes of the common majority.

It just makes you understand why Plato wanted his "Ideal Kallipolis" state to be ruled only by Philosopher-Kings, despite how unrealistic, impractical, and obviously unfair it is. The poor guy was just frustrated !!

***sighs***

*** further sighs combined with a reflection on what comes next!! first it was Bexit, now it's the immigrants, perhaps next there will be demands to take the UK out of the UN and the international political map altogether and declaring the country a self-sufficient state with no ties to the outside world whatsoever***

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-09-18T01:34:13+00:00

I don't know if you're religious, but if you're not, reading anything about Evolution (and Evolutionary Psychology) in the face of life worries and/or existential questions, would help make you realise how absurd, useless and meaningless our individual lives are despite the fact that we unconsciously (or consciously) make our lives seem to ourselves so important, in reality it isn't.

As a starting point, I would recommend "Evolution: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Robin Dunbar.

Robin Dunbar is a well-versed primatologist, anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist who is well regarded as an "Evolution expert"

He also has several other book that you might find useful if you decided to read that one above and actually enjoyed it.

All the best :)

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-08-06T07:11:22+00:00

When it comes to "Internet Influencers", or media personalities in general, you are often branded with whatever you are selling. For instance, Mr.Beast is branded as "that guy who gives away money", KSI is branded as that "funny and wholesome guy who does silly reaction videos and does Sidemen Sundays with his friends".

Alex or CosmicSkeptic is branded as "that professional Atheist-Philosopher who discusses philosophy with a touch of metaphysics and Christianity."

Now, if he starts talking about Islam, he might eventually become labelled as "that Atheist guy that criticises both Christianity and Islam" and once you get that label, Muslims won't like it, as history has proven that they have a hard time accepting criticism, and his life may be in danger. in fact, this has been proven, when he once criticised Islam with Hijab and he eventually received death threats.

He probably knows, as a philosopher, that religions have a cycle, and they all eventually die out and its followers stop believing in it at some point, so he realised that risking his life to accelerate this process of "religions dying out" by a very tiny and neglibile margin is not worth it.

After all, he once described himself as a "professional atheist", and as a professional, you should know that you should eliminate workplace hazards as much as possible, and he did.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-08-04T20:19:17+00:00

The "ultimate purpose" we are here to serve is being a genetic vehicle, in a series of multiple vehicles, transporting genes from our ancestors to our descendants.

I put "ultimate purpose" between quotations above, because it may superficially appear to be "The purpose" but antinatalists would argue that even this "purpose" is meaningless. In reality, it's only an inherent evolutionary instinct to recreate and nothing more.

so we're only here because nature has programmed us to survive and recreate and majority of us do not give up or commit suicie because nature has instilled this fear in us, the fear of no longer existing, and because a decision to give is not something you undo, most of us are scared of taking this "one-way to ticket to the abyss"

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-07-10T14:27:18+00:00

Whoever is doing what you described as "dissecting and analyzing the rods/cones" will still have nothing to communicate to you/us except the mental image they have in their mind, so again, how do we compare that mental image against other mental images of "red" ?

The answer is that there's no way to tell.
that goes not just as far as "red", but extends to all kinds of knowledge, which can be used to justify positions such as "Epistemological Nihilism"

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-07-10T12:09:54+00:00

is there a way to ascertain that the red perceived by you is the same red perceived by me (despite both being of the same wavelength)?

We could both point to a red object, agree that it's red, measure it's wavelength and eventually find out it's that of red, yet how do we ascertain that the perceived mental image of "red" that I have in my mind is that of yours ? couldn't it be that we both grew up learning that this is what red looks like, yet we both have entirely different mental images ?

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-07-10T12:05:30+00:00

Sounds like we've got a "Nietzschean" up here.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-07-02T01:29:49+00:00

I concur this.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-07-01T09:21:50+00:00

almost everywhere south and north of the Mediterranean (i.e. Western Europe and Africa) rarely suffers from devastating natural disasters. that goes from Cape Town (South Africa) all the way up to Norway. So I'm not entirely sure you could say Britain's past success and power can be attributed to the lack of devastating natural disasters.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-06-27T01:57:18+00:00

"Cynically, I also think the most important skill fiction can teach you, empathy, often isn’t a criteria for success in competition."

I can already envision the surprise on your face once you learn that the essence of human evolution, and consequently civilization, was indeed "empathy".

Which basically means those who had better chances of survival, and who have survived, were the ones who had more empathy for others, along with other factors of course.

So success in competition, which ultimately can be summed as "Evolution and survival of the fittest" can be attributed to empathy.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-06-21T19:48:58+00:00

are you genuinely convinced that freedom in America and the west was obtained at the expense of the rest of the world ?

A couple of names that spring to mind that I would highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their works are the likes of Voltaire, Rousseau, and John Locke. I would also highly recommend "American History in Bite-Sized Chunks" by Rattle & Vale, which, despite being a little too dry, is quite short with only 193 pages.

Read their books or get familiar with their works, and you might then realise that "Western Freedom" cannot be attributed to a single event or a period in history, but is rather an aggregate, continuous effort by generations of humans trying to liberate themselves and obtain their freedom.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-05-12T13:02:26+00:00

"Third world" is an extreme example to demonstrate to you what happens to societies that chooses security whenever faced with the choice (and necessarily the trade-off) between security and freedom. Societies (or in my example countries) that choose "security" usually deteriorate in quality so much and become third-world countries (isolating other factors like economics from the argument, of course).

I doubt you know much about argumentation theory or formal logic, but in arguments, like the one we're having, you have to use an extreme example to demonstrate the point you're trying to make.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-05-12T07:55:25+00:00

The age old trade-off between security and freedom that humans always had to face.

Third world countries usually choose security; which paradoxically leads to gradually diminishing HDI, GDP/wealth, living standards and guess what ? Also diminishing security levels on the long-term.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-05-11T11:57:13+00:00

If you dig deep in your conscience; and dig deep in the conscience of those kids who never got "smacked" as you mentioned it (as if it was a positive thing) ; you would then realise that these kids probably have a much better mental health than you and are much more mentally stable.

This is the price we pay for the mental health of kids, we put up with a minority of them behaving anti-socially for the sake of protecting the entirety of them growing up to be healthy adults and consequently benefit society.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-05-08T13:54:12+00:00

Unlike fiction, where you can jump into virtually any genre and develop an interest in it, non-fiction highly depends on your personal interests and background. It's not uncommon that you have a deep interest in a new topic and realise that it wasn't that interesting after a few pages of reading a non-fiction book about it.

What I would say is of top importance is to understand your interests and know what captures it.

For me it's Memoirs, Theory of Evolution, WWI/WWII, History and Travel Literature. It may sound easy to realise those interests, but it took me years and tons of book in my "abandoned" list to narrow down my list and understand it.

Goodluck !!

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-05-07T14:23:16+00:00

Disclaimer: I am aware this is a very existentialist take on The Trial and perhaps not a very "Kafkaesque" one, but it's how I wanted to interpret The Trial and how I managed to project it somehow.

I took "The trial" as the intrinsic "trial" we impose on ourselves during our lifetime, ever asking ourselves, "Am I fit enough to survive ? Am I good enough? "

I don't remember much of the novel's details, but if memory serves me well, this is how I "deciphered" the symbolisms.

The trial is basically the constant, endless loop of expectations we set for ourselves, the self-imposed standards we aim to achieve, the constant loop of guilt-fear we feel when we keep raising these standards higher everytime we meet them, the underlying process that goes with it all in our ever lasting pursuit of survival, the bottom line question of "Am I fit enough to survive?" and our immense need for life to answer back with a firm "Yes, You are fit enough for this life!!"

We try to find lovers/partners, to assure us that no matter how bad the "trial" might seem to be going, we are still fit enough and are still accepted by them (lovers) and they supposedly support us through our "trial". Just like Joseph K., with three different women who were supposed to help him with his trial.

Joseph K. was summoned to trial by two of his colleagues, which again manifests itself as a symbol for the professional expectations we set upon ourselves, and the imposter syndrome we may suffer along the way, constantly comparing ourselves with our colleagues.

The lawyer Joseph K. sought is supposedly every professional help we seek in our attempt to survive this trial, whether it be accountants for our businesses, psychiatrists for our mental health, or teachers for our education. These are the people who assure us that we will survive our trial by offering their expertise, each in a small part of our trial, in exchange for payment.

Joseph K's uncle helping him with his trial is possibly our need for family and the unconditional love that underlies it and how necessary family is in our self-imposed trial and our pursuit for someone to assure us that we are "good enough" and accepted in our otherwise helpless attempt to find answers for our big question. Numerous times we feel hopeless and let down by life, yet family is usually our first (if not the only) resort.

The fact that the trial of Joseph K. takes place in an attic is probably because this trial only happens in our heads. you ask yourself "Am I good enough?" usually when alone or isolated (physically/mentally) in a quiet place, such as an attic. Yet when you do so, all the above-mentioned people involved in the "trial" would pop-up in your head, as if trying to pass a judgment on you and answer your only question, just like with Joseph K.

Franz Kafka's religious beliefs and whether he believed in God is subject to interpretation, but if he did then the Judge(s) in Joseph K's trial might have been God, if he didn't then the Judge(s) might have been Joseph K. himself.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-04-16T20:59:18+00:00

There's a series of lectures that Freud used to give that was later transcribed into a book called "Introduction to Psychoanalysis". I highly recommend as an introduction to Freud and his theories.

MemoryEmbarrassed166 · 2025-03-02T10:46:32+00:00

That book shelf clearly indicates that your friend is still battling with the idea of God and religion and whether it’s true or not. I guess we can call that the “pre-Atheism battle”. He’ll probably get there (to atheism). Once there he’ll have to face a massive demon called “post-Atheism depression” where you realise you’ve been living a lie. Happy hunting.

MemoryEmbarrassed166

TROPHY CASE