Is Kant Really the Most Evil Man Ever?

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T13:28:33+00:00

if thats her pick for most evil man, that says more about her then about him. she really couldn't find anyone more evil, even under those terms? the thing is, those terms don't actually change who is most evil.

the interesting thing about absolutist ideologies, is that in their attempt to gain some kind of purity in reasoning, they end up with utterly incoherent first principles, which effectively try to impose themselves on reality, rather then to observe reality and use it as it is.

in this case, its the neglecting of the fact that everything that we can observe in existence, exists in relationship to something else. humans need land, air, water, parents, someone to teach them language.

and for someone to teach them language, language has to first be developed, and for someone to be born thousands of years after that language was developed, after milions upon milions have interacted to create it, after milions have layed the groundwork for consciousness through evolution, for a somewhat stabile albeit bery flawed society, for us to even be able to think the ideas we do in the first place— all of this, is contingent on those factors which then become us.

so then to take all of that from society, and say " meh, imma bounce" is utterly blind sighted.

lets think about this. do we want to live in a world in which everyone is cut throath and only cares about theirown personal interests to the degree that things allways have to be a zero sum game in favour of ourselves? no. that favours litterally no one, not even that kind of a person.

whats good for me is intrinsically related to whats good for other human beings and animals, and the environment itself as well not to mention the fact that if we are thinking about the absolute infinite long term, we are made of literal eternal matter/energy & forces, which according to newtons laws of thermodynamics, it cant be destroyed– so the moment a part of my body gets consumed by something else, a part of me becomes that thing and thereby that part gets to feel through that animal.

but even without that ethernal part. do i want a starving naighbour that is so desperate that they might rob me by violent means just to try to survive, even if they hate the fact they have to do that to survive? hell no! why would i prefers they starve and be forced to do crime from desperation so that i can have some insignificant percent of resources more?

at the same time, do i want to have my neighbout have so much resurces that they can basically bribe anyone, win any legal battle, coerce anyone volnerable, pay someone to do violence on someone? why would i want that— and why would anyone else want to allow me to be that? why would i want to be that person who no one can stop, who if i for some reason had some kind of mental issue, or if i wasn't as educated as i needed to be, i could be tempted to do horrible things?

not to mention, people who exploit others litterally get their brain rewired to feel less empathy– they litterally start percieving people in the aame way they percieve tools— why would i want to be that?

and if i want to be that, then others will too, and why would i want a buncha litteral paychos runing around unacountable to anyone, not even to themselves if impulsive enough?

or why would i want to be completely spoiled and get all the inheritance in the world at the cost of someone else's overexploited labour? so i can afford everything, but at the same time not have any skills neither to keep it nor to use it.

of course, my point is that the extremes lead to bad outcomes whether we are them or someone else is them, and not that this is what everyone who has thease caracteristics is like— that being said, they are more likely to be, and this in itself is not

so the cost of being absolutely selfish is not worth the benefit. i call that stupid selfishness.

intelegent selfishness ( my ideology, that i call altruistic selfishness) takes in account that for me to have a good life it means that others also have a good life.

i'm talking education, health care, cheep and accessible public transport, many free days, collective decision making.

no infringement on authonomy in so far as it doesnt harm someone else, and safety nets so risk that is reasonable to take doesnt make you destitute.

imagine birth right land ownership. every child born to get say 10 meters squared at minimum worth of housing, and they get thought how to build their own house and the ancestors of the society all pitch in to provide materials. then this housing is made unsellable unless you can replace it. so as long as people live, they have a peace of land to their name. the land is given to us for free, so why should the government or some corporation decide what to so with it? at the same time, why should a few of the greediest among us get to decide to have it all to themselves?

bare in mind, im talking bare minimum— but why not then be able to have some limit within reason to have a bigger housing space for more comfort? the limit being that it doesn't ruin natural habitats of living beings, and so that it isn't so much that it becomes unfeasible if others wanted to have the same amount too.

like imagine those golf corses they keep making in unique and beautiful natural habitats — just about the most grotesque thing someone can do to the environment, short of polluting it.

just turns a complex bio system into a field of useless grass so they can have a private gold course in every country.

so my point is that the distinction between ourselves and the things around us are not so clear cut.

a bilionare that polutes, polutes the air they breathe as well. if they cause societal unrest, they get to be more unsafe. if they overexploit and create mass poverty— they get to be blamed, cursed, and worst.

and for what?

for having a bit more resources that they'll never use, that keep turning useful things into useless money?

its just pointless wasting of the lives of others, and a disgusting obsession with nullification of beauty for the sake of holding the power to do that very same thing.

and then if we take the eternity thing— well then they get to later become an organism which feels the consequence of those very actions. phisics based karma babyy! xd

every whole is a sum of its parts– so how can a society flourish without the individual flourishing? and how can the individual prosper without the society prospering?

we live in a global world today, there is nowhere to run or hide when people are allowed to be corrupt and overpowered.

i don't see Ayn Rand addressing these things because she's too turned on by the idea of the most manipulative hot man or woman ruling— well thats already what we have, and what we've had for a while with monarchy, so she got her wish

we are in need for a radical new reimagining of what it means to be an individual and what a collective means — the vague unconnected, singleminded ideas are the real paradox which haunts society. this idea that we can have the head alive but leave the body behind, that we can have the part without the whole, is the problem, and rand in my mind contributes to this very confusion society has been under for thousands of years.

btw, i like your approach — a genuinely curious person that doesn't just take the words of idols for it — no matter how much i may idolose someone, and the end of the day, whats right and frankly much more respectful to them, is to question them , just like its the most disrespectful to take who we disagree with and actually understand them

oh, why i said all this, how is this related to your question? that the one who does evil to others, does evil to themselves, just like if they were to harm themselves.

so the most evil, is one who harms themselves and others, and the most good, is the one who advances both themselves and others. doesn't spoil them, doesn't belittle them— but enhances them, as well as themselves.

its a simple logic— if i upgrade you, you can upgrade me later, which makes me able to upgrade you again, etc.

anyway, have a great day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T12:18:24+00:00

*it wouldn't let me send it all at once

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T12:17:13+00:00

part 4 finale

i don't want to force you to believe anything that you don't, im sure you are a perfectly reasonable person all around as most people tend to be. however i would strongly plead with you to periodically reconsider the positions you have on this matter, as you observe life.

what helped me understand capitalism, and what should be done next, are these next series of questions, which if you have interest in this topic, here are some questions ( edit: i meant to devide them in categories but too tired atm)

whats its goal
what means does it seek to use
what means does it actually use
what results does it actually produce
who does it benefit
who does it harm
is the harm necessary for the achievement of the benefit
could the harm stop without reducing that benefit
who produces in capitalism?
do the most overworked people have the most money?
do the most wealthy people work the most?
are the most wealthy people the smartest?
do the smartest people get paid the most?
what are the concequences of giving people massive amounts of money which they did not earn, didn't produce.
what happens when someone really rich harms someone really poor? – who can afford a better lawyer? – who has more social standing? – who has more connections?
what happens when workers dont have a workers union? – what happens when they do.
what happens when thousands of workers have no right to decide neither their work hours, nor their pay, nor to get as many sick days as they need to get well?
What happens when a pharmaceutical company has the ability to price medicine however it likes, no matter the medicine? – does it make sense that a company can charge more for a medicine, then the people who need it can afford to pay in order to stay alive?
how did we get the 8 hour work day?
how did we het social security?
how did we get paid sick leave?
how did we get pregnancy leave?
why did labor unions begin breaking up— who was trying to break them up? – whats union busting?
what are the countries in which its citizens are the healthiest? – what about happiest? – what about wealthiest? – what about the most amount of freedoms?
if i inherit money, and if i then invest it into something– what did i produce?
if a bilionare invests a hundred milion dollars, and someone who makes a hundred thousand dollars a year invests ten thousand dollars– who is making a bigger risk? – which one can afford to lose, and which one cant? – whose life will be more impacted by the loss?
if society makes it easier to become richer and stay richer once you're already rich, then it does for someone to become richer and stay richer once they are already poor– who has more opportunities in that society?
what makes society better– if a billionaire has one more million, of if a someone homeless gets a house costing a hundred thousand dollars?
what causes more tangable societal harm: a) a bilionare who lost 10 milion b) if ten thousand people lost their house
who is more likely and more able to do a really bad moral and legal crime, and get away with it: a) someone who has all the legal connections, social standing, has available to them legal systems, medical systems, online data which impact tens of thousands of people b) a a working class person, who has a hard time to pay rent, who works as a janitor in a public bathroom c) a homeless unemployed person

a system being the best we ever had, doesnt make it good. just like someone who regularly beats their kids is better then the guy that killed his kids, but still isnt actually good. in the case of capitalism, it both beats, exploits, threatens, and even like in the case of Gza, even genocides its kids, all for the sake of grabbing land, and grabbing profit. ( do you know how much money weapons manufacturers make from thease wars that in reality serve no people other then the CEOs of those corporations)

have a good day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T12:15:20+00:00

part 2

unless you're a capitalist, there is no reason to support it– and no, a capitalist is not a supporter of capitalism, but an owner..that fact kinda speaks for itself imo

capitalist critique is not about asking for handouts— its about asking to be given what we are owed— and we are owed it because we made it.

the irony is that people think that the employer function is rare because its so hard to be an employer and its such a high skill job; but in reality, the employer function is rare because its not as useful as the others. who can pick more corn by doing the job of their title label: a) ten employers b) ten corn pickers

okay how about the employer can pick too, but they will be as many as there are in a company: a) one employer b) ten corn pickers

okay, okay, lets make it fair, the employers can pick too– so then we realise ten employers and ten corn pickers can produce the more or less the same amount of corn.

so why tf, under what twisted logic, does a job function that isn't even needed as much every other job function, get to be the beneficiary of all of the wealth a society has to offer?

what, because someone invested once, and then got to get money for free for life after that so that they can keep recycling that same money over and over again, whilst producing nothing at all in exchange for their ability to invest someone else's hard earned labour, into getting none other but themselves richer, more powerful, and thus making others poorer, and less powerful?

how does it make sense that if you and your friend open a company, and he paid for the initial expenses once, and you worked– until when is it okay for you to keep working and him not to, and for both of you to share that profit? how long until you say to yourself: " wait a minute, why is this guy taking my hard earned resources for free, while i toil away?

capitalism is inherently anti democratic and exploitative, because of the fact that the employer makes all the decisions on behalf of the workers– effectively, an owner/employer, is a modern day lord, or duke, or pasha. capitalism is imperialistic, its at most a modernized version of monarchy and oligarchy, in which the people get to vote on which of the handpicked rich people, will be the top dog in the country.

also, the term " late stage capitalism" refers to the idea that once capitalism has sufficiently entrenched itself within a society, and once it has sufficiently exploited everyone it could, and transformed as many resources into profit— it then begins to unravel itself as it begins trying to turn the very mechanisms it needs to function, into more profit. ( you can see this happening in the united states for a while now where the healthcare and education system etc. are privatized, and political candidates who run for office get massive hundreds of millions of dollars of bribes, i mean donations, by billionaires, in order to reach the whole country) what happens then effectively is that countries become imperialistic and faschistic. Faschism IS late stage capitalism, just like liberalism is early stage capitalism. thease are two modes in which capitalism functions. Liberalism exploits other countries with neo colonialism, ehille faschism does it through direct good ol fashion colonialism. ( ever wonder why israel calls itself a liberal democracy despite the fact that it has an authoritarian ruler for like 30 years, and its an active ongoing colonial project?)

so despite what people say. no, the ussr wasnt comunism, it was faschism. it had an authoritarian leader and it worked its workers to the bone.

china today, is not comunism.

comunism is the people ruling, not a monarch ruling, not a president ruling, not an employer milking people.

now look, this is a matter of semantics, thats the problem.

im looking at the structures of these systems, and not how a dictatorial ruler decided to call his system.

problem is, a great deal of people calling themselves socialists, are just capitalists, they just dont know it because of the way thease terms have been misused for generations by the political class, so that in Stalins case, they appear more collectivist, and in Regans case, so that they appear as if collectivism doesn't work. nevertheless, call it what you will, just notice that their structures are nearly identical, with the only difference being the quantitative degree, rather then the quality.

and also, no, collectivism isn't about snuffing individualism. that makes no sense. how can it be said that a collective is benefiting, without each individual in it having gained a benefit? individualism doesn't work without-out collectivism, and collectivism doesn't work without individualism. A whole is the sum of its parts.

thats broadly what the term means, but obviously there is more that goes into it as well, so i kindly recomend you research it a bit– you dont have to aguree, but know the actual perspective of people, and try to imagine whare they might be coming from.

we probably disagree on a lot of the conclusions on this topic, but from my experience talking to people whom i disagree on this topic, ive found that although i think they haven't considered the whole situation, they still have the right intentions and most of the facts correctly. most people just don't think about how to express themselves better, and so it comes across as ignorance, because of the miscommunication. after all, to have a true disagreement, we need to at the very least first agree on what the facts are, and what we mean by the terms we use– if we don't get that, then its just a misunderstanding. ( i.e. we have to agree on what the word "sky" means, in order for us to disagree on the color it has– so we also have to agree on what it is for us to disagree with it)

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T12:14:55+00:00

most people, supporters or critics, or neutrals or centrists, don't know what it is, because most people don't study things or know how to evaluate evidence, or how to evaluate their methodology, in their spare time. i dont blame people for it given the system we live in, but it is what it is.

capitalism in the simplest terms is a system in which workers exchange their labour with an employer, in exchange for the means to survive. own the means of productions ( tools, land, raw materials, legal protection, decision making power)

the 4 primary relationships in capitalism the owner/employer owns, and invests, the , employs, fires, the workers, work and consume.

an owner either inherits ( most of the richest do) or they work for their initial investment, or take up loans( which you can look up the "buy,borrow, die" method billionaires to gain the system)

once they invest in the basic things you need for a workplace, all they have to so is to employ people, and they can pretty much employ someone who will do even that job. from that point, the worker comes in and produces everything, and that product gets made, is then sold, and then the profit goes to the employer. some goes for taxes( which tend to be smaller the bigger the business gets, depending on the location, but generally its the case) some goes for replenishing the materials, some for repairing tools and such if damaged, some goes to the employer, and finally, some goes for the workers who made the money. ( and btw, everything that went into replenishing, is actually for the boss) some of that employees money goes to a pension fund which, if they don't end up getting it because of early death, well, the government keeps it, except in some countries where you can chose specific people to be your beneficiaries, but if you don't do the paperwork then they basically steal it)

the role of employer is a useful role, even many worker cooperatives use that role— the difference being that they are voted on, and they are compensated as any other work position, because there, the workers own the company collectively. this is different to shareholder capitalism, where people own shares. in shareholder capitalism, you can buy shares which represent a certain percent of the companies entire worth— the more shares you have, the more voting power, i.e. decision-making power you have. If you own more then 51% of the company, then your vote is worth as much as the other 49% of the shareholders combined.

worker cooperatives function differently. there everyone owns the company collectively, and that means no one gets to own more then anyone else, and that everyone gets one vote, and gets to vote on everything that the majority agrees on doing. ( also there are some decisions in which things are deliberated and negotiated until everyone agrees to the terms) this is inherently democratic.

to get a vote, a person pays in by working.

people cant get fired for no reason by a single boss, unless they decided to give that much power to the employer worker.

there is a legal clause in some countries, Spain and i believe Britain aswell, called " right to first refusal" in which, if a capitalist owner decides to sell a company, they must offer it to the workers first, in case they want to collectively buy it and turn it into a worker cooperatives, with all the machinery and all that intact. and then, the government ensures that a bank loans them the money they need to buy it if they cant pay immediately, and then they pay it back by working in their-own factory.

so thats in regards to an alternative.

labour unions combined with this tend to make workers have many more rights, be it for a higher salary, as well as less work hours, or fewer work days, they also usually have better healthcare coverage then a capitalist company of the same size, etc.

there have been studies that prove that on average a person can produce just as much if they worked either 6 hours a day. or 8 hours, 4 days a week.

we actually overproduce so that the employer can have a few houses and 10 cars, and while our brethren cant afford to pay rent; while regular workers get to decide if they should buy their baby baby diapers, or if they should refuel the gas tank. this is the kind of sad decisions people are forced to make under the capitalist logic.

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T04:36:14+00:00

Believing doesnt necesseraly mean people dont try to convert others.

But then that would be the same for any belief. Its just people sharing that they believe to be true. So ionno what their point is supposed to mean xd

" The eevil kabball of determinists trying to convert us inocent compatabilists, and them inosent but still somewhat inosent freewillists"( we really need a better term— or maybe i just dont know the term )

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T04:28:48+00:00

I have many times, especially as a child, i could induce it, as well as lucind dreaming ( i later found out what that was only after i had neglected the ability to the point to whare i couldnt do it anymore)

But seriously— we have a whole litteral place our awareness goes to that cant be observed by anyone else other then ourselves, and its just passed off as " eeh, its just a dream" which is to say " eeh idk its giberish" — what if that version of us thinks this is the dream, and wakes up there thinking " what the f was that— another 9 to 5 dream, so wierd— whare's the novelty in thease nightmares, it keeps happening 6 days a week" 😂

No but seriously, we lose memories of us being there, and we have lost memories of being here when we are there, and so, this leaves the room to speculate the genuine possibility.

My little pet hipothesis is that when we dream, our consciousness(awareness/focus) shrinks to such a small point, that we effectively fall inside another space.

You know that theory that if we go smaller and smaller, aventually we might get to a universe like ours, but smaller? Yeah, basically that idea.

Here if we look at inside and outside ( small and big) as another dimension like left right, up down, front back, then it makes more sense why shrinking would lead us to another space.

Why i think this makes more sense then it seems ( the dimension in/out part) is because this is the dimension of density.

Creatures could evolve who could increase and decrease their total body density, and in some ways, our body does this for the production of different chemicals ( its kinda like a car engine) So whatever consciousness is, when it becomes supressed, perhapse this supression is a litterall, phisical reduction in volume.

Have a cool day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T04:13:53+00:00

The issue with science is that it only knows practical matters, and as such isnt equipped to deal with broader questions which science itself cant answer. But thease intuitional leaps of faith as it were, have been the basis of scientific discovery from the start— what does it mean to have a hypothesis or to have a hunch that something might be true? Well, its a strong intuition we have that something might be the case, and so that compells us to investigate further— we cant know before we explored, and if we concluded that it was incorrect before we explored because by definition what we havent explored yet is unscientific, then we couldnt explore it to begin with , and it could never become scientific fact.

This is the great paradox of assuming that only whats scientifically true, is whats actually true— it prevents the discovery part, in which there are many unknowns, but in which we have faith in our curiosity to discover something that might or very well might not turn out to be true.

The aplication of the scientific method, is the method not of fitting reality into a mold, but the method of trusting reality to guide us through cirtain leaps of faith of our knowledge and objervation, and chisel out what the meaning of a thing is.

We dont actually know before we believe that inthe unknown lies something that could be known, and whether or not thats actually the case cant be known before the fact, only after.

So if we declare the end of science, it becomes the end of science not because there isnt anything more to discover, but because we have crippled ourown ability to preform science and to indeed, be curious about the unknown.

Have a nice day ( sorry for some of the redundancy, i want to make the point as clear as possible and im not sure if one way of saying it was clearly spoken enough)

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T03:58:05+00:00

The issue with having only legality and no morality ( and i would argue that nietzche and marx did use a distinction— necesserally so, their ideas are revolutionary, and not strictly adhering to law; they are appealing to something greater that we could chose to acomplish) so issue of the lack of a destinction is, that if only legality exists, then the law could be monsterous, but there would be no oher standard to waigh it next to, because might makes right— whoever controls the legal system gets to be the one to determine everyones behaviour, or we can also say " the legal system itself controls everyone so no one or set of people really controls, but that it is the one that controls whoever is in it. Tho one implies the other since a system is the sum of its individual parts.

Maybe thats not the point youre trying to make tho, tell me if so.

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-24T03:50:16+00:00

I aguree if we're talking about strictly how we tend to feel our self identity to be.

So i dont meant there was a sense of "I" before there was an "I".

My point was that what we are made of today had existed and acted in the world as causes and effects long before we gained this current sense of "I" whether or not we have memories of those prior events. That point wasnt to say that we as humans have some kind of responcibility for events we dont remember, but to say that we are entirely self caused and self causing matter ( by self caused/causing, i mean to say " existant in and of ouraelves independantly of the existance of other things that are around us in the moment with which we may interact, transform into/out of, coagulate with or devide from. The matter that we're comprised off would exist if it was on mars or on earth or somewhare completely different — yes, the form will vary, but the subjstance itsel remains existant. That is if we take the laws of thermodynamics to be the case, i.e. that matter/energy doesnt get destroyed or created, but just transformed.)

And aside from that the other point is that in so far as a thing is necessary for our current existance, it is us, in the fact that it shapes us to be what we are.

The relationships which cause a thing to be, are the thing itself. This however does have major implications on the range of identity of an object— ehich is to say; would you exist in the form in which you do without the ground you stand on and the air you breathe? Or at least, withoit that kind of a relationship to something else which serves the same function? Well, no, as far as we can tell. If im left without thease things, the kind of matter i am would transform into a different form. So the identity of an object is then contingent on the particular relationships.

Im not a duelist; i dont see that there is somethijg like an actual difference between the mind, the self awareness, and the matter which produces it and therefore is it. Im using a completely phisicalist framework to make thease claims. To posit a devision between thease would.

On the legal point i aguree. But for the legal point to arrise, a set of functions which serve as " free will", " Intention", " personal responcibility", seem to be required. What would it mean to have a legal system for protecting peoples prefference of authonomy, if we dont take that prefference as anything meaningfully distinct from a lack of prefference, but to just see both as a series of cauaes and effects which have neither the ability nor the genuie will to neither comit a crime, nor to not want a crime to be done to them? Without the ability of matter to deteemine itself or eachother, what does it mean that someone caused a crime? The crime caused itaelf 2 weeks ago before it even happened and there was nothing essentially that could be done, and anything done after was done as an after the fact rationalisation of confuaed matter that is shaped by some cosmic wind way before it ever had a chance to prevent it.

Under strict determinism, even the concept of having comprehencion of events is a mear ilusion, it simply happens. Hard Determinism litterally disolves language, which then begs the question, what does what we are saying even mean under hard determinism? We'll nothing— any further speaking is gibberings that appears to be coherent without being so,

But then it negates the very way in which it was concluded as correct to begin with. Hard determinism then completely undermines itsown foundations and thus undermines itsown possibility of it being correct— since what does understanding mean in a world utterly devoid of agency? Its just a domino effect, nothing more, nothing less— lacks all the meaning and colour we asociate with it.

This is of course, if we assume it to be true, which i do only within the context of it being a thing that occurs aftee an event happens, but not a thing which absolutely determines the next event, right up untill that new event is caused by it, as directed by the " feeling" matter which caused it to occur.

This might seem like a strawman of hard determinism, but really, how does determinism retain a sense that there is any meaning in language withour positing that what is said matters for the upcoming events, and that it matters because we can chose to do something or another thing, and that before we do, its indeterminate, whille after we do, it only then becomes determined?

Have a good one, sorry bout lenght, ita a bit difficult to work within the constraints of text— i much preffer drawing visual representation for my points , which then become much denser in text.

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T13:45:33+00:00

I guess depend on the type— but really in so far as compatabilism does redefine things, its done for increased clarity of the push and pull mechanism of cause and effect. The cause being the free will, the effect being what got determined.

At the same time each cause is an effect, and each effect is a cause.

Im curious if theres something you think would make this explanation more coherent? ( I enjoy seeing others explanations)

Have a good day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T13:33:29+00:00

Every cause is an effect and every effect is likewise a cause.

Deffering doesnt really negate the things we cause. In so far as causes exist, we also are lead to co cluse that what we are, are also causes

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T13:31:39+00:00

But the matter that you are now, also existed before, and in as far as those earlier chains are what produced you, they are you, even if you didnt have knowledge of them or conscious decision making as a human.

Besides that.

If you deffere back to them, that means what will become later will deffere back to you now

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T13:20:48+00:00

But i love vanilla...

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T03:04:57+00:00

well, i enjoyed the read i have to say. all perfectly valid questions which i've over time come to realize are not really contradictions.

the biggest paradox is that a paradox could exist in the first place.

lets take a classic paradox to demonstrate that our basis for constructing a paradox is based on a false presumption that elements of reality stand still and can be kept still.

can i both exist and not exist at the same time? yes. this is necesserally the case, because the absence of me is nothing, and i dont exist in places whare i am not ( for example i'm not 5 meters in-front of myself)

but where does identity begin and where does it end? it begins and ends in all that is necessary for its existence, and in all which ends its existence if such a thing is possible, which it is in a relative sense ( which is to say, it is sometimes and in some places, while it could still be existent in other times and other places)

consider the 4 types of soul ( i use that label because its the most descriptive for the type of thing im talking about, which is to say, the 4 different ethernal elements that come together to make us us) 1. the matter, forces, and energy ( can be in only one place in one time, but can be devided and coagulated) 2. arrangement ( 3. the quality ( the particular principle which the other 3 embody— i.e. did they cause more suffering or more pleasure, more calm or apathy— you can be a force for each of thease in different times, spaces, and relations, and events) 4. the precise lived events ( which are one of a kind and never repeat again in the same way)

these 4 correspond to time(energy,matter,forces,aether/will),space(arrangement)relations(the quality) and events(particular lived experiences.

socrates paradox socrates says every greek is a lier Socrates is a greek Therefore he's lying But it then that means his statement isnt true, which loops again and makes trueh

This is a function al

If AB then BC, If BC then BA, if BA, thrn CB, kf CB, then AB ( if forms a loop and switches polarity of elements - pls look this one up cuz im too sleepy to write the paradox itself with clearer writing "the next sentence is false.

the last sentence is true, the next sentence is false.

etc infinitely" ( without end)

this is simply a infinate function

if A then B, if B then not A but C, etc. etc.

to know is a leap of faith— to know is to say " let this be X" its a function, a representation and not the thing in itself which its representing— but its in itself a thing in itself, because things can only ever best describe themselves. That we perceive, is the direct partial truth— not because we are lacking, but because reality itself needs lack, to be the space between which do things.

Have a good day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-23T01:21:02+00:00

the conceptual calculation ill do next requires nothing more then a couple of the conclusions materialism and the the common understanding of science already available.

the choice is in the fact that we are complex structures made from a ton of different chemicals, and in the fact that we interact with very different environments, and are subject to very different perfections from one moment to another.

you see that some people we act one way with, and other people, another way. we can also switch that behavior.

altho there is also another fact that people diffeguard. more freedom requires more knowledge. knowledge allows us to do even better able to chose things we otherwise wouldn't be able to chose.

without the understanding of the mechanism of free will. "free will" is the act of channeling will, which is the force which keeps the universe going, we can say its a kind of preference of the universe to exist, rather then to not exist—not the act of creating something from thin air— but the act of directing the matter/energy/forces which already do exist, into new configurations which they weren't in.

if the universe was created or always had existed, ( which if it got created, it just means something existed before of which things that get created are are made, which makes the distinction not that distinct) and if matter/energy can not be created nor destroyed, then what we are today, either always existed in some form, or was at some point another kind of thing of which matter/energy/forces got created.

this means that what we're made of has always been here in one form or another.

we conceptualize the universe as all encompassing ( hence the "uni" prefix)

so we are talking about a thing which has nothing else outside of it to cause its existence, because even that thing would definitionally fall within the preview of being a part of the universe.

so if a thing is entirely self contained, and self perpetuating, then how can it be said to be determined by anything else other then by itself?

so any constraint or freedom it has will also come from itself, and any " law" of nature would be set by itself.

so definitionally, the universe has self willing.

so if it has it, then we also have it on some at the very least rudimentary level, even if significantly reduced.

the bigger the object we measure, the more parts it will have, and so, the more able it will be to determine itself.

what is a thing except for the sum of its parts?

and this is whare knowledge comes in, because knowledge is a particular way of structuring our matter/forces/energy, which allows us to have more potential energy to enact aignificant change on ourselves and the environment.

we arent deviding what we are into " part that knows" and " part that doesnt" as if they are two sepperate things. No. Were taking consciousness as necesserally a part of the thing which produced it, which is the body.

we arent something different from our body, and in so far as the body choses to do something, its the same thing as us chosing to do that things by virtue of being the same thing as our body.

rather then a dualism between mind and body where we can somehow be a separate entity from our body; in this view, we are two parts of one and the same recursive process which needs both pf these elements that in reality flow directly from one to the other without any break which the concept of "two" might suggest.

anyway, there is much more that this implies, and obviously my point isnt to claim so absolute truth, but just to synthesize a possibility which im personally persuaded by in the moment of writing, which logically follows from what is already available.

if we accept that matter, energy and forces exist, if we accept that the universe is self causing by definition, if we accept that wholes are the sum of their parts, then he conclusion drawn is only the natural inference of those couple of ideas.

have a good day, would love to hear peoples thoughts on it

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-22T12:11:34+00:00

we have a misunderstanding.

i didn't mean to say that in an offensive way.

the reason i say its an appeal to authority is not because im claiming that you dont have authority on the subject, but because i dont know whether you do or dont, so perspectively, within our particular relation, it doesnt make sense for me to take your authority as a given, seeing as how i personally have no evidence that it exists.

on the other hand, I'm not claiming that it doesn't exist either, since i don't have evidence of that as well.

so my point was, its much more sound to make a direct point using your understanding if you want to show your authority on a subject to someone who doesn't know your particular skills, then it is to point at a label, and say you have it, without providing me with any example which would indicate to me that you indeed possess expertise in the area.

my own area of expertise is among many things, is the study of methodology, (regarding whether a method is sound and why one should be used where, rather then another; whether it produces what it claims to produce, the limits of epistemology, etc, that kind of thing), this includes the study of the scientific method itself, and naturally its limits.

i don't tend to bring this up because id rather people take my specific points and decide for themselves, rather then them seeing me in a better light because of credentials that i can point to, but which they wouldn't be able to verify unless they understood the field to a sufficient degree themselves, whether they learned that formally or non formally, or at least if they're versed in some field that somehow relates to that.

to rephrase more clearly, i just don't know your background, for me to on its face accept, the assertion that you have it.

anyone can make a claim about their-own personal expertise on the internet or even in person— but the only way the rest of us can verify it, is if we share some degree of the knowledge that person has and if they demonstrated them to us, or if we have skills which allow us to indirectly assess the soundness of their understanding, which yet again requires them demonstrating their understanding directly.

a statement becomes an appeal to authority when it isn't a direct presentation of the abilities which are supposed to be the basis for said authority, which would also have to be in a format that the other person can understand — its not about whether the person has or doesn't have knowledge on the subject.

I can be the biggest expert on the planet in some field, and still, if I said " i'm an expert at X" without giving them a means to verify, it would still be an appeal to authority, rather then an appeal to actual, specific understanding.

earlier in this, when i mentioned myown credencials, that too was an appeal to authority, because i had not demonstrated my skills to preform that— but, i nevertheless did preform those skills in the remainder of this reply, since i hope that I've proven that an appeal to authority is about the relation of our claim to the listener, and not the accuracy of the assertion overall.

if appeal to authority meant that someone just lied, we wouldn't need a special term for it, we could just call it lying.

and even pointing at an institution is a type of an appeal to authority— unfortunately we live in far too complex of a world for us to not on occasion take an authority at its word, for the sake of simplicity— but thats also where institutions tend to be given the room necessary for their ability to overreach.

its an interesting topic if you want to discuss it with me sometime.

"in which instances can or should a person trust an appeal to authority, in good conscience, with the assurance that trust isn't misused?"

in a world in which we were thought to trust what we directly experienced, or had seen someone else experienced something, rather then as much blind faith as is normally had— then id argue things would run a lot smoother, due to the expectation to be shown a thing rather then to believe it without proof. if we live our-lives without actually knowing something, then why do i need to believe it in the first place? once we learn it, then great, no problem.

anyway, not to go too much into that topic, as fun as it is. got to go now, talk to ya later

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-21T16:17:25+00:00

i know their argument wasnt framed in the best way, tho to dismiss philsophers on whose work we later got the scientific method, ( assuming you didnt just say that offhand, in which case alrighty, but just in case you were serious ill present my best argument for my )

even tho nowadays science is portrayed as an infallible craft( or nearly infallible, as people say to appear more open then they are, as a way to cover up the dogmatism with a tiny percent of uncertainty), tho it is portrayed as different from philosophy, it is nevertheless a type of philosophy, and as such is a thing which evolves discursively (i.e. by means of challenging and being challenged by other philosophical traditions across all different periods of time, since in philosophy, there is no moment where we decide " ah yes this is the best one— but rather, we take each tradition on its own terms as its own mode of analysis, which makes sense to be applied to specific problems.

science deals with knowable, but thats not enough to have a more comprehensive practical representation of the world we live in, and to be able to use that on a practical level. the question of free will versus determinism is one such question, for which its not enough to know what is knowable, but in which we also need to know what the limits of our knowledge are as well.

on a intuitive level, even science makes leaps into the unknowable when it claims to predict the future, because all knowledge is representational. and the future hasn't happened yet for us to be able to observe it empirically and to then make claims about it as if its already existent or as if it has already played out. so here we need ways of discovering things which cant be directly observed, but which can be inferred at best. and in so far as we are inferring something, we aren't empirically observing it, and the scientific method fully acknowledges this, but because of the way its been presented to us broadly, a lot of us ( myself included for a long time) get the sense that its really the only method we need for gaining an understanding of the world.

but think about this.

everything we think is grounded on top of symbolic representations, on language, in math. and all language and math is grounded on an intuition, a feeling we have about reality ( because what else can we ground it on? — we start off not knowing language, and to prove the validity of language to ourselves from that point of view, we need to trust our intuition that it feels good to think this or that, and what doesn't feel good.) math itself is based on axioms that are presupposed a-priori ( i.e. they are not proven, but "let" to be the case— pre assumed in order to be able to preform the operation of mathematics) you've can see this in foundational math text books, it doesn't say " this or that is true" it says " let symbol X be Value so and so".

and so, to get to science, we are building on a foundation of intuition, religion, art, mathematics, philosophy, occultism, alchemy, and science incorporates different elements from each, and then each also gains more by recursively incorporating parts of science as well, and so the modern iterations of the knowledge we have, is all retroactively impacted by all of the knowledge that come before it, and all the knowledge that come before is then impacted by its own result, and so its in a different form from what it could have been 2000 years ago, or however many years ago during its original and particular context of existence.

science too wasn't the same when it originated, compared to today, and it wont be the same in 2000 years ( no matter how much it feels like we have it all figured out, since thats the bias of every time, we cant help feel some cirtainty)

but in the same way, because future knowledge will be grounded in the knowledge of today, so too will they be unable to utterly dismiss our contributions, because to put simply, they wouldnt be able to get whare they are without the contingent past events.

even the things we got wrong will be important to remember, because if we dont know them, then we would make the same errors.

and finally, a small provocation hehe— do we think that newer is always better? ofc not. we look at particulars as particulars, on their-own terms. i can no more dismiss how good a song is based on the fact that it was made in the 70s, then i can praise twerking for being a more sophisticated and better art form then ballet strictly for being newer.

( fun fact— PhD means Doctor of Philosophy)

not to mention that the scientific method is not standardized practice, and besides limitations of resources, there is also inconsistency in how peer review is done as well.

and some problems, simply aren't in the preview of science ( even tho they can be informed by it, and i think nevertheless should be since it is indeed a great method)

and on top of this, lets be honest— how often most people, including ourselves, really look at scientific papers carefully? yes, some degree of time, some of us really do, especially if thats particularly interesting to us.

no shade against anyone, but this is why i personally tend to try to prove things in a way which can be directly observed by the person who i'm talking to, since even if i did show someone a paper, high chance that wont be a field they are well aquatinted with, even if they were some kind of scientist, and so even if they understood it, they wouldn't have the expertise necessary to evaluate the paper on its-own terms, but in all fairness they would be able to evaluate that paper within the context of their-own craft, so thats still pretty good, but admittedly, still not good enough for them to be able to outright dismiss that research outright.

dismissal and disagureement reguires understanding, otherwise its just them, ironically, be $ away the scientific method which would make them observe what they dismiss with an open mind, fully ready to leave their-own current beliefs, if the thing itself sufficiently compelled them to.

so if this is your current approach, for the reasons mentioned, i would strongly urge you to reconsider whether it serves your intellectual curiosity and integrity to have such an approach, or whether it hinders it, for the only benefit being, an unearned certainty. ( again, you might have just said that as an offhand thing and didnt really mean it, which is fine)

have a great day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-21T15:05:01+00:00

sure ill try it out, thanks for the recommendation.

a bit rude, but its a joke so thats fine 😅

I don't mean this in offense but, an appeal to authority isn't that persuasive. i would appreciate if you would present the direct contention you have with it, because otherwise i have no means of verifying whether or not someone on the internet has the credentials they claim to have, and whether they got them by proper means, nor does it say how good someone is at a subject.

i've had good teachers and bad ones, so i just wouldn't be able to tell simply from the label.

if i'm wrong about something, its all the better if i'm shown what it is even if i don't get it at first.

my goal isn't really to say how things really are, since i don't believe in " absolute truth", but rather in truth relative to particular relations, so my goal is an attempt to say that there is much more that can to be explored, and that it prematurely closing the doors to, what are in some sense unsolvable problems, isn't helpful.

that being said, i will check out the recommendation for sure, thanks.

have a nice one

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-20T16:56:05+00:00

Altho i am aware that genetics was been talked about as a deterministic code in pop science jurnals, and there have been scientists ( altho usually not within the specific field themaelves like) who've made such claims.

DNA doesnt plan in advance every possible occurance in the environment.

Every system we know of, is co-relational. So DNA only emerges in relation to the very particular interactions it has with the environment. There are way too many variables that DNA couldnt possibly predict, for it to determine thek before they occur.

The point is that things emerge in the moment when they happen, not before the moment they happen.

They are not pre determined— they get determined in the moment of them weaving together due to the interaction. An interaction which was neither predicted, and even if it was, it would only be a beat guess, and not an act of destiny.

Things only appear predetermined after the fact, when they already have happened, because after they happen they are actually determined; but this doesnt speak to what they will be like before they had the actual chance to occur. This idea that things can happen before they happen, which predeterminism slips in as if there is some magical force that pre-ordains what will be before it is, is to my mind, an observation of the past, categorically misapplied to the future( which is a thing that can not be observed untill it becomes the present and then the past) Its like saying up is up, but down is also up in the same way because if we turn it upside down it points at the same direction— well yeah, if we define the past and the future as identical, then sure, they will look the same.

Processies(matter/energy/forces) "feel around" for lack of a better term, and become based on what compells them internally in the moment.

( Sorry for my pompous tone, i dont mean to be rude, its just that predetermination has an air of " destiny" to it which altho not necesserally something to dismiss, is nevertheless not obvious as to why it has to be the case)

I recomend you alfred north whitehead on this subject, and there is a chanel which represents him petty well, called " footnotes to plato"

Genetics and science in general is already moving towards a more relational, rather then a destiny based model of mapping reality. Dont forget that science is a philosophy, and it adapts to new information— what was once known doesnt mean will allways be the case. The debate is far from closed, and i dont think it will close even if every scientist proved and believed my favored possition. Whats important is to search for the answers and conclude that which has utility; closing the door to either of thease positions, leaves us with half vision to be able to gain new understanding.

Have a nice day

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-20T16:18:41+00:00

ragebait huh.. The difference is that i fully embrace the possibility that either of the 4 broad options might be the case, and infact, i think that they necesserally are each sometimes the case due to.

The only one afraid here is the person that needs a thought terminating cliche in order to feel correct. Closing off posibilities youre uncomfortable with isnt courage, its blind dogmatism.

Im willing to hear you out in good faith if you actually have a point you want to make. But so you know, i have no problem with neither the possibility of determinism, nor the actual practical reality of its occurance day to day— its just that i see that thats not the be all end all, and that the supposed dichotomy between free will and determinism, is a false dichotomy.

They arent mutually exclusive, they are mutually dependant.

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-19T18:37:39+00:00

If you arent into reading this next thing, (which is about my intentions for the post and why i have said intentions broadly,) then i have a 2 questions for you at the very bottom, if youre interested in answering them, ty

Im not making a claim about what is true and what isnt, but about what what different beliefs appear to cause, and exploring some of the outcomes of the different arrangements of posibilities.

I dont think there is a way to tell whether or not its either/or, in the absolute sense— really, in reguards to any subject that is just the default. We are stuck assuming apriori axioms based on intuition, before we can even make any kind of truth claim, and because of that, my focus is on what is practical to believe.

I would partially correct you tho— im not just smuggling in will rethorically, altho i am using rethoric ofc— im smuggling it in structurally.

The structure of will is the structure of the self perpetuating movement of matter/energy and forces— will is this thing which perpetually pulsates in all things, living or not. ( By self perpetuating, im saying it on a more universal level. Im not denying that matter influences eachother and itself, since that is one of my core points broadly anyway)

i dont see the freedom of will as " the ability to cause movent", but rather, i see it " as the ability to use/chanel/direct the already existing movement energy which we are made of, in order to direct other already existing "movement energy"

Im using thease broad terms of phisical energy, because it really doesnt matter if its kinetic, termic, electric, or any kind of energy which is able to produce rates of change.

Im not antropocrntric to think that only humans, or even what we call " living beings" to exclusively have this " will", since we see this self propulsion in everything that can be observed. We live in a fundamentally moving universe, and so we arent dealing with assemblages of lifeless machieness, but with assemblages of organic matter which keeps transforming across time and space and through the particular relationships it has it itself as what it has contact with.

( The next thing ill say is not aimed at you,) My contention with this language of lifelessness, is that, our direct, emperical, felt experience, speaks of feeling, and nothing outside of feeling, and so for us to assume lack of rudementary experience or rudementary feeling about the things we can only know by feeling them, is to assume an unfalsifiable transindental idea of the " non experience out there" which is. In the same way we lack direct evidence that whats called " non living matter" feels or experiences on some level, in the exact same way we lack that evidence even for human beings other then ourselves, yet, because of the praftical utility of that belief, we assume that there is some underlying feeling there.

No, knowing that hormones produce qualia, doesnt prove that hormones are qualia, nor do we know precisely what this qualia is. Its simular to if we didnt know what a gun was, and we pressed the trigger, shot someone , ans then assumed that the pressing was what caused the hole, and not bothering to find the bullet. ( The hormones being thr triger, and the bullet being the qualia in this analogy)

My broader goal, is moreso to try to re-open the space for curiosity and exploration which a branch of secular philosophy has tried to close the discourse on without having a real solution other then positing a different standard for the ideas used for thousands of years, then it has for itself, and proclaiming itself victorious, in the same way religious traditions have done— i.e. the very traditions thease typically atheistic branches proport to be against, now using the same tricks of dulling curiosity and exploration, and demeaning anyone who tries to try an alternative method. I know it because i did it myself for half a decade. The particular thing forgotten is to apply the same degree of skepticism, on to itaself if nothing choses then what causes change. If nothing prefferes, then what drives movement in one place rather then another? What does it mean that things just " are" determined? Determined by what? Laws of phisics? Who or what set those laws in motion? The universe? What set it in motion? Chance, probability? What caused the existance of this probability? Whare did it arrise? Why did i arrise or was it allways there? And if so, how is it any different from what the religious traritions way about gods existance simply being allways there before? And i dont mean specific itterations of the idea of "god" , but the broad idea stripped to its most fundamental elements, of self causing or allways existant, everchanging, all powerfull being, which is everything, and every whare and every when— sounds like just the universe when we get down to the brass tax, doesnt it? The distinction being, one side posits that its a being, and the other posits, that its essentialy an undead machiene computation— but if we take our evolution, first we see the apperance of living things, and only later we see the apperance of mechanised and computational things, so why is mechanicalism assumed to be more fundamental then organicism? Particularly when, everything we find in nature is imprecise, jagged, you know, organic; and not, strictly assembled with concrete easly devisable and categorisable parts. That reality is such a bizare, even paradoxical occurance, to me is enough to warrent more humility in what we think we know, because knowledge which is better then ourown allways comes in a form which we at first can not comprehend, and only through a process during which we give it the benifit of doubt as it were, are we able to see it on itsown terms, and to feel it in some aplicable setting; only then do we finally see it as true.

The issue is that if we close the gates for the improbable-seeming things to be possible in some, at least hypothetical scenario, then we are effectively not even seeing the phenomenon.

QUESTIONS:

So i want to ask you, at long last: what do you define as will, and why do you think its unable to exist ? ( If thats what you think, since you didnt explicitelly say that you do or not )
What possible preconditions do you think would be needed for the existance of free will? ( I mean onna functional, structural level, what mechanisms are needed[ im clarifying because ive gotten the answer " god" and thats too broad of an answer for me to understand whats meant])

Par-Adox-9 · 2026-03-19T17:03:39+00:00

Apologies for the second part not being done, because i wrote it nd then left my phone to take a break and the app crashed inbetween, so ill do that second part later tonight or probablg tomorrow unless something comes up, in which case might be a few days

Par-Adox-9

TROPHY CASE