1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

A priest can't be an engineer?

Not if he wishes to remain in the priesthood.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What if the promise of the afterlife relieves the hardship of the present?

Then follow that path if you believe it's the one for you.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

If you don't do angst then you don't do philosophy

Rubbish. One channels it, and all other negative impulses into positive, constructive action. Or you sit, wallowing in self-pity, and pretend that that somehow makes you a philosopher.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'd recommend 'A Brave New World', and imagine that you're the 'savage'.

Self-flagellation? Not for me. John's a pathetic, self-pitying wimp.

I could however identify with Helmholtz, perhaps. Except that I chose exile in Nigeria rather than the Falkland Islands. Actually, when I think about it, the parallels are... interesting.

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Not if he wishes to remain in the priesthood.

Why not is there a rule, that I missed?

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Self-flagellation? Not for me. John's a pathetic, self-pitying wimp.

You're thinking about "A Catcher in the rye".

The point of the savage, is to be an external criticism of what 'we' consider the norm, for instance, 200 years ago the norm would be our culter accepts that 'god' is real, and you would be the savage as an atheist.

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Rubbish. One channels it, and all other negative impulses into positive, constructive action. Or you sit, wallowing in self-pity, and pretend that that somehow makes you a philosopher.

OTOH you could sit in your ivory tower and think that my way is the only correct way, I assume you know how dangerous that can be...

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I could however identify with Helmholtz, perhaps. Except that I chose exile in Nigeria rather than the Falkland Islands. Actually, when I think about it, the parallels are... interesting.

Only to you, without some sort of synopsis.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

  On 3/25/2026 at 3:37 PM, sethoflagos said:

Self-flagellation? Not for me. John's a pathetic, self-pitying wimp.

You're thinking about "A Catcher in the Rye"

Hardly! Holden Caulfield is a puerile narcissist; a young Trump in the making. Similarly destructive of course, but quite a different character type.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The point of the savage, is to be an external criticism of what 'we' consider the norm,

Do you identify with this rôle?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OTOH you could sit in your ivory tower and think that my way is the only correct way, I assume you know how dangerous that can be...

... and drink from the cattle trough of doom? No thanks. Not when the hedgerows have brambles and elderberries a-plenty.

On 3/25/2026 at 8:37 AM, sethoflagos said:

Except that I chose exile in Nigeria rather than the Falkland Islands.

Man passes basic sanity test.

(Not wanting to admit how long I labored under the misapprehension that the great German physicist was inexplicably exiled to the Falklands before recalling there was a character of that name in BNW...)

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Man passes basic sanity test.

My apologies. I should have avoided all ambiguity by referring to him as Doctor Watson 🤭

On 3/22/2026 at 6:11 AM, sethoflagos said:

But what of those who occupied that garden of Eden before you? Or those who would seek to displace you from it? What of their freedom? Biology has shown us that vacant, habitable niches are highly unstable. The occupant has to first fight for it and then defend it.

You're right. I assumed a hypothetical scenario where I’d be completely alone and wouldn’t have to deal with others competing for resources, which isn’t very realistic.

On 3/22/2026 at 6:11 AM, sethoflagos said:

But it seems to me a) you have no inclination to repay that external agency (which we can call 'society') for the freedoms they have given away in order to create yours; and b) I cannot distinguish your use of the word 'freedom' from the general usage of the word 'comfort'.

I strongly agree that, since we benefit from society, we have some responsibility toward it. But contribution doesn’t have to be extraordinary in order to be meaningful. Everyday participation like following rules already sustains society in a fundamental way. For example, properly disposing trash keeps the public clean, activities like buying food ensures economic exchange and talking to my neighbors sustain social cohesion. Yes, while some individuals contribute more actively, a functioning society also depends on ordinary and consistent participation from everyone.

Having the time and resources to act isn’t mere comfort, it’s what makes freedom meaningful in practice. They are precursors and without these conditions, freedom only exists in principle but cannot be exercised. Society makes freedom functionally real. Besides, who thinks doing mathematics is comfort? It can be fulfilling to some while others prefer the military than having to succumb to such intellectually demanding activities. A society that allows people the time and space to think, create and explore ideas is exactly the kind of society that sustains and expands its own freedom. It’s not wise to dismiss this kind of use of time as merely ‘comfort’.

On 3/23/2026 at 3:52 AM, sethoflagos said:

@DavidWahl 's definition of freedom is more the mediaeval utopian idealism of a Cockayne or Luilekkerland. I share some aspects of it myself to a certain extent. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where:

It's an age old fantasy, still shared by many.

I see that your vision of a utopia focuses on abundance of comfort such as food, drink and pleasure. You are blurring the lines between comfort and freedom trying to make freedom seem like indulgence. How about we shift our focus from indulgence and focus more on creating a society that is intellectually vibrant, artistically rich, flexible and provides a variety of meaningful opportunities rather than simply satisfying immediate desires? If some our freedom is already constrained by how society shapes us, why not design a society that is mature enough to engage with freedom without abusing it? This stupid "as long as it's not illegal" rhetoric is dangerous.

I believe a healthy society is where both freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by DavidWahl

25 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I believe a healthy society is where both comfort and responsibility go hand in hand.

Well answered!