Ever heard of solipsism?
Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner.
Ha: “by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner.” For me, that’s simply called a circle jerk.
There’e a practical application, and you see it everywhere; and probably, in yourselves from time to time if you ever exercise the discipline to reflect upon and critique your own behavior (do you, ever?). Ever thought to yourself, “no sane or rational person could ever…[go ahead and fill in a hundred or more blanks]. This is why an on-the-face-of-it ridiculous philosophical definition even exists. Because it’s real, and it’s real every day a million and several billion times. It’s not to say there are not things that no sane or rational person would not value, but that’s a different study.
When you easily—and especially dismissively—think that nobody of sane, rational, valuing, caring thought could possibly find value in that which you find utterly abhorrent, you’re giving props to those philosophy geeks who codified the pathology in less than clear terms.
Nonetheless, you can easily see it all the time. I do, and in myself as well, as so-called knee jerks. It’s fine to not find value yourself, or abstain from participation in the face of admonishment that IT’S JUST GREAT! However, as collectivists numbering in the billions, now, have we not minimally come to the place where we’re just OK with others pursuing their own thing we don’t understand or plain lack context for, and there’s no need to concoct a narrative of how it’s a particular threat to ourselves and others, only because it’s not so-called mainstream? There’s 500 cable channels and 650 million websites, now. The notion of mainstream is fading.
But we still love political footballs. Love to go vote on it. Oh, yea, I forgot: you just love to have a 1/300 millionth say in things where there’s a lot of activity and fanfare surrounding the spectacle that only graces us every 2-4 years. It’s, it’s…Olympic Voting! You could get a Gold Medal! if you wear that lapel sticker Just Right!
The simple truth is that we’re likely destined to live forever in our owns privates Idaho; individually, and even socially in the small groups we love the best. There’s no harm in comparing clothes, and that’s helpful, as all individuals and groups ought think, self evaluate, and advance toward better understanding, acceptance, and self improvement and development—even in the face of the abhorrence of “foreigners” on all levels. The only real material thing to weigh is: are they really going to hurt you? Really, truly, and no shit hurt, and prescient risk? If not, you’re just masturbating in public along with everyone else, in a big circle jerk.
The rub is this: in a collective hierarchy of socialist egalitarianism, the whole point of the exercise is to get you to think that you’re being harmed, and tax policy is how it’s done, keeping everyone at odds as much as possible.
There is one certain thing about modern humans: they can overloook one hell of a lot, but they cannot—will not, ever—overlook having to pay for things they find abhorrent. And that is why practical politics is all about forcing everyone pay for that which someone (some many), in some measure, finds abhorrent—no matter which side of the dime is in power. It is literally the chief game in politics. I take it back: it’s the only game:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. — HL Mencken (circa 1935)
The quotidien antagonism keeps everyone passionate about the marginal expenses, so as to keep their attention off the P&L. It’s 100% effective so far. That’s because those who pay attention only love or hate. Indifferent doesn’t watch. Indifferent never votes, though if you look at voter turnout, Indifferent wins every single election, now.
What would happen if they held an election, and nobody showed up but Indifferent?
Go right ahead and cultivate Idaho, but others have other states to cultivate; and just realize that the only real reason you’re each at odds is that you have to pay for their cultivations, too. But understand, they’re paying for your cultivations and hate it just as much. Maybe that’s why you hate each other? Could it be you’re forced to collectively support what each “side” hates, and there’s big money and fame in that, and that’s the big deal far more that what you’re up to? Then everyone is on the same boat, and neither is the culprit. Consider that. You’re actually allies, if you’d just wake the mutherfuck up and realize it’s a lose-win-lose and you know who’s in the middle.
At this stage of human social evolution, you’re all just all over and all on about supporting the real culprit that keeps you all at each other’s throats.
Stop that. Grow up.