Archive | Independent Thinking

RSS feed for this section

A Salute to Socrates

The Relationship Talk Your Father Never Gave You was published today. Its publication brings to mind a number of things. One of which is the realization that Socrates has so much to say, even in the context of all the other incredible speakers at The 21 Convention, that I am literally at a loss of what to do with him as a speaker.

This is an amusing problem to have; one that brings a grin to my face. I suppose because I’ve simply never run into it before, and I never suspected I would. I’m thinking in the future I’ll have to figure out a way to double Sock’s speaking time, or have him present at multiple events, or SOMETHING. Maybe encourage him to write a book? Perhaps that’s the only medium that will have the capacity to capture the depth, scope, and complexity of his ideas in one epic sprint to glory.

In any case, the real point of this post is to explicitly…

The Value of Art in Man’s Life

… Only an arrested modern mentality would go on protesting that the events portrayed in a thriller are incredible or improbable, that there are no heroes, that “life is not like that” — all of which is thoroughly irrelevant.

Nobody takes thrillers literally, nor cares about their specific events, nor harbors any frustrated desire to become a secret agent or a private eye. Thrillers are taken symbolically; they dramatize one of man’s widest and most crucial abstractions: the abstraction of moral conflict.

What people seek in thrillers is the spectacle of man’s efficacy : of his ability to fight for his values and to achieve them. What they see is a condensed, simplified pattern, reduced to its essentials: a man fighting for a vital goal — overcoming one obstacle after another — facing terrible dangers and risks — persisting through an excruciating struggle — and winning. Far from suggesting an easy or “unrealistic” view of life, a thriller suggests the necessity of a difficult struggle; if the hero is “larger-than-life,” so are the villains and…

Why is “The Manosphere” Obsessed with Christianity?

Someone asked me here on TDL a while back what I thought about the Christian/semi-neo-conservative slant of “the manosphere”. While this post is not a deep discussion of such, I do want to make it known that I find it … baffling, or puzzling at best.

As a commenter put it here, some of the manosphere is definitively clueless, confused, and acts in ways entirely counter-productive to broader and larger goals. As the commenter put it

These men are anti-life, anti-human, anti-freedom and anti-happiness.

While I wouldn’t say “all of them” fit that bill, or even a majority, I would say a huge chunk, sadly, fit that category. And I would further state that the majority of that “trend”, stems directly from Christianity.

Christianity in particular of all other religions is at odds with man, with life on earth, and especially, with romantic love. Christianity has always espoused a profound hatred of these entities, does now, and always will, until it goes the way of Greek Mythology.

Christianity is a…

The What vs. The Why

 
This is a great video that just came out from Paleo FX. I think it’s worth sharing because I suspect this attitude is more common that most would believe.

It’s not just prevalent in paleo-land, it’s in every domain of significance. And why is that?

By my judgement it is primarily due to something called the anti-conceptual mentality. This phenomenon is culture wide, and generations deep.

I think of it as an addiction to concretes, coupled with an active ignorance of additional layers of abstraction (which teeters closely on “aggressive-stupidity”).

In daily-life talk, it’s the addiction with “what to do”, and a complete dismissal of why one should do some thing — if anything is to be done at all.

This is as common in political discussions as it is in the “health and fitness” industry, and as one might imagine, the world of dating and relationship advice.

It’s tempting to say that this “what vs. why” concept is easier to observe in one domain over another, but truthfully, it’s…

Contradictory Social Contracting

social contract

Social contract theory (the violently-enforced kind) is the slaver’s number one preferred method of convincing other people that slavery is unavoidable, a practical necessity, or most absurdly, something you actively choose.

The “volunteer slave”.

Of course they will never call what they propose slavery, or more accurately, sophisticated slavery. They will polish it up and call it something else. And yet, a piece of shit with specks of gold in it, is still a piece of shit.

I’d like to use this post to share what commenters on this blog have said about social contract in the past. I won’t provide commentary within, but I will lead with an introduction of sorts.

That introduction is the antithesis to social contract. Not a particular argument, the best argument, that must be presented whenever “social contract” is brought up. It must be brought up because it is of primary importance, for all of history, and especially right now.

That argument is : social contract, in the common use and…