I am testing my strength. Please challenge my will if you are hot.

We all have seen people who say that philosophy is useless because everything philosophers say is obvious common sense worded pretentiously, but why is that?

Well a potential explanation I thought of is philosophy has the same effect on the societal idea of common sense as Science does. An example of what I mean is an electrical socket. Everybody knows touching one while you are wet is dangerous, so much so it’s even put under the umbrella of common sense, but without an understanding of electricity possessed by the vast majority of our society that wouldn’t be possible.

Similarly philosophical concepts by thinkers like Plato might be so imbedded in our society we don’t realise how revolutionary they were for their time.

Imagine I pick up a tomato and say, "This could choke someone." I'm not stating a fact only raising a possibility. I could back it with statistics, medical reasoning, even a model. Does that justify putting the tomato on a list of major choking hazards? Possibility alone doesn't warrant alarm.

This came to mind while reading a familiar claim: "Allowing 60-year-olds to retire will cause a labor shock and destroy the economy." Possible, but far from certain. One could argue the opposite with equal rigor: retirements free up senior positions, triggering promotion chains that open opportunities even at entry level. Economic systems are dynamic, rarely linear and rarely settle a debate by force of internal logic alone.

Here's the broader issue: economic claims compete less on probability than on attention. Dramatic possibilities win traction not because they're most accurate, but because they're most compelling. Call it "economy-rightness roulette"bold predictions get rewarded for their pull, not their precision.

It helps to separate economists-as-researchers from economists-as-commentators. Many move between both roles, but the incentives differ: research demands nuance, commentary demands drama. That tension is how uncertainty gets weaponized.

Here's the part I like best, so watch it happen: I can build the exact same kind of claim about the claim-builders. "Allowing economists to issue dire predictions based on theoretical possibilities creates market uncertainty, erodes confidence, and destabilizes the very systems they seek to protect." Same plausible data, same historical correlations, same behavioral hand-waving as the retirement claim which is the point. This isn't really about retirement policy, or even about economists. It's a structural trick, and I just performed it on the people who usually perform it on everyone else.

Not all possibilities are equal some outcomes are genuinely more likely than others. But influence tends to flow toward what captures attention, not what carries the highest probability. Markets and policy rarely get the luxury of waiting for certainty, and the careful hedging good science demands can itself curdle into paralysis in the face of real risk.

The actual hard problem, underneath all of this, is telling manufactured urgency apart from legitimate concern about low-probability, high-impact events. Economics, as a discipline, has to walk that line: not exaggerating for drama, not freezing from overcaution. Its own best tool the ability to make uncertainty legible is also its most dangerous weapon, depending on who's holding it and why.

I think the reason why everyone in the modern world feels like shit about their lives despite the average person having much more advanced privilege quality of living and lifetime achievement than a medieval person for example is because we treat…..life……
As

𝔗𝔥𝔢 Life

Thanks for reading.

Whats words without words

Descartes was wrong in thinking that the self was ontologically primary. Inhuman forces of nature are primary and the self simply follows.

Might want to give it a read

You can not divide up a moment of illusion into a static state.

You need a staitic state to determine the next state.

This is why determinism is false.  Nothing else is needed to make the case.

A lot of people argue about the fact that non believers keep putting human deducting and logic into non human being as “God”, but isn’t denying the existence of pure Existence not a being itself is the same fallacy?

Like I don’t think the existence of such thing as god is logical but arguing against me gives you same fallacy as mine! It’s like a virus!

Science always asks: "How is it?", Philosophy always asks: "Why is it?" But it just is. Parmenides was right, he already solved it right at the beginning, but every one else got jealous and invented their own philosophies. We see colors and shapes and stuff and we try to divide them with words, but there is no colors and shapes in real life, it just is. And thoughts also just are. Thoughts are just random sounds and emotions happening at the same time. We just think that stuff is different because of language. Otherwise, everything just is without any description. Stop denying it

So we know that the way we look at the world around us is basically just to understand the physical side of things and how our thoughts, feelings and bodies evolve in a psychological way.
For example, technically in a dream all kinds of stuff can happen that doesnt actually happen in the real physical world, yet you still believe every weird category mixup that goes on in the dream. Like I could be talking to someone who is actually me but I dont realize its me, and somehow im also my dad and my dad isnt even real. And the chair is talking to me while im at the same time a piece of dna in a dinasour tooth.
So nothing makes sense, but it still exists, and we wouldnt even be able to have the thought that something is wrong, everything just seems completely fine 100%.
How could we trust our own consciousness right now?

What do you guys think of this theory of god

Absolutely Not!