This article argues that there are two fundamental arrows of time, and a third referred to as duration, that function such that no actual change occurs in the Universe.
This article argues that particular minority interests have "enmeshed" others in a sociological sense, getting them wrapped up in issues that are not their own as if they were, and that this is a response to the particular history and ethnography of the group in question.
The Book of Mutualism: An Encyclopedic, Natural Moral History with Philosophical Interjections and Appendices is a large tome of pantheist and mutualist natural and moral philosophy presented within a Big History context. Critical of the scientific establishment as much as of the religious, from an anarchist, freethinker, and truth-seeker perspective, it presents a new approach to cosmology, geology, and biology as a foundation for pantheist theology and mutualist sociology. The new format is much easier to read, with interactive footnotes, references, and table of contents, and much faster to load, requiring much less data.
...These are ethical dilemmas because there is no obvious answer to any of them. The answer from utilitarianism is that the individual is obligated to preserve the greatest good of the greatest number by flipping the switch to kill the one instead of the many. The answer from the categorical imperative is that it is never acceptable to treat another human being as a means to an end, even if to save others. There seems to be some weight to both of these answers, such that this appears to be an area of moral ambiguity...
This article argues the theory that anarchism was corrupted from its Radical Enlightenment origins into a toothless aesthetic based on claims to nobility rooted in identity politics that come from the Counter-Enlightenment and Maoist China.
Just what it sounds like, this is an economic analysis of landlords and other usurpers from a mutualist perspective.
Executive Consensus, a new approach to consensus that brings together consensus decision-making and consensus voting.
This article addresses the compensation that is to be provided to founders of mutualist companies, suggesting that founders "should not treat money as an ends to be pursued for its own purpose, should not derive money from anything other than genuine effort, should not take the full value of their contribution, should not take command of the surplus product, and should be willing to accept prestige over money in compensation for their efforts."
Conspiracy properly refers to a plot by two or more people to achieve something nefarious, while theory refers to a sturdy hypothesis that has no strong evidence against it.
At first, we saw a shift whereby the term conspiracy theory came to mean "nonsense" or "pseudoscience," or what have you-- "That's just a conspiracy theory"--, which was a complete subjectification of the term ungrounded in its objective meaning, which refers to the referent of a sturdy hypothesis regarding a diabolical plot by two or more people. This had the effect of allowing actual conspiracies to be shrugged off.
Now, the recent shift has seen the word conspiracy substituted for conspiracy theory, such that individuals are now saying things like "I have a conspiracy that..." referring to a conspiracy theory that they may have. Literally, they are saying "I have a nefarious plot with another or more people that..." but this is not how they are subjectivizing it. Now, the entire referent of conspiracy is being made a laughing stock.
This is clearly a distortion of the meaning of language to serve nefarious actors.
I keep having links to my own work taken down by the mods, despite the sidebar saying:
>don't link to stuff
self-posts only, no linking to outside sources
and the subreddit, in fact, does have the actual option of posting links, [edit: and does have links from other parties in it,] whereas other subreddits, that do not allow any links at all, do not.
One might suggest that "don't link to stuff" is sufficient, but if that is so there is no need for a qualifier. But it does have a qualifier, that qualifier being that links must be self-posts from sources internal to the subreddit. Since this is a philosophy group, and since redundancies are not logical, it is logical to assume that this is a qualifier rather than a redundancy.
The above conclusion correlates and coheres further with the fact of the option for posting links, which does exist. Taken with analogy to other subreddits that do not allow links not from the party who is posting's own efforts (like from the Times or something), [edit: as well as the existence of links posted from others in the subreddit,] this all suggests that links are permissible so long as they meet the qualification of being self-posts not to outside sources, but the user's own content. That is what is implied by a charitable interpretation of the rules (spirit of the rules), the rules as written (letter of the rules), and the spirit and letter as consistent with the functionality that exists.
My links were to my own works, and so were not linking to outside sources and constitute a self-post, being in accordance with the letter, spirit, [edit: the precedents,] and functionality of the rules considered charitably, and by analogy with other subreddits that share that letter and spirit.
Written from a pantheist mutualist perspective, this article looks at the natural right of governments to rule, which the author believes to be non-perpetual and anti-evolutionary, fated to doom.