u/lanky-larry

One decides. In each decision one is given choices / options. Choices are epistemic (memes), they do not exist outside of simulation without the enactment of power by an agent; at least in the exact way imagined. Therefore the choices available to an agent are dependent on what knowledge / awareness one possesses.

Physics is a product of asking why? Explanations about the behavior of reality. These explanations let one generate claims on how things can occur and statements about what one may experience: physics allows one to know more choices.

Metaphysics does not influence nor alter the choices one has available. Metaphysics alters and influences the agent deciding, not decision itself but the disposition of the decider. Metaphysics is one’s choice in the nature of what choices they fixate on and fill their awareness with.

Physics alters what choices are available, metaphysics alters what choices are paid attention too; it’s meta in that when playing the game of agency, one can securely ignore reality as long as one only notices what they want to believe.

The basis of successful doctrines is a specific kind of question: in a sense the question is rhetorical but not because an audience expects the answer but because they aren’t willing to find the answer.

The basis question asks something which providing an answer to is prohibitively terrifying, tedious or otherwise difficult and even impossible. An example of this basis question familiar to westerners would be “Where does one go after death?” The answer to this question is quite obviously impossible to find nor verify as even if one is willing to die to find out, how are they supposed to argue their results?

The inability to answer such questions properly leaves one rational means of denial to anyone trying to peddle an answer, the simple counter demand“Prove it!” Alas this refutation is not all that convincing and does little to nothing to sway the masses.

So with a basis question asked a preacher can use their answer as a “logical basis” from which they infer the precepts of their doctrine.

Not all assertions are verifiable via observation alone: some are only proven via artificial influence / the exercise of power. Such is the place of faith to support these normative efforts, only though until history can prove their validity.

Empirically verified assertions make the grounds for judging the efficacy of a normative effort: they allow for criticism without conflict, refinement before implementation and condemnation without the supremacy of an other. One should do science because its verifications can improve all normative efforts.

Faith is the glue of a project, not the chains of perpetual belief; but man is never civilized enough so the civil must do more. Even when the new comes along and deems them uncivil, the new are unverified and everyone’s faith is already taken.

A project ends and so should faith, for the blind are prone to walking of cliffs, and unlike most animals, humans can see futures beyond death.

Faith here is not in the strictly religious sense.

As I put it, sophistry is the denial of one’s choice of reality.

I am agnostic in as much capacity as possible, so I consider a reality to be a linguistic tool. I do not denigrate reality by doing so, instead I bring it to the realm of proper consideration as per occasion. After all one doesn’t use a hammer on a screw: so in each scenario there is a proper choice of reality. (This assertion is made from the agnostic standpoint of minimal assertions)

With my standpoint I think of sophistry not as the assertion of incorrect reality but as the prevention of someone determining an appropriate reality given a situation. This is how I identify an instance of sophistry, generalized into a vice is what I call a cult. The singular assertion of a reality to the denial of all others.

Put into use, to avoid sophistry, I would ask to have a rational discussion, then ask what type of logic is to be used, and that shall be the reality in which the assertions made shall be discussed.

(What I mean by reality is, that in which assertions are made and compared: framework, structure, language…)

Usually for people with some amount of critical thinking skills it is easy to spot an unfounded assumption, an unjustified claim. Once spotted they are then addressed or ignored.

What I have noticed is that by simply asserting something is a “possibility” people just completely forget to asses the soundness of the assertion. The most common example of this phenomenon is found on short form social media and podcast clips saying “Did you know we could be living in a simulation?!”

I hear this absurd claim and think “no i didn’t” because you still need to prove that it’s possible to live in a simulation! You can’t just say something is a possibility, at most you can say it’s plausible such a reality could be.

To claim possibility is to make an assertion thus giving you the burden of proof. Which means you need to derive this possibility from grounds of what already is.

The Misuse of “Philosophy”

There is no such thing as *a* philosophy—only the act of doing philosophy. When someone claims to possess “a philosophy,” they are typically describing a completed inquiry that has crystallized into belief. But what emerges from genuine philosophical inquiry? Methods, observations, and ultimately systems of beliefs. What do we call organized systems of belief? Ideology.

To label one’s belief system as “a philosophy” is an attempt to garner prestige through association with the authority we grant to science and rigorous inquiry. This linguistic sleight-of-hand obscures a crucial distinction that contemporary discourse desperately needs.

Philosophy vs. Ideology

Philosophy concerns itself with inquiry—the art of designing questions and establishing the frameworks within which investigation occurs. Philosophy sets the stage; ideology performs upon it. The only legitimate use of the term “philosophy” should refer to modes of questioning or systematic approaches to inquiry (hence “natural philosophy” as the historical term for what we now call science).

Under this framework, movements like existentialism would be properly classified as ideologies. This may sound diminishing, but only because we’ve poisoned the concept of ideology with negative connotations. Ideology, properly understood, is simply a tool—sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. It becomes problematic only when treated as absolute truth rather than a contingent method.

Dogma is all the nasty associations one makes with ideology. The virtues of a system of choice turned into vice by absolute abeyance, regardless of context and the situation it is applied.

- **Philosophy**: The means of inquiry, the framework for questioning
- **Ideology**: A practical tool derived from philosophical inquiry
- **Dogma**: Ideology calcified into rigid absolutism

The Cowardice of Meaning-Seeking

The question “What is the meaning of life?” represents perhaps the most disgusting form of intellectual cowardice. Its vagueness allows it to masquerade as profound while asking nothing substantive. Are we seeking a definition of life? An explanation of existence? Or worse—are we begging for someone to tell us our purpose?

The latter interpretation reveals the true pathology: those who seek externally imposed meaning are fleeing from the burden of agency. They cannot bear the weight of making choices for themselves, so they outsource their decision-making to higher authorities. When handed their “answer,” they become obedient servants rather than autonomous agents.

Sartre’s notion of subjective meaning makes this spectacle even more pitiful. The seeker of personal meaning is both beggar and chooser—too cowardly to decide for themselves, yet too narcissistic to accept universal answers. They want custom-made orders that flatter their sense of specialness while relieving them of genuine responsibility.

The Ascetic Ideal

Existentialism is hardly unique in fostering this surrender of agency. Virtually all ideologies, when taken to their extreme, create what Nietzsche identified as the ascetic ideal—the human tendency to enslave oneself to transcendent absolutes. Whether the sacred takes the form of God, Synthesis, Progress, or Personal Authenticity, the result is the same: the sacrifice of will to something beyond direct experience.

Yet the opposite extreme proves equally destructive. Hedonism and nihilism represent slavery to the abyss—the surrender of agency to immediate impulse and instinct. Here, one becomes an animal rather than a machine, but the abdication of responsibility remains complete.

Between Transcendence and Abyss

Human existence is perpetually caught between these two forms of bondage. Transcendence offers to relieve us of desire by transforming us into automatons of freedom—perfectly rational, perfectly controlled, perfectly empty. The abyss offers to relieve us of burden by reducing us to appetite and impulse—perfectly natural, perfectly immediate, perfectly unconscious.

Both represent forms of slavery masquerading as liberation. The challenge lies not in choosing between them, but in maintaining the tension that allows for genuine agency. This requires treating ideological tools as precisely that—tools to be used judiciously rather than masters to be served absolutely.

Conclusion

Use ideology’s teachings carefully, lest they make you a slave. Whether that slavery takes the form of rigid transcendence or chaotic dissolution matters less than recognizing the fundamental choice: will you remain an agent capable of thoughtful action, or will you surrender your will to forces—however noble or base—that promise to relieve you of the burden of being human?

The poison of contemporary philosophy lies not in its questions, but in its refusal to remain content with questioning. The moment philosophy calcifies into Philosophy—into a system promising final answers—it ceases to liberate and begins to enslave.

This was a piece I wrote a couple years ago.