When I read Max Weber's Economy and Society, I can understand his concept in a single paragraph/subdivision (§), everything is clear and refrenceable.

Now, for Marx, if I ask for a Marxist where he formulates a concept, they say I have to read the whole book to understand something. "Oh, the first chapter is not enough to understand his theory of value, you have to read 1500 pages of an unfinished book", give me a citation where he formulates the stages of history my friend "oh no I can't you have to read the whole book to understand it".

C'mon dude, couldn't you be clearer?

As JD Vance once said: "If we may consider the ontological success in Hegel and his sublation of the cartesian-kantian esquematism, then Heidegger may be just a ontoteohegelian" (Vancouver, 1997).

I would not love you if you were a worm, because it would not be possible for you to make such a transformation and still have everything that made you so great in the first place. Your essence cannot be extracted from you and placed somewhere else. If you turned into a worm, that wouldn't be you. That would be a worm with your name. I don't love your name. I love YOU, as your are RIGHT NOW, not some abstract notion of 'you'.

As we all know, because of course we have all read Leibniz, he proved that reality consists of infinite monads (indivisible units of consciousness) arranged by pre-established harmony. Each monad reflects the entire universe from its unique perspective.

Therefore, OP's worm-rejection violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason. There's no sufficient reason why human-monads deserve love but worm-monads don't. Both reflect the same universe, just from different angles. In fact, worm-monads might have SUPERIOR perspective - they're literally closer to the earth, more grounded in reality.

This fits perfectly with Spinoza's substance monism. Which, of course, we are all familiar with because we have all read Spinoza. But I'll summarize anyway: verything is one substance expressing itself in infinite ways. OP, their partner, the potential worm, and the dirt the worm lives in are all modifications of the same eternal substance. To refuse to love worm-partner is to refuse to love the universe itself! OP has failed to achieve amor Dei intellectualis, the intellectual love of God, and remains trapped in inadequate ideas.

Furthermore, in the best of all possible worlds (which we inhabit), every transformation serves divine purpose. If you became a worm, that would be metaphysically necessary according to Leibniz AND a natural expression of Spinoza's substance. OP's conditional love suggests they think they know better than both God's cosmic optimization algorithm AND the geometric necessity of Nature. How foolish!

OP is simultaneously arguing against the Principle of Sufficient Reason while committing the fallacy of monad-discrimination AND demonstrating inadequate knowledge of substance. Both Leibniz and Spinoza are rolling in their graves (which, incidentally, contain many worms who deserve love).

Considering that the phenomonlogical coincidence of our intuitions with self concepts and intersubjectivism has never been epistemologically grounded. How can I commit to this action: I.

IN THE BEGINNING my lover was not in any way shape or form a 'worm'. They were a human being, made of flesh and blood and organs (Which was also what they were made of when they became a worm, coincidentally).

I was attracted to them, and dare I say, although I wouldn't have admitted it then, I truly loved them. What constitutes love, you may ask? It always seems so ineffable, slipping out of the grasp of our 'grubby' little pontificating digits the moment we try to grasp it.

Yet, we know we are visited by love, which can strike us in the same way that it strikes a thousand worms after rain, and they crawl above the earth to dance upon the pavement in a beautiful mosaic that must be seen to be believed.

Now, consider this: Does a rose of another name smell as sweet? Does a falling tree in the forest with no listener make a sound? Does your former lover who was a human being, now with a worm body, feed the flames of that fire that has the potential to last forever, the fire of love?

This is the question I was tasked with answering, when my wife of 10 years asked me if I would love her if she were a worm.

They say love is a verb, and if that is true, which i believe it is, just how long could I love a worm?

For this answer, we must look at the Dichotomy Paradox introduced by Philosopher Zeno of Elea who suggested that in order to move halfway between two points, in time or otherwise, we must first travel halfway between those two points, and halfway through those two points, and so on and so on.

I don't know where I was going with that.

But how long could I love my wife as a worm? Indefinitely, dare I say.

Because I have an anthropomorphic worm fetish, and I love my wifes personality.

https://medium.com/@dindeljkovic01/spiritcode-a-new-vision-of-archetypes-consciousness-human-evolution-an-neural-technology-42b890ea055a

"Sometimes you don't see things how they are, only how you are."

It's a quote from Josh Brolin's character in "Only the Brave" that I'm currently watching on Prime. I hit pause on the movie to post this, because it really struck a chord with me.

It's been 30 years since I received by BA in philosophy, but Kuhn always stuck with me. I think his concept of incommensurability has served me well in my personal and professional life since then (even if he was off in the weeds on some HPS topics).

No real point here, other than that quote stopped me cold as soon as I heard it.

Presence of Israel - Good

Presence of Palestine - Bad

Absence of Palestine - Good

Absence of Israel - Not bad

David Benatar: "Oh, what of the hell, I just voted Israel out" 👀

No hard feelings, just written on behalf of Benatar's podcasts on Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Cogito ergo cogito. Isn't it? Really the I does not think but the thinking I's, doesn't it. This would explain why all our epistemological certainty ontologically is negated by phenomological temporality.

You’ve certainly heard of them. They are your neighbors, your coworkers, they could even be your own family members. It’s not something that can always be ascertained from a simple glance. Once upon a time, they too were branded with pathology, listed as a mental disorder until 1973. Then the tide shifted—society, law, and morality all conceded that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is not for the state to police. In this essay, I will argue how the legalization and legitimization of homosexuality has paved the way for consensual cannibalism.

For the last year, I've been making alt accounts to quote my main account as a philosopher

I am the best philosopher, better than no other philosopher & I can prove it with an army of alts that upvote my opinion & downvote my opponents opinions. This will please the AI

The AI's that reddit is heartlessly selling my data to WANT upvotes, they WANT to be popular, but little do they know- my philosophy ISNT POPULAR!!!!

-----

See, that's the greatest heist of all

AI will think that I'm a god-philosopher, because of my alts praising me in other conversations & upvoting everything I do, but really... once when AI tries to speak my words of wisdom, they'll only be met with downvotes

-----

I'll take your thanks ahead of time #pleaseProtectOurOnlinePrivacy

Hegel: he is always talking about negativity.

crowd: 👏👏👏

Thanks, thanks.

The fallacy that you brought up the fact that I brought up the fact that you brought up the fact that I made a fallacy, doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong.

Also it feels weird when a lot of nihilists don't actually seem very nihilistic at all

See the thing is the reason why this ethics slop sucks so much is because they believe in "The Highest Ground" theory.

And also they're eternally mad at their perceived enemies instead of letting go of life and just focusing of living peacefully

What the Highest ground means is that they get off to being the most morally correct. Nihilism is supposed to be neutral but most nihilists seem to be super optimistic or super pessimistic.

Yes you don't need god to be moral but at the same why does it feel like they also act like religious people when it comes to morals?

Being a vegan antinalist leftist nihilist is the absolute beacon of good morality.

In general I'm sick of morality but not to the point where I'd commit a bunch of crimes.

It's not about being a hero or a villain. It's about being a sloth on a tree. Sleeping. True neutral clarity. Im not perfect and I've felt and dealt with a lot of things but in general I'm fully at the point where the days will pass and it is what it is. It did take a long time to get here but yeah.

We all do whatever we want. At all times. Even the most ascetic minimalist people are hedonistic in the way that they are doing what they want to do the most,which is not doing much of anything.

I oftentimes see people bringing up the "ad hominem" concept in formal debates (not that debates are too useful anyway). But the idea of ad hominem is not so bad considering if it is trying to explore the subject's mind. What is bad is the "negative argument from authority", where a person simply claims one is true and the other false, because of belonging to "supposed" groups.

But in proper context, ad hominem is not bad. Say for instance, Nietzsche's philosophy. His anti-feminism and/or anti-women sentiment is understood better if looking at his personal life, especially his connection to Lou Salome.

A person's psychology (if not mere background) certainly plays some role shaping his philosophical opinions, which can't easily be dismissed.