Hey just wondering what it was specifically that led you to think I wasn't already well aware of what epistemology is after being told probably five time over the past year of me posting here in this community? If you could please be as specific as possible I'd really appreciate it.

Edit: since they're not going to answer I'll answer for them. It was the blindness that comes with arrogance, pride, and self-assurance, thus, "ego."

Oh good. That's why I posted here.

Is this not a philosophy community?

"Where speculative science is exact, namely in true philosophy — not in what Schopenhauer called 'professorial philosophy' which only serves to distribute all existing phenomena in neat philosophical tables and give them new names..." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter six

Categorize our capacity for knowledge all you want, it does nothing to aid our understanding of why we humans live, and what the most sensible explanation is for our living.

You're right it's more than likely AI.

It's a painting I found on the Internet. Thanks.

Very well said! I'm going to be checking out that book you referenced, thanks for that. Consider my community if you're looking for more: https://lemmy.world/c/TolstoysSchoolofLove

You think I could write this well? Thanks, it's flattering that people find his writing and mine even remotely comparable.

I never said math isn't subjective, but as I stated in my post, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within the sea of subjectivity that lies within our knowledge of anything.

I'm afraid the world is more subjective than you feared.

Please consider reading before commenting as this comment doesn't make any sense and only serves as evidence that you didn't bother reading before you did so. Thanks.

My point is, when the world is drowning in such people

Are you saying the world is presently drowning in such people, or if it were to be drowning in such people?

the problem is hardly that no-one has spread "the great principle" loudly or far-enough.

It's hands down the biggest problem; knowledge needs to be gained so therefore, someone needs to be willing to teach it. Once upon a time the value of selflessness, love, and it's logic was no where near as assimilated within the hearts of men until people like Socrates or Jesus inspired others to even consider rising above what we would otherwise be more inherently drawn to if not for the knowledge of their influence: hate and selfishness.

My mother, her mother, my step-mother, mother-in-law and my wife's aunts aren't "exceptionally bad saints", they are performing a role society has inculcated in people for generations. Even my wife seems to think self-care stops at hygeine, going to the gym and not letting her job get in the way of family events, and I had to beg her for years on the latter.

Idk, obviously I can't say for sure but I'm getting the impression you may be over exaggerating due to your obvious bias.

When you couldn't even "grasp" the content of my first comment

I could grasp it just fine, but I wasn't clear on it as you write and explain things in a way that didn't make it easy to understand initially, so I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what you were talking about first before giving a response.

I do things the "saints" in my live are afraid to do, both for safety and "what will people think of me?" reasons, like pick-up hitch-hikers, give money, food(upon request) and free rides to pan-handlers

Ah, so it's ego that clouds your judgement. How do you know for a fact these people in particular you're referring to, who don't represent all the good hearted people everywhere as a whole, don't do anything like those you listed? Based on what evidence? Could arrogance and hate be leading you your assumptions to become fact without genuinely knowing for sure?

its that they deserve better

Who deserves better?

never said altruism was bad, or that the people I've described are "the problem", but YOU are presumably not one of them.

My post isn't about altruism at all. I'm sorry you got that impression. And the people you're referring to are the farthest thing from the epidemic you're dressing it up as.

I never said altruism was bad

I agree. But you definitely heavily implied it.

Au contraire, yours is a message they love to listen-to, so wouldn't it be nice if you could sprinkle in a word about self-care and treating one's-self on occassion?

Absolutely not. They get enough of that from the hypocrisy [the acting] of their contemporaries so it's a miracle they're even willing to be selfless to its extremes to begin with. Besides, to what degree are these people just really depressed? And you're not capable of seeing it due to your contempt for them and hate for the perspective I'm putting down. I'm not saying this for a fact, I'd obviously have no idea, just a suggestion. I would say however that in order to most efficiently love others, one must love themselves; the more one loves themself, the more effectively and more willing they are to love others. That said, I agree with the ancient Greeks: "Nothing too much (in excess)" - the second of three maxims chosen to be inscribed into the entrance of the temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece.

... but no, let's go six comments-deep and spend dozens of paragraphs refuting anyone who does mention those things as if that person were preaching the word of Xenu or, shudders, prosperity gospel.

Well to be fair the first two was me trying to make clear what you were initially trying to get across. And I'll go as many comments as you need, friend. It sounds frustrating and idk what it's like to have a family that's apparently selfless to the point where it becomes a problem. I'd agree with you on that by the way, altruism can go sour provided people who haven't been educated on the topic of selflessness get a hold of it. Or maybe these people are simply capable of seeing something you can't due to their experiences in life. Idk, that's what led me to the edge of selflessness myself, gaining the knowledge of the experience of the hate, evil, and selfishness that still flourishes throughout the world. Once you get a good taste of it for yourself it's tough to look away from the value and potential of the only cure: love and selflessness.

"Saints" aren't people that drop everything and rely on the hard work of others to sustain them. I'm sorry to hear you have a bad experience with a handful of people that take pacifism and non-violence and apply this black and white kind of perspective on them. That is, to be a pacifist one must never, under any circumstances, ever use violence. Or to be selfless to its extremes one must forgo all their possessions and expect their contemporaries to pick up after them; to sustain them.

One would only need to explain to these people that in a world where it's either sink or swim, but we choose to swim together to some degree via things like socialism because we realize swimming individually only leaves us vulnerable and ultimately, swimming together to ease the burden for everyone as a whole is simply more efficient because that way no one drowns or is left behind due to inabilities both physically and mentally that some people are simply born with or inherit from the world's hands getting a hold of them via trauma brought on from war or even social interactions.

So don't blame the great principle just because imperfect people ever since don't fully understand it and become confused by people of the past and present that lead people to think it needs to be either or — violence or non-violence; selflessness to its extremes with zero room for selfishness, and that there's apparently no in between.

I think I see what you're saying. Do you have personal experience with this, if you don't mind me asking?

Counterpoint: How do you help a MISSERABLE self-less martyr? People that keep giving after they have nothing left to give and end-up dragging everyone around them down with their misery and good intentions?

What do you mean here exactly? I'm not following. Do you mind explaining?

When you grind an obvious point into infertile dirt, the obviousness of it does nothing to prevent it becoming such dirt.

I'm sorry, again I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mind clarifying?

I agree, well said. It's called religious pluralism.

"Know thyself." - The first of three Ancient Greek maxims chosen to be inscribed into the Temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece

Why?

I'm sorry what?

Edit: what do you mean?

Yes but to live how God would've wanted to save ourselves from the double edged sword that is to know anything on top of the knowledge of any knowing being good or evil. And the snake representing that vulnerability to arrogance when something as capable of knowledge is guided by blind arrogant humans as opposed to a God that represents truth, but the truth of selflessness in a way over any dogma; knowledge, thus, consciousness more specifically, where any potential of truth originates.

"For kindness I desired [mercy, as Jesus specifies in 9:13], and not [animal] sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings [external worship]." - Hosea 6:6

It doesn't matter if selflessness was something we lost, or if it is in God's plan.

I'm not saying it was something we lost, or anything being in God's plan, what I'm saying—this post has nothing to do with either of what you're saying here.

If God wants us to be selfless, why did he first create us to be ignorant of selflessness?

Because knowledge needs to be gained, and what comes along with the knowledge of both selfishness and selflessness is our knowledge of death, that we would've otherwise have been blissfully unaware of. If the snake didn't introduced its influence via its arrogance, then they would've simply listened to God and that would've been that, everyone and everything lives happily ever after. But God not knowing something creeped it's way into knowing so much without its knowing, didn't allow it to happen therefore, it's something that again has the potential of happening to something capable of knowing so much that isn't being guided by God, which the snake obviously wasn't, and wouldn't anyway being so arrogant, so blissfully self-assured.

You point out we need to regain what we lost through God. We need to regain our selflessness.

When did I make this claim/what are you gathering this from? I'm saying in order for either the individual or a collection of individuals to establish peace both within themselves and amongst themselves they would need to strive to become more ignorant of how aware they are of themselves. More specifically, what is right or wrong in relation to themselves, and replace that instinctive worry, need, or fear for themselves with the fear, worry, need for everything else.

Had they passed by a fish out of water

This wouldn't have been a thing in Eden to begin with, presumably. I don't equate Eden as a literal place and all of these literally happened so this is irrelevant to begin with.

How do we get back our pre-fall selflessness if Adam and Eve didn't have it?

Did you even read my post?

Alright great.

So what do you mean by "these places" exactly?