The Apothecary

Maxims and Reflections:

A simple list of collected thoughts. Most are not well thought out, but preserved for posterity.

• God is infinite and absolute (epistemologically improbable), so using God as a basis for anything is unfounded.
• The largest issue in life is not whether God exists or not but the conflict between yourself and dogma.
• If someone truly hated small talk they would start a deeper conversation. Not just get mad at others for small talk.
• If you want to compare any current society to Rome make sure the quality of the roads is the same first.
• Is the desire to be rational a rational decision? I think that it is an extra-rational decision, in that we emotionally desire to use reason to achieve some goal since reason is a tool.
• Everyone thinks "begging the question" is when someone says something that would bring up an obvious question, but you see that's not begging the question, that's in fact prompting the question. Begging the question involves circular arguments.
• Just like how a physicist would be confused by an electrician's work, though they both operate in physics, I don't need to understand all of philosophy. But I will try.
• It is easy to say "I'm not perfect". What is difficult is saying why I'm not perfect.
• The only way to deal with automation is through unemployment, combating one form of alienation with another.
• No one intentionally acts irrationally. They always see some goal ahead that they want to achieve and do what they can to achieve it. So even if someone acts irrationally, it in some distant way is still a rational action.
• The word Religion can be seen to be connected to religare or "to bind fast". Religion or religious beliefs restrict us from both acting and thinking in certain ways. We are always already formed in some sort of religious ideology, either positively or negatively. So we are already and forever bound in some way. It’s a matter in which you are truly invested. It’s because of this lack of a fundamental religion that we choose to bind ourselves.
• The radio doesn't play what they want you to hear, it plays what you want to hear back to you.
• Saying I'm smart or intelligent would not be a good way to describe me in my eyes, a better way would be to say that I'm clever.
• Predicating the first amendment on social media is a ridiculous claim that essentially says that those without access to a smartphone or the internet are without their inalienable rights. Anyone who believes this should support nationalizing the internet or the social media companies.
• John is an honest person’s name, that’s why I go by Jack.
• Always verbalize when someone is right because you know you will verbalize when they’re wrong.
• In order for someone to be individually free, they must realize self-ownership. In order for one person to then be outwardly free, all people must be free.
• I want to live forever as a spirit but still in this world, either that or go mad from reading and get lost in eternity in my imagination.
• I wonder if these writings are worthwhile. Are they are inspired by actual creative ingenuity or just an emotional deluge? I think the satisfaction I get looking back, and the feeling of creating a foundation with the collection makes their existence worthwhile.
• The reason why edgy humor is funny is the same reason we find anything funny, we see a contradiction in what we're told, and see that it's an intentional contradiction. There's an inherent recognition that what is said isn't making sense. This is why you can't truly believe in what you're saying and call it edgy humor, then you're just stating what you see as facts of the world, and that's not funny.
• Should we ethically consider the freedom of people to not be eaten by people? Yes, this is very clearly obvious. Should we consider the freedom of animals to not be eaten by people? Yes, I'll admit I'm morally reprehensible and lazy and that I should do more. Should we consider the freedom of animals to not be eaten by other animals? This is where things get ambiguous. If we say yes, how do we go about removing predation from animals in a way that won't remove all the other freedoms of animals? If no, then why? I can't give a good reason as to why we shouldn't give this consideration if we care about the other two. This means either that a) there must be something about eating animals that at some level is ok, or b) we actually have a different answer to one of the first two questions, or c) I'm missing something entirely.
• Progress is moving along a line, like a tadpole who was able to eat more bits of food one day as opposed to yesterday. Overcoming is moving to a stage where going back is no longer possible or desired, like the same tadpole growing legs. I value overcoming over progress.
• If the way to go about philosophy is to adhere to the one that makes the best arguments (ignoring the culture of picking a philosophy like a religion), then wouldn't the philosophy community at large have found 'the correct one' or at least a certain paradigm like with science? I think one of the reasons that this isn't the case is because of the emotional foundation of our logic. As such our psychological disposition and our lifestyle is the more important determining factor in finding the philosophy that will help us most in our lives.
• Work is an activity of life, but there is more to life than work.
• I reject external authority and seek self-realization through the rejection of traditional values and beliefs and the understanding of the underlying laws of the universe. In this way, I promote a form of individualism guided by self-discovery and self-creation.
• Skepticism is the schoolteacher who possesses minds and says: “You shall not believe for you do not know!” I instead choose to believe or disbelieve what I wish, for belief is what makes the validity. If one were trapped on a cliff and forced to make a jump they haven’t made before, skepticism would ring its bells and keep them trapped. I will make the jump instead.
• I don't think all this business about room-temp superconductors is gonna mean much. We've had high temperature super conductors for a long time (high temperature being liquid nitrogen which is a relatively cheap $0.15 per liter and runs at like ~70 K iirc), but we don't use them (and instead use liquid helium which is $3.25 to $15.00 per liter which runs at ~4 K) because high temperature super conductors are akin to ceramics which have the properties of bricks. It's really hard to make wires out of bricks. Even if you can make them into a run, they tend to crack. Everything I've seen from this seems to point to it being a ceramic as well. That's why all the big applications (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, and the Large Hadron Collider for example) use liquid helium cooled super conductors.
• No rational belief can be arrived to rationally (i.e. purely by laws, such as logical, since they're always incomplete) and not only are they incomplete, they're prescriptive, so they can't describe reality accurately.