If Earth were “flat” then all the oceans would still form a sphere around the centre-point of the flat ground: the centre of gravity. Moreover, all rivers would flow towards the centre too. The protruding edge of the flat ground would progressively erode and also merge with the watery sphere, and so a flat Earth would eventually become a sphere. The spherical shape of planets and stars is a consequence of gravity, which draws everything towards the centre of gravity, unless balanced by orbital motion, which prevents planets and stars from collapsing into one clump of mass.

We have the metaphysical capacity to choose suicide, kill the body and thus extinguish our metaphysical capacity for choice. We also have the capacity to choose metaphysical suicide, and thus extinguish our metaphysical capacity for choice without killing the body. A body without the capacity for choice is deterministic, a force of nature, driven by compulsion and habit like an animal driven by instinct, aware of the world but without agency, without a Self.

De-banking does not go far enough! It should not be limited just to targeted political dissenters. The world would be a better place if everyone were de-banked. We demand universal de-banking now:)

“Debanking refers to the practice of a bank declining to provide or withdrawing banking services from a customer or business. This can include closing accounts, restricting access, or refusing to provide services.”

The knowledge of logical fallacies is worthless unless you understand how the fundamental laws of sense are violated. Consequently, I advise any students of philosophy not to be distracted by these derivative forms (some of which are not true fallacies) but go directly to the principle: how does a statement violate the fundamental laws. Any fool can assert the name of a ‘fallacy’; very few philosophers can consistently demonstrate that a statement implies non-sense.

I argue that the ‘No True Scotsman’ is NOT a logical fallacy. No contradiction is implied by refining or clarifying the criteria of inclusion in a category.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his Porridge."

Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."

Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this canonical example, it is Person B who begs the question (presents a counter-definition of the category as a Premise and therefore violates sufficient reason, therefore contradiction, therefore fallacy).

The No True Scotsman is a logically valid definition, not even an argument.

NOTE: Angus is not declared as both included and excluded from the category Scotsman at the same time.

Why do you believe that those other bodies that speak and wave their hands at you are conscious agents? What would happen if you didn’t believe it, but only pretended that you do? This is a crucial question for morality, because immoral intentions amount to only pretending that those other bodies are conscious agents like you in order to cause a useful reaction.

The ruling power controls the narrative. Anything that is ‘mainstreamed’ is the voice of the ruling power, otherwise it would not be the ‘ruling power’.

I argue that there are no true premises apart from the fundamental laws of logic, the immovable pivot of all meaning; everything else is contingent, logically incomplete and merely asserted, assumed or proposed (just like there is no right way to slice an apple, there is no right way to define an apple). Truth is (at best) a meta-concept that most people naively reduce to existential particularity, which can be proven to imply contradiction: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-structure-of-knowledge

If the nature of consciousness is to do what is morally right (because this rightness is the structure of consciousness itself) but there are also moments when we make careless choices, random choices that unwittingly make us more or less conscious, causing a change in the structure of our conscious agency, and it is in our nature to reflect on how our decisions affect what we are, then the next time we face a moral choice we may no longer leave it to randomness but choose carefully, in effect figuring out the rules according to which we exist as conscious agents. On this view, we begin with the same nature, just on the threshold of reflexive consciousness, but passing through random forks we refine or degrade our nature, which in turn affects our capacity to choose on principle, and this change is the moral consequence of our apparent choices, and therefore our responsibility once the principle is figured out and accepted. We make it our responsibility, and this makes us conscious, or we deny this responsibility, submit to randomness, and thus destroy ourselves. If moral responsibility is our nature, we cannot claim that we are not morally responsible because we only do what we do as a consequence of our nature, for which we are not responsible.

At a deeper level of reflection there is another element that complicates the 'no moral responsibility because of our nature' argument: time. If time is a structural feature of consciousness and therefore of all meaning, therefore of all identity, therefore of all being, then it does not make sense to claim that we are 'ultimately' determined by anything. The nature of consciousness is undetermined because there is nothing else to determine it, only reflections within it.

At the fundamental level, consciousness is all there is.

Taking one useless researcher down for the team is a clever strategy to maintain the illusion that the institutions care about research integrity. This would never happen to someone fabricating data on behalf of Pfizer for a billion dollar drug, like vaccines;) https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/27/gino-tenure-revoked/

"Why would they lie?"

Because possessing the truth is a political advantage only if others do not possess it. Moreover, truth is univocal and agent-neutral, whereas different lies can be told to different people to use them in different ways that they would otherwise not agree to. Deception is the existential routine of exploitation.

People think that Anarchy would be hell on earth, where warlords fight for dominations and everyone who is not aligned with a warlord suffers abuse and exploitation. It does not occur to them that Government is just a local warlord who won and made deals with other warlords.

By positing the source of meaning outside of consciousness we already posit the outside as something meaningful, and so we are still inside consciousness. Our ideation of being can never step outside of consciousness because it is consciousness; we can only construct boundaries within it.

Voting is ‘allowed’ by the ruling power, not the other way around. Voting cannot defeat a warlord, only becoming a bigger warlord can, hence warlords love that people vote; it pacifies the masses. Most of those who desire power hard enough to win elections can be controlled, and those few who cannot, can always be outvoted in the Parliament. The balance of influence is always on the side of the ruling power, and it is good optics if there is some genuine dissent that can never win. It makes people feel well represented.

It is not logically possible to intentionally stop believing something that one currently believes, just Ike it is impossible to intentionally stop knowing what one already knows. We stop believing things only for reasons, and only when sufficient reasons occurs to us. In order to abandon a belief, something has to convince us that it ought to be abandoned. This does not imply that we must become convinced that the belief is false, but only that it is, in some crucial sense, wrong. This is why morality, political ideology and religious faith do not hinge on what is true or false but on what is right or wrong, and the type of arguments that seek to refute moral or ideological or religious convictions on the basis of truth/falsity commit a category mistake and therefore routinely fail.

A judgment/decision can be right or wrong but may be neither true nor false, because it is outside of the category ‘truth’, but still within the more fundamental category ‘sense’. This is especially the case when ‘truth’ is defined differently by different people, and these definitions being a matter of ideology. It is much more difficult to evade the category ‘sense’ than the category ‘truth’. ‘Sense’ dictates what is right, but ‘truth’ does not: the Is/Ought problem.

Let P=Consciousness, let Q=not-Consciousness. Anything that you can possibly identify is P, because thought, therefore meaning, therefore identity is P. To identify Q in P implies that P is not P, therefore Q implies P and not-P, therefore contradiction.

Surely they are not going to kill Greta, not for real.

People who are foolish enough to believe in the idea of “a just war” are foolish enough to believe in the idea of “healthy vaccines”. Both are a form of “natural selection”.

The function of healthcare is to restore health. When someone is healthy, any medical intervention is adverse to the healthy state. In case of contraception, it impairs healthy fertility. In case of vaccines it impairs the healthy function of the immune system. Both are inherently unhealthy by the medical standard of health.