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.

If AI cannot give rational answers to questions that interest me, then it reveals something about AI: it conditions people not to ask interesting questions. The claim that one can ask AI ‘the wrong questions’ proves that some people are already, perhaps inherently, a mere conduit of anything that appears to have authority, without any creative power over meaning. This, I argued elsewhere, is the lowest degree of existence, on par with the unconscious forces of nature.

The concept of “misinformation” is inherently ideological; a secular term for Heresy. Read all about it: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/what-is-sense

“I perceive a tree over there” does not have the same sense as “there is a tree over there”. Perceptions are not truth apt because you can never be wrong about ‘what you perceive’, but only about what is there, which is beyond perception. We never advance from perception to truth; we may only expand our sphere of sense by integrating what we perceive as being there with what we think others perceive as being there, with the sense of perceiving and of being there. A statement “there is a tree over there“ is then only something that either makes sense or does not in the broader context of sense, and could be more precisely expressed as “it makes sense that there is a tree over there”. Prefacing that expression with “it is true that…” does not add anything to its sense, but may only take away from it.

Hollywood is the home of L.A.

All contingent meaning is grounded by consciousness. It does not make sense to ask whether ‘it is true’ that I am conscious; the sense of being conscious comes before the concept of truth. Nothing is added to the sense of ‘I am conscious’ by prefacing it with ‘it is true’, and nothing is taken away from the sense of being conscious by declaring it ‘false’.

You are not a body, but the capacity to use a body to mediate consciousness comes with the liability of feeling its pain.

The primary issue with AI is not what it can do, but the admission implied by anyone wanting AI to exist. It implies the desire not to reason, therefore a renunciation of rational consciousness and the associated moral status. This is of course only a formality at this stage, because the same admission was historically implied in many other ways.

The primary cause of institutional corruption is the ability of ‘officials’ to hide behind the institutional identity, which allows them to perpetrate institutional corruption and fulfil unethical orders with impunity. If they are doing nothing wrong they have no reason to hide their personal identity. Moreover, there is no right to anonymity if a person asserts authority over others. When dealing with officials we must first verify their identity and make them understand that they are always personally liable for any harm caused on behalf of their institution.

“Before we can proceed I need to verify your identity. Please state your name… now DOB… now your residential address… now please SMS me the photos of both sides of your driver’s licence, and then I will call you back to proceed with your enquiry.”

People can’t afford the houses that can be profitably built, and this proves that the housing crisis is not supply driven but policy driven. Housing market was designed to be prohibitively expensive, and the lie of low supply is meant to avoid doing anything about the real causes: low interest rates and high compliance costs. https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/after-almost-collapsing-australias-biggest-builder-metricon-is-back-but-the-industry-issues-that-plagued-it-havent-vanished/news-story/af52d1a436316353116a1a645a01cae1

New housing supply is diminishing, because most people cannot afford to buy houses, any houses. There is no economic incentive for builders to build houses that cannot be sold profitably. The entire narrative of low housing supply is intended to cover up for the government policy of prohibitively expensive housing and make the situation even worse.

AI would not be useful for cheating on tests and assignments if their purpose were not just to confirm indoctrination with the official dogma, which requires suppression of genuine critical insights. Education amounts to programming students like robots.

“AI has merely exposed what has been apparent all along. Most school work is basically performative in nature and rarely asks for the kind of true “critical thinking” skills educators claim need to be preserved in the face of rampant AI use.”

https://edsource.org/2025/artificial-intelligence-isnt-ruining-education-its-exposing-whats-already-broken/733854

Humans get upset and impulsively defensive when their ideas of what is true or real or right is rejected or, worse, rigorously shown to be logically inconsistent and therefore meaningless, empty. Why is that? Why does it hurt? Because our ideas make up the overarching idea of the Self, and no matter how inconsistent it is, any challenge to the Self is an existential threat, a fear of nothingness. In order to become more conscious and less deterministic, a more integrated Self, we must accept creative self-annihilation. You are what you think, but what you think is not what you could be.

Is Justice a Virtue?

I argue that justice is not a virtue, that the statement ‘justice is virtue’ is a category mistake, and that the intentional pursuit of justice is a moral wrong.

‘Virtue’ purports to be a moral property of a person (such that it results in morally right intentions) or a moral aim of actions. Only intentional actions may be morally right or wrong. ‘Justice’ is not an action or a property of a person but a systemic, cumulative, intersubjective moral effect or consequence of right or wrong actions. Justice, being impersonal, cannot be virtue. One possible objection to this argument is that ‘justice is virtue’ insofar as it is morally right to aim for justice. I contend that this response must be rejected on the grounds of logical consistency.

If the moral law is objective and therefore morally binding, then any morally wrong or right actions must have objective consequences for the agents: the objective, normative force of the moral law necessitates justice. Justice is a necessary result of the moral law itself, or else there is no authoritative moral law but only subjective prejudices about right vs wrong, in which case the concept of justice has no objective sense or objective authority. The premise that ‘justice is virtue’ and ought to be pursued implicitly negates the authority/objectivity of the moral law and reduces morality to subjective prejudices about right vs wrong.

Consequently, if there is objective moral law then the pursuit of justice is morally wrong, a form of prejudice, a denial of natural justice; our moral responsibility is limited to our own actions. If there is no moral law then justice is not a virtue because there are no objective moral properties.

On the most charitable interpretation, ‘justice is virtue’ may be reduced to ‘do what is objectively right’, and as such adds nothing to moral calculus.

The argument that the end justifies the means is undermined by the fact that we never get to the end, because there is no end, and all you are left with are the evil means.