This post is a textbook lesson in lack of self-awareness and shirking the self-examined life and accountability, while attempting to feign self-examination and accountability. Let's do a little psychological breakdown of some of your statements.
1.) "I am a philosopher." ... "I’m the kind of person who constantly self-reflects and adjusts in order to improve." ... "I have three sides: the warrior, the jester, and the sage." ... "my goal is to show people the error of their ways not by ranting at them like I did as a drill instructor but by helping them understand like a sage."
-- This is pure self-important ego pumping and a form of attempted postured authority. A true philosopher rarely, if ever, has to claim he is a philosopher. A true philosopher is generally defined by their *active engagement* with wisdom and truth seeking rather than the assertion of a title or talking about how much they *like* truth seeking. Historically and practically, the distinction lies in the shift from identifying as a "sage" (one who knows) to a "philosopher" (one who loves and seeks wisdom). Constantly labeling yourself a "philosopher" or "sage" is the opposite of what a philosopher would do. Continually telling people you are a philosopher is pretentious and self-aggrandizing because it implies that you believe you have a special level of wisdom that the very definition of philosophy (loving wisdom, not necessarily possessing) seeks to avoid. Meanwhile you speak as if all others are beneath you and YOU must show them the "errors of their ways." You would be wise to consider Socrates: "I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."
2.) "I gave people what they wanted to hear about their enemies while avoiding what they needed to hear about themselves." ... "This is not what I signed up for. And the saddest part is that their followers enabled it because they didn’t want to be challenged." ... "And what is good about trying to fit in with people if you have to be someone you’re not for their sake?" ... "my goal is to show people the error of their ways" ... "Most people are not malicious, just misinformed. Not evil, just ignorant." ... "I gave into the crowd when I should have never done so."
-- These statements are a psychological mess. For one, it is a massive shirking of accountability by blaming all of your previous behavior/words on anyone but yourself. Look what you're saying: It's "the people" that made you do it. You only did it because it's "what THEY wanted to hear." It wasn't you, it was the FOLLOWERS who "enabled it," because those silly ignoramuses "didn't want to be challenged." You only did it "for THEIR sake." It's that silly audience who just don't know any better because they are "just misinformed. Not evil, just ignorant." It was THEIR fault and you only "gave into the crowd." Way to take absolutely ZERO ownership. This psychological tactic is called Externalization of Agency. By claiming you only acted "radically" because that’s "what people wanted," you are stripping yourself of personal responsibility and placing the blame on others. A core tenet of most philosophical traditions—from Stoicism to Existentialism—is radical personal accountability. Blaming the "mob" or "audience" for one's own voluntary rants/words/behavior is, ironically, a very unphilosophical position. And you call yourself a philosopher. It's also just egregious audience gaslighting. And then, while doing this you have the audacity to assume that YOU are even remotely qualified to "show people the error of their ways" when you can't even properly acknowledge the error of your own ways. Instead, you abandon your values and engage in what's known as the Enlightened Pivot, where you use the *title* of "philosopher" as a shield. "Uh, you see, I was always *really* a philosopher, but you people didn't want it and weren't ready for it, so I gave you what YOU wanted." It frames your past volatility and words/behavior not as a lack of self-control or being unenlightened, but as an "experiment" or a "performance" you've now "evolved beyond." It’s an attempt to trade notoriety for authority, and those of us who are actual students of philosophy can see it a mile away.
"It is the act of an ill-educated person to cast blame on others when things are going badly for him." — Epictetus
"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. ... A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself ... but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. ” — Shams Tabrizi
And then the cherry on top of all this is that you blame the JQ movement. It was "the money" coming in that's ruining it. It's the "influencers" that are ruining it. It's the ignorant masses that are ruining it. Never mind its exponential growth and the sheer numbers of people noticing and awakening not seen in 70 years. No, that doesn't matter. It's all a BIG conspiracy now that Lucas isn't a "main guy" so you had to walk away. The translation here is that you viewed yourself as a big fish in a little pond, and liked it, but now that the little pond has become an ocean, you're realizing you're just another fish, so you're stomping your feet, taking your ball and going home to play "philosopher" and "sage." This is not a good look for you.
"To be a philosopher, that is to say, a lover of wisdom (for wisdom is nothing but truth), it is not enough for a man to love truth, in so far as it is compatible with his own interest ... so long as he rests content with this position, he is only a philautos, not a philosophos [a lover of self, not a lover of wisdom]." — Arthur Schopenhauer
As Archbishop Fulton J Sheen said, love the sinner, hate the sin(s)
It’s literally not the people it’s the movement that’s the problem. 💯
Memetic life form invasions or mind parasites are real. It’s like a life form
Let it be Lucas to make me finally setup my substack account fully
This post is a textbook lesson in lack of self-awareness and shirking the self-examined life and accountability, while attempting to feign self-examination and accountability. Let's do a little psychological breakdown of some of your statements.
1.) "I am a philosopher." ... "I’m the kind of person who constantly self-reflects and adjusts in order to improve." ... "I have three sides: the warrior, the jester, and the sage." ... "my goal is to show people the error of their ways not by ranting at them like I did as a drill instructor but by helping them understand like a sage."
-- This is pure self-important ego pumping and a form of attempted postured authority. A true philosopher rarely, if ever, has to claim he is a philosopher. A true philosopher is generally defined by their *active engagement* with wisdom and truth seeking rather than the assertion of a title or talking about how much they *like* truth seeking. Historically and practically, the distinction lies in the shift from identifying as a "sage" (one who knows) to a "philosopher" (one who loves and seeks wisdom). Constantly labeling yourself a "philosopher" or "sage" is the opposite of what a philosopher would do. Continually telling people you are a philosopher is pretentious and self-aggrandizing because it implies that you believe you have a special level of wisdom that the very definition of philosophy (loving wisdom, not necessarily possessing) seeks to avoid. Meanwhile you speak as if all others are beneath you and YOU must show them the "errors of their ways." You would be wise to consider Socrates: "I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."
2.) "I gave people what they wanted to hear about their enemies while avoiding what they needed to hear about themselves." ... "This is not what I signed up for. And the saddest part is that their followers enabled it because they didn’t want to be challenged." ... "And what is good about trying to fit in with people if you have to be someone you’re not for their sake?" ... "my goal is to show people the error of their ways" ... "Most people are not malicious, just misinformed. Not evil, just ignorant." ... "I gave into the crowd when I should have never done so."
-- These statements are a psychological mess. For one, it is a massive shirking of accountability by blaming all of your previous behavior/words on anyone but yourself. Look what you're saying: It's "the people" that made you do it. You only did it because it's "what THEY wanted to hear." It wasn't you, it was the FOLLOWERS who "enabled it," because those silly ignoramuses "didn't want to be challenged." You only did it "for THEIR sake." It's that silly audience who just don't know any better because they are "just misinformed. Not evil, just ignorant." It was THEIR fault and you only "gave into the crowd." Way to take absolutely ZERO ownership. This psychological tactic is called Externalization of Agency. By claiming you only acted "radically" because that’s "what people wanted," you are stripping yourself of personal responsibility and placing the blame on others. A core tenet of most philosophical traditions—from Stoicism to Existentialism—is radical personal accountability. Blaming the "mob" or "audience" for one's own voluntary rants/words/behavior is, ironically, a very unphilosophical position. And you call yourself a philosopher. It's also just egregious audience gaslighting. And then, while doing this you have the audacity to assume that YOU are even remotely qualified to "show people the error of their ways" when you can't even properly acknowledge the error of your own ways. Instead, you abandon your values and engage in what's known as the Enlightened Pivot, where you use the *title* of "philosopher" as a shield. "Uh, you see, I was always *really* a philosopher, but you people didn't want it and weren't ready for it, so I gave you what YOU wanted." It frames your past volatility and words/behavior not as a lack of self-control or being unenlightened, but as an "experiment" or a "performance" you've now "evolved beyond." It’s an attempt to trade notoriety for authority, and those of us who are actual students of philosophy can see it a mile away.
"It is the act of an ill-educated person to cast blame on others when things are going badly for him." — Epictetus
"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. ... A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself ... but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. ” — Shams Tabrizi
And then the cherry on top of all this is that you blame the JQ movement. It was "the money" coming in that's ruining it. It's the "influencers" that are ruining it. It's the ignorant masses that are ruining it. Never mind its exponential growth and the sheer numbers of people noticing and awakening not seen in 70 years. No, that doesn't matter. It's all a BIG conspiracy now that Lucas isn't a "main guy" so you had to walk away. The translation here is that you viewed yourself as a big fish in a little pond, and liked it, but now that the little pond has become an ocean, you're realizing you're just another fish, so you're stomping your feet, taking your ball and going home to play "philosopher" and "sage." This is not a good look for you.
"To be a philosopher, that is to say, a lover of wisdom (for wisdom is nothing but truth), it is not enough for a man to love truth, in so far as it is compatible with his own interest ... so long as he rests content with this position, he is only a philautos, not a philosophos [a lover of self, not a lover of wisdom]." — Arthur Schopenhauer