This might sound pedantic, but it isn't, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any "package"); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It's painful to remember how I felt when I realized it...

But I think the premises weren't entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

We don't know if evil is relative, but you can follow the dilemma with different wording.

We don't like our wellbeing and our ability to make our own decisions taken away from us. We suffer, which is something we want to avoid in general terms. It goes beyond humanity, as many animals also seem to seek the satisfaction of their will (being it playing, feeding, instinctively reproducing, etc.) and seem adverse to harm and to losing their life.

So... If we are such creatures, it's natural we don't like situations and beings that go against this. We don't like volcanic eruptions when they're happening with us close the crater. We don't like lions or bears attacking us. We especially don't like other humans harming us as we suspect they could have done otherwise in many cases. We simply don't like these things because of our 'programming' or 'design'.

Problem? There are a few. The first is God asks us to like him when he's admitting that he is actively doing the things we dislike almost universally as human beings. That makes us fall into internal conflict and also into conceptual dilemmas. Perhaps due to our limitations, but nonetheless real and unsolvable to us.

Then you can argue that the way we are is designed by him, so why design something that is going to live, feel, think certain things as undesirable and then impose such things unto them? Let's say I cannot say that's evil, I at least can say it's impractical as it will certainly cause trouble to his mission of accepting him (and following him). If that obstacle for us is part of the plan, that's not for me to say, yet it is an obstacle in our view and experience. In human terms, all this might be classified as unfair or sadistic*, which is the reasoning in the guide and how you can follow it in this perhaps closer way.

Now, about this last part, while we can argue that *those terms arise from our own dispositions and might be different to other dispositions (aliens that do not experience pain, for example), is that enough to invalidate our perspective? Then what's the place of empathy, which I am assuming is also a part of God's gifts to us? What's the place of compassion, as written in many religious texts of supposedly divine inspiration? If we need to carry our dispreference, displeasure, dislikeness—suffering—and not to classify it as necessarily evil when the gods impose it to us (as it is our judgment only), then why classify it as evil in other circumstances?

I hope I am getting my new point though. What this all seems to conclude is that if the lack of respect for the suffering of the animal kingdom is not worthy of being classified as bad (for whatever reason, here I argued that because this comes to be only by our characteristics/disposition); if, therefore, we cannot say a god is evil for going against our wellbeing and against our ability to make our own decisions, then I fail to understand many other things that tend to follow religious thinking and even moral thinking.

That would fall under the "then God is not good/not all loving". You described it as if it were a privilege, but the capacity of evil causes indescribable suffering to us and to innocent beings such as small children and animals. If God lets all of this happen just because he wants some replicas of himself or because he thinks it is such a gift to be like him despite it, he's an egotistical god.

Also, if he gets bored of pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection, then it was never pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection for him. Those things, by definition, provide eternal satisfaction. So he either never created that (evil branch again) or he cannot achieve those states even if we wanted to. If he cannot achieve those states even if he wanted to, if he lacks enjoyment and entertainment and has to spice his creation from time to time, then he's not all powerful.

Also, many people argue the necessity of evil as a requisite for freedom. If God needs to allow evil so we can be free, then he's bound to that rule (and/or others): not all powerful.

So... is our broken non-native English an advantage now (because one can tell we are real people)? Nice.

And we know what one specific viewpoint we're talking about.

Dang it! I'm always out of the loop.

You're thinking of April Jesus. This is December Jesus.

I mean, this is still being studied...

The thing is there are negative aspects in NPD and ASPD, and those can be overcome, so support for these disorders does not mean celebrating but guiding toward remission.

I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it's way more nuanced but I'm not writing an essay on Lemmy.

In general Western philosophies always have a "goal."

I know you said it was a broad stroke, and that in general is that way, but I kind of disagree still. I think Western philosophy is about finding if we have a purpose and what is it, and many philosophers since Greek antiquity to today have answered they are skeptic of it existing or it being able to be known. From Pyrrho of Elis and Hegesias of Cyrene to Arthur Schopenhauer and Slavoj Žižek.

The word we are looking for is teleology (not to be confused with theology). It refers to finality, that there is a goal. Many philosophers did not subscribe to a teolology.

Your human life is to prove your worthiness.

Same thing as before.

You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.

I agree a little more with this, there are many Western philosophers preoccupied with ethics. But that's why I think they were talking of different dimensions. It was not that existentially you should roam the past or future, that your mental activity should be there. It was about being responsible in the now for the future, and to be held accountable for your past. It was a morality thing, not a conscious/existential thing.

In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you're eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there's no future there is only tacos.

Hey! Go away with that mindful nonsense. If I do that, I spend too much time with a single bite and I cannot eat as much (/s).

I don't know how to post images, but Google "Dinosaur Liberty Security" or "Dinosaur Freedom Security" and that's what came to my mind.

SMITE isn't a shooter, though. Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch and left an empty space. I don't see a problem if two games (or more) try to fill it. I hope they are fun.

That said, it shouldn't be Valve's only focus if fans are expecting different games from them.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about "natural philosophers" (today's scientists) not deserving to be called "philosophers".

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[...]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I'd heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It's funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I've read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It's even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being "half-mad", and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.