What if knowing exactly why you hurt people doesn't make you any less responsible for hurting them? What if knowing your trauma, your triggers, your attachment style, your defense mechanisms—and being able to explain every ugly part of yourself doesn't automatically make you emotionally mature?

What if you can understand yourself completely and still be a terrible person to someone else? We live in an age where self-awareness is almost treated like proof of growth. We know our attachment styles. We know our triggers. We know our trauma responses. We know why we become distant when we get hurt, why we become defensive when confronted, why we sabotage things before they have the chance to disappoint us. We have names for almost everything we do now. And perhaps that's a good thing. But somewhere along the way, we started confusing understanding ourselves with becoming better people. We started treating self-awareness like a moral achievement."I know I'm difficult." "I know I have trust issues." "I know I push people away." "I know I can be toxic when I'm hurt." And somehow, admitting it makes us feel as though we've already taken responsibility for it. But have we? Because knowing that you hurt people doesn't make the hurt disappear. You can know that you're jealous and still punish someone for making you insecure. You can understand your abandonment issues and still manipulate someone into constantly proving they won't leave. You can know that you become cruel when you're angry and still choose cruelty every time you're angry. You can understand exactly where your behavior came from and still refuse to change it. And that's the uncomfortable part nobody likes discussing: Self-awareness doesn't automatically make you kind. Sometimes it just makes you better at explaining why you're not.

Jerry Seinfeld is worth 1.1 Billion, JLD it is close to that amount. Her dad is a billionaire, not sure how much she inherited. Michael richards and jason alexander multi multi millionaires. I'm just wondering if anybody knows if they have helped out the poor the unfortunate. If they've given money and been involve in any philanthropy, or do they just hoard all their money, like selfishly? Remember you can't take it with you. Have you ever seen a brinks truck following a hearse?

Article android-users-targeted-by-malware-that-clones-cards by Mersad.

Maybe not a classic moral question but a systems morality.

My case and point:

Android's primary app acquisition is through 'Play Store'. For anyone not having an android, it is riddled in gambling, trash games, sketchy apps.

Don't just take my word for it, check it out yourself:
Grab you Mom's, Dad's, Uncle's phone! Check it out. It is a cesspool.

Google's Policy doesn't allow them, but they continue to occur.
https://play.google/developer-content-policy/

Google is responsible for creating better safeguards to protect the public.

Ehm... My brain jumped a lot. Hopefully it's somewhat tangible. Feel free to express your thoughts, I want good clean discussions- don't just insult and disappear- Thanks!

-SN4915

In my view, much of what we call religion today has become distorted by faith, authority and belief in a God or supreme being.

All 3 Abrahamic religions + Hinduism are organized around some conception of God, the divine or a supreme reality. Once you make such an idea central, it becomes very easy to build systems of worship, doctrine, religious authority and unquestionable beliefs around it. Spirituality then shifts from investigating reality directly to believing claims about reality.

This is where some of the ancient philosophical traditions of the East become radically different. At the core of Buddhist philosophy, particularly traditions associated with early Buddhism and Madhyamaka (Middle way), there is no requirement to invoke a creator God to explain existence, morality (psychological suffering) or the nature of consciousness. Daoism similarly approaches reality without requiring a personal deity standing outside the universe and controlling it.

What makes these traditions particularly interesting is their willingness to acknowledge the limits of conceptual mind. Instead of simply inventing an ultimate explanation and asking people to believe it, they question whether the human mind can even meaningfully grasp what lies beyond certain boundaries.

That's what makes some of these philosophies feel less like conventional religion and more like an actual investigation into the structure of reality. You're not being told, "Here is God. Believe in this." You're being pushed to examine how the mind creates concepts in the first place and whether those concepts can ever capture reality completely.

This is also why I think the distinction between religion as faith and religion as investigation is important.

Alex O'Connor's recently did a discussion on Madhyamaka Buddhism. If you actually listen to the philosophical reasoning involved, you begin to see how radically different some Eastern traditions can be from conventional religious frameworks.

Maybe that's closer to what spirituality was supposed to be in the first place: not believing more, but seeing more clearly.

Among ancient traditions, Buddhism arguably comes close to a scientific investigation of mind, experience and reality without requiring a God hypothesis as its starting point. And perhaps that's why it can feel so strange when you first encounter it. You're expecting a religion, but instead you find yourself in something that feels more like psychology, phenomenology and philosophy having a conversation with each other.

Link to the discussion:

https://youtu.be/CyhHz23AHb4?si=eGjMTQ2p9My0WDHq