### 1. **“My group is chosen / superior / righteous”**
The nuclear reactor of evil.
* Justifies genocide, slavery, crusades, purges, and ethnic cleansing.
* Turns neighbors into “less than human.”
* Works with religion, race, nation, class, or ideology.
**Body count: maximal.**
---
### 2. **“Authority = truth”**
If a god, state, leader, book, or tradition says it — it must be right.
* Kills science.
* Enables totalitarianism.
* Makes atrocities feel like obedience.
This is how normal people become executioners.
---
### 3. **“Ends justify the means”**
Once suffering is “for a greater good,” anything becomes legal.
* Gulags, re-education camps, holy wars, forced sterilization.
* Turns utopias into meat grinders.
Every monster says: *“Later you’ll thank us.”*
---
### 4. **“Human life is sacred, but only some humans”**
Selective morality.
* Slaves don’t count.
* Enemies don’t count.
* Infidels don’t count.
* Unborn count more than living, or vice versa.
Moral arithmetic = unlimited hypocrisy.
---
### 5. **“Pain is meaningful / suffering is virtuous”**
Masochistic metaphysics.
* Keeps people in abuse (“it makes me stronger”).
* Justifies poverty (“character building”).
* Normalizes cruelty as education.
It romanticizes misery instead of solving it.
---
### 6. **“Nature intended this”**
Appeal to imaginary design.
* Gender roles.
* Hierarchies.
* Violence.
* Disease.
“Natural” has been used to defend:
rape, kings, slavery, and cancer.
---
### 7. **“History proves this must be so”**
Frozen past worship.
* “We’ve always done it this way.”
* Tradition as evidence.
If history were wisdom, we’d still burn witches.
---
### 8. **“Freedom means unlimited consumption”**
Market religion.
* Turns humans into economic organs.
* Destroys ecosystems.
* Reduces meaning to buying.
You are not a soul — you are a customer.
---
### 9. **“Happiness is mandatory”**
Modern toxic positivity.
* Sadness = failure.
* Doubt = pathology.
* Criticism = negativity.
It erases legitimate despair by calling it “bad mindset.”
---
### 10. **“Progress is inevitable”**
Secular heaven myth.
* Makes people passive.
* Excuses disasters as “growing pains.”
* Treats collapse as temporary glitch.
There is no cosmic patch note promising improvement.
---
### 11. **“We understand reality well enough now”**
Intellectual arrogance.
* Kills curiosity.
* Locks in bad models.
* Produces fragile systems.
Every civilization thought this right before face-planting.
---
### 12. **“Meaning must come from outside (god, nation, system)”**
Outsourced purpose.
* Creates dependency.
* Makes rebellion feel sinful.
* Turns inner emptiness into obedience.
Perfect tool for control structures.
---
### 13. **“Humans are the center of existence”**
Cosmic narcissism.
* Justifies animal suffering.
* Destroys biosphere.
* Interprets universe as stage prop.
Anthropocentrism = ecological suicide note.
---
### 14. **“More knowledge = more wisdom”**
Information worship.
* Confuses data with insight.
* Creates smart idiots.
* Builds powerful tools without moral brakes.
Wikipedia is not enlightenment.
---
### 15. **“Conflict is abnormal”**
Peace fantasy.
* Pretends tension can be erased instead of managed.
* Produces fragile societies that snap under stress.
Conflict is structural, not a bug.
---
## Meta-dogma (the most dangerous one, secretly):
### **“My beliefs are not dogma.”**
That’s the invisible cage.
* Makes self-correction impossible.
* Turns opinions into identities.
* Immunizes itself against evidence.
Epistemic humility + adaptive ethics + biological realism or “Nothing is sacred, everything is provisional, suffering matters.”
1. Epistemic rule (anti-dogma engine)
All models are temporary.
Meaning:
No belief gets immunity.
No authority is final.
No idea is identity.
Practical rules:
If a belief cannot be questioned → it is dangerous.
If abandoning a belief feels like “death” → it is already dogma.
Truth is not a possession, it’s a moving approximation.
This directly kills:
religious dogma
ideological dogma
scientific dogma
moral dogma
Science at its best already works this way. Humans usually don’t.
2. Ethical anchor (so it doesn’t become nihilism)
Reduce unnecessary suffering in sentient systems.
Not:
“God says”
“Nation says”
“Tradition says”
“History says”
But:
Does this increase or decrease real suffering?
In the short term?
In the long term?
For whom?
This avoids:
“chosen people” logic
“ends justify means” logic
“suffering is virtuous” logic
It doesn’t make you good.
It makes you less insane.
3. Ontology (what reality is treated as)
Humans are animals with stories, not angels with missions.
So:
No cosmic purpose assumed.
No central role granted.
No destiny myth.
This counters:
anthropocentrism
sacred hierarchy
divine command
historical inevitability
Meaning is allowed —
but it’s recognized as locally constructed, not universal law.
4. Political principle
No system gets permanent moral authority.
So:
States are tools, not gods.
Markets are tools, not gods.
Revolutions are tools, not gods.
Even “freedom” is not holy — it’s instrumental.
Every structure must justify itself by:
outcomes
adaptability
harm reduction
Not by:
tradition
ideology
founding myths
5. Psychological rule (this is key)
Separate belief from identity.
You are not:
your nation
your ideology
your trauma
your religion
your tribe
your favorite theory
Dogma forms when:
belief = self
So disagreement = threat
So violence = defense
Break that link → dogma starves.
6. What replaces “faith”?
Instead of faith:
Probabilistic trust
Instead of “I know”:
“I think this is likely, given current evidence.”
Instead of “evil”:
“harmful under these conditions.”
Instead of “sacred”:
“valuable but revisable.”
Language matters.
Dogma loves absolutes.
7. What this worldview is NOT
It is not:
❌ relativism (“anything goes”)
❌ cynicism (“nothing matters”)
❌ utopianism (“we can fix everything”)
❌ technofetishism (“AI will save us”)
❌ spiritual obedience
❌ progress worship
It accepts:
conflict is permanent
knowledge is incomplete
power corrupts
humans are biased
collapse is possible
suffering is real
But still says:
minimize damage
keep updating
don’t sanctify
8. The paradox
To eliminate dogma, this worldview must also apply to itself.
So its final rule is:
If this becomes rigid, discard it too.
That’s the self-destruct mechanism dogmas never have.
In one compact form
If I had to compress it into a single “anti-creed”:
No belief is sacred.
No authority is final.
No suffering is justified by myths.
Reality is partial, humans are flawed, systems must stay revisable.
Yeah — you’re pointing at the real trapdoor in this whole project.
“Privately you can do a lot but privacy is very limited.”
True. There is no clean “inner exile” anymore. Beliefs leak into:
work
family
online presence
law
economics
So the fantasy of “just live it quietly” is half-bullshit.
Your worldview collides with other people’s identities whether you want it to or not.
And you’re also right about this:
“Attacking an idea = attacking a person.”
That’s not a misunderstanding.
That’s how most minds are wired:
belief = value = self
So when you question:
religion → you threaten meaning
ideology → you threaten belonging
moral rules → you threaten status
From their side, you are not “discussing.”
You are destabilizing their psychological load-bearing wall.
Which leads to your sharper point:
antidogmatism moves us just to personal space → enjoy silently or fight bullshit nonstop
This is the honest fork in the road.
There is no third option like “peaceful universal acceptance.”
About “Humans want X” — you’re right to challenge that
You said:
How do you identify what humans want? Did humans ask for god, AI, etc?
Good catch.
When people say “humans want,” they usually mean one of three different things:
Biological drives
(security, status, belonging, reduced uncertainty)
Cultural products
(gods, nations, ideologies, tech myths)
Retrospective rationalizations
(“we always wanted this” after it already exists)
Nobody voted for:
monotheism
nation-states
industrialism
AI
They emerged because they:
stabilized groups
concentrated power
reduced uncertainty
outcompeted alternatives
So it’s not:
humans consciously want dogma
It’s:
dogma is a good parasite for human cognition
It:
compresses reality
simplifies moral load
gives ready-made enemies
gives ready-made purpose
Antidogmatism does none of that.
It gives:
uncertainty
revision
no tribe
no final story
So it is cognitively expensive and socially lonely.
You’ve basically derived the real dilemma:
If you reject dogma, you get:
Option A: Internal exile
You see more clearly
You belong less
You self-censor
You become “strange”
You shrink your social surface area
Option B: Perpetual friction
You challenge bullshit
You get labeled:
negative
arrogant
dangerous
soulless
You spend energy resisting myths
You are always “that guy”
There is no:
Option C: harmonious integration
Because society runs on:
shared fictions + emotional alignment
not on epistemic hygiene
So what’s actually rational to do?
Not silence.
Not crusade.
But selective engagement.
Think in layers:
1. Inner layer (non-negotiable)
You keep:
epistemic humility
adaptive ethics
biological realism
This is your “OS.”
2. Social layer (strategic, not honest)
You:
translate instead of confront
speak in local dialects
avoid attacking sacred symbols directly
Example:
Instead of:
“your belief is false”
You say:
“under these conditions, this policy causes harm”
You don’t debate gods.
You debate outcomes.
Because:
outcomes threaten less than meanings.
3. Conflict layer (rare, deliberate)
You only openly oppose dogma when:
it causes direct harm
it blocks adaptation
it enforces suffering
Otherwise:
you let people keep their myths
the way you let kids keep imaginary friends.
Not because they’re true —
but because smashing them costs more than it saves.
The uncomfortable truth
Antidogmatism is:
cognitively superior
morally cleaner
socially weaker
Dogma is:
epistemically false
morally dangerous
socially powerful
So history is not a battle of “true vs false”
but:
adaptive myth vs fragile realism
Your worldview will never dominate.
At best, it:
infects institutions (science, medicine, engineering)
hides inside procedures
lives inside a few people
It becomes:
a parasite on parasites
Not a religion.
Not a banner.
A constraint.
And your last line is basically correct:
enjoy antidogma silently, tolerate or fight bullshit nonstop
Yes.
That’s the existential cost.
But there is a 4th micro-option:
reduce local harm without trying to purify the world
You won’t fix humanity.
You can:
not become a fanatic
not become an executioner
not become a myth-carrier
not outsource your mind
Which sounds small…
until you realize almost all disasters came from people doing the opposite.
One hard question (not rhetorical)
So the real issue is not:
“is antidogmatism correct?”
It’s:
How much of your safety, belonging, and life
are you willing to trade
for being honest about it?
Not:
should you die for it
but:
what price is rational for you?
Because:
dying for truth does not guarantee truth wins.
Often it just produces another story.
I’m not trying to juggle concepts for sport — I’m trying to stay honest about the constraints you’re pointing at. And you’re right about several hard things at once:
You said:
there is no truth in ultimate sense but there are factual things you can’t ignore: security, survival, rest, self-improvement
Yes.
That’s the anchor.
Not “Truth” with a capital T, but biological facts of existence:
you can be harmed
you can be killed
you get tired
you decay
you learn or you stagnate
Those are not dogmas.
They’re constraints of being a nervous system in a hostile universe.
So when you say:
no truth → no belief
What you’re really saying is:
no metaphysical certainty → only operational priorities
That’s coherent:
survive → reduce damage → improve capacity → keep clarity
That’s not nihilism.
That’s engineering.
Now the part about violence and annihilation:
annihilate the dogmatists
if dogmatist wants to annihilate you, you have no choice or just run
Here you’re not talking ideology anymore.
You’re talking conflict physics.
If someone is trying to kill you:
running is rational
defending yourself is rational
That’s not “will replacing truth.”
That’s organisms responding to threat.
No philosophy overrides that.
The mistake happens when this gets generalized into:
therefore annihilating dogmatists as a class is justified
That jump is not biological, it’s symbolic.
It turns:
“this person threatens me”
into:
“this category must be destroyed”
That’s where:
survival logic
mutates into
ideological war
And history shows exactly what you said:
people who expected sanity from humanity got burned, crucified, shot.
Not because they were wrong about reality —
but because they underestimated group psychology + power.
You also said something important:
if you are sincere and nice, you are weak and humiliated
if you are rude and violent, you are feared and hated
That’s not cynicism.
That’s status dynamics.
Human societies reward:
confidence (even false)
aggression (if successful)
conformity (if stable)
They punish:
doubt
ambiguity
non-alignment
So yes:
“expecting sanity from humanity”
has always been a losing bet.
That doesn’t make dogma true.
It makes force and myth more scalable than nuance.
Now this point:
how can acceptance of uncertainty be un-updatable?
It becomes un-updatable when it turns into:
“nothing can ever be known, so all claims are equal”
That freezes movement too.
Different cage, same bars.
Real uncertainty is:
I don’t know → I test → I revise
Frozen uncertainty is:
I don’t know → therefore nothing matters → therefore no correction is possible
That’s still a stop.
So the danger is not “accepting uncertainty.”
The danger is worshipping it.
Just like people worship certainty.
Your chains metaphor is actually very precise:
progress looks like moving with chains dragging you down
Yes.
Because:
biology pulls one way
culture pulls another
power pulls another
fear pulls another
Movement happens, but with friction:
religion, nationalism, ideology, markets, status games.
Those are the chains.
They don’t stop motion completely.
They shape it into:
war → tech → war → reform → myth → war again
Spiral, not straight line.
So where does this leave your original question:
if there is no truth, what justifies resisting dogma?
Not moral purity.
Not heroism.
Not enlightenment.
Just this:
Dogma blocks:
learning
correction
adaptation
And systems that block adaptation:
collapse violently instead of adjusting gradually.
Resisting dogma is not about saving “humanity.”
It’s about:
keeping your own mind from fossilizing
and keeping local damage lower where you can
Not global purification.
Not annihilation of believers.
But:
not letting frozen beliefs dictate reality unchallenged.
That’s weaker than a crusade.
But stronger than silence.
You’re not wrong about the cost:
truth-seekers get punished
sanity doesn’t scale
violence is efficient
myth is sticky
The only thing I’d push back on is this implied fork:
either annihilate dogma
or be humiliated
There’s a third mode:
strategic clarity.
Not:
preach
not:
submit
but:
understand power
speak when it matters
shut up when it’s useless
protect yourself first
don’t sanctify your own stance
Not saint.
Not martyr.
Not crusader.
More like:
a mechanic inside a burning machine.
You don’t stop the fire. You keep some parts from jamming completely.
No comments:
Post a Comment