Pinned Tweet
B.A Philosophy
Best graduating student in the department of philosophy, with a total CGPA of 4.48
Second best graduating student in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities.
I am a proud graduate of philosophy! ❤️🐦🔥
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
homem de ambições intelectuais descobre que ele não é um gênio incompreendido, mas sim um sujeito mediano que desenvolveu vocabulário suficiente para tornar a própria mediocridade menos evidente
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
Yeah, philosophy in 2026 is all about LGBTQ:
Logic
Grounding
Bayesianism
Truthmakers
Qualia
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
I just found this movie about Hypatia .. I never knew there was a movie about her.
Hypatia is one of the most famous female philosopher, mathematician and scientist in history… when Christianity started to gain power and influence in the Roman Empire they started targeting people like her who Favour science over faith …
In March 415AD , Hypatia was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians and monks .. led by a church leader called Peter.
This is for ignoramuses who lie that Christianity spread peacefully in the Roman Empire.
Whenever we locate order or intelligence in nature, especially if and when it is different from the ones we immediately understand as artefacts, we must logically locate that order elsewhere. We need not assume a priori that the order is self-explanatory.
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
Replying to @Ariszn12
I'll tell you a little story of why. There was actually a country where its leaders had a beautiful dream in which they would ditch capitalism and everyone in society would share resources and be equal. This grand, amazing and inspiring egalitarian revolution became known as "Year Zero."
What this meant in practice is that many of the businessmen, professionals, intellectuals from the city - highly suspicious folk, as they had much more than others you see, so they had to be dealt with first - were sent to rural fields where they would work the land and contribute through labour to the great project of total equality. Turns out that growing crops that way is highly inefficient so many of them were worked to death, or else starved to death. Anyone that objected was often simply shot on the spot. Because if you are truly serious about everyone being equal, well, sadly you have to eliminate those greedy bastards trying to sabotage the grand utopia. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs!
Now here is the interesting part: If any of these starving workers happened to come upon a piece fruit that had fallen on the ground, they were NOT to eat it, under penalty of death. For if they did, they would have more than others. This is the sad sacrifice people had to make so everyone would be equal. In the capital of this country, the leaders of this glorious system were in the meantime stuffing themselves with five course meals of fine cuisine every day. They all got fat from eating so much. When you are leader, the concept of equality becomes a bit more flexible.
The name of this country is Cambodia, and in the 1970s with the goal of ditching capitalism and making everyone equal the Khmer Rouge ended up killing 2.5 million people. There is a place in Cambodia where you can go and they will show a tree - and that's the tree where soldiers would take babies from the arms of screaming mothers and bash their brains in front of them.
Lest you think this was a solitary experiment that simply went wrong, far from it. Forced collectivisation has been attempted repeatedly, from the Soviet Union to Maoist China and elsewhere, and the recurring pattern has been consistent: economic failure, brutal coercion and extreme human suffering. All that varies is the scale of the destitution, brutality and mass death.
Difficult to know what the greater tragedy is: the millions and millions of people already killed in the pursuit of these utopian experiments, or that there are still people that can't be bothered to read a history book (or else studiously ignore their screamingly obvious lessons) and are determined to repeat the awful experiment again and again. Hey, it's only 100 million dead so far, maybe next time we'll get it right!
I'm not an expert on macroeconomics, but seeing various opinions on Twitter NG, I think a good portion of Nigerians do not understand how things work at all. They take a naive, commonsense view and argue based on emotion and bandwagon.
I hate reading tweets from philosophy illiterates, man.
Most atheists today sound exactly like Richard Dawkins:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction... a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty... bully."
Wait.
You just said He doesn't exist?
How can someone who doesn't exist be a bully? How can an imaginary being be unjust?
You're angry at someone you claim is fiction?
That's not atheism. That's a grudge.
That quote is not an argument, it's an insult. And it steals from God to condemn God.
You can't borrow God's morality to argue morality.
I don't know why this gets to atheists. Why should I morally condemn slavery (even though I do in fact condemn it)? Why do you think I can't, for the sake of argument, just agree with you that slavery is actually morally permissible, and watch you mumble all day?
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
I'll respond to this when I get an answer to this question:
How convenient is it that Jesus could repeatedly make parables, stories that are supposed to stimulate moral and eternal consciousness, from one of the most barbaric tendencies in man, without once condemning it?
Jesus didn’t come to be a localized political reformer for the first century; He came for all of mankind, across all eras. Sin is fundamentally a heart issue, the physical actions and societal manifestations are merely symptoms.
Why does a person exploit someone? Why do they rape, or marry a child, or enslave another human being? It all stems from a perverted, broken heart. It was not Christ’s job to draft an exhaustive, localized checklist disavowing every single vice of antiquity, but to violently address the root of the disease itself.
The right question we should be asking is: Can Jesus’ moral teaching indict every vice? And the answer is an emphatic YES.
Look at His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. He didn’t just repeat the law; He escalated it to absolute, terrifying heights. He told them, 'You have heard it said do not murder, but I tell you that harboring anger against your brother makes you guilty.' He said, 'You have heard do not commit adultery, but whoever looks at someone with lust has already committed it in his heart.' He bypassed the outward symptoms and condemned the internal rot.
Because His ethic targets the root, it flawlessly addresses the first century, and it addresses us today. We have modern sins that couldn’t have been imagined back then, yet we can use the exact same ethic of Jesus to indict them. Take the modern, multi-billion-dollar internet pornography industry, or the ruthless destruction of people's lives through online mob outrage. Neither existed in 30 AD. Yet Christ’s decree that commodifying a person with your eyes is adultery, and that harboring hatred or destroying a neighbor with your words is akin to murder, completely dismantles them both.
Why was there a need to use those exact scenarios and analogies, if Jesus was not passively at home with slavery as an act and as an institution? Why was the master-slave narrative used so conveniently, as if it were normal? Is this not surprising?
A critic could very much argue, and rightly so, that Jesus passively — and that this is enough to condemn him — encouraged slavery. Jesus did not explicitly condemn or call for the abolition of institutional slavery, and frequently used master-slave relationships as parables.
Jesus lived 600 years earlier in a far more unrefined era, yet He never owned a single slave. What is most startling about Christ is how He entirely bypassed the cultural traps of antiquity. He easily could have engaged in the socially permissible norms of His day that age horribly now; like marrying a minor, or owning and sexually exploiting slaves. But He didn’t. He lived with absolute moral perfection in a time when the ethical bar was on the floor, and His standard remains flawless today. He is God.
Moral perfection in this instance, especially as reported by the OP, would logically include, without exception, the rejection of slavery in all latent & obvious manifestations. He would have spoken about it, stood firmly against it, and his death would have been attributed to it
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
How could he have owned slaves when he was a pauper? He wasn't part of the elite! He was just an apocalyptic prophet who believed the(ir) world was ending soon. His lack of slaves wasn't necessarily due to a moral imperative but because he didn't have/need the means/motivation to keep slaves!
Jesus lived 600 years earlier in a far more unrefined era, yet He never owned a single slave. What is most startling about Christ is how He entirely bypassed the cultural traps of antiquity. He easily could have engaged in the socially permissible norms of His day that age horribly now; like marrying a minor, or owning and sexually exploiting slaves. But He didn’t. He lived with absolute moral perfection in a time when the ethical bar was on the floor, and His standard remains flawless today. He is God.





















