Owfism

RE-WRITING ALL OF THIS! = For an Efficient Economy  =

[[File:Cybercom.png]] Efficiency in Production [[File:Cybercom.png]]
First off, to begin this section, lets talk about how poorly production is distributed across the world, and to be honest, that is because of bad economic planning that plagues most of the world countries.

Now, our current system of capitalism, while it likes to hail itself as an efficient and the best system out there, is actually not efficient and is by far not the best, as it is clear that it cannot manage to distribute resources equally, among everyone.

Instead, resources in capitalism only go to a few, at the disadvantage of others, which is why there are things like world hunger, despite the fact that we produce food that can feed 3 billion more people than we even have today.

Now, some may point to state socialism as an alternative, however, that is as inefficient, as it led up to bureaucracy, corruption and infighting, which is by far not an ideal thing to happen.

So, what is the solution to this massive problem that is keeping poverty and world hunger? That is cybersocialism. Digitalization and technology have been proven to make distribution, production and planning more efficient.

As such, this massive increase in efficiency, through computers (in the future, quantum computers) will allow for far better distribution of resources across the world, this will also reduce bureaucracy thus allowing actions to be conducted on time.

Now, how would planning be conducted? As said previously, it would be done through computers and it would not only seek efficient distribution but also equal distribution of goods, which means that there wouldn't be people left disadvantaged or behind, like in state socialism or capitalism.

Now, how would the planning be done? The planning would be done democratically, through democratic means it shall be determined what plan should be implemented out of a series of choices provided by the computers, all of them are to be preferably good.

How this would work is to be summed up in the next section:

[[File:E-Democracy.png]] Democratic Planning [[File:E-Democracy.png]]
As said in the previous section, the planning would be done democratically, however, how would the voting process for example be done for economic plans? Well, this we are gonna answer.

First off, there would be a council of 6 people, all of which are responsible for voting on the economic plans offered by the computers, those plans being offered in response to certain actions or whatever.

This would follow a model of E-Democracy, as the voting is done online, thus it isn't physical democracy like how we know it but rather e-democracy, because it is well, online.

So, now that we got those things out of the way, how would the democratic voting work? Well, the computers will first come up with multiple plans based on the given situation and its condition, and the council members will vote on what they personally believe to be the right solution.

The plan which wins the most votes, even if it is a plurality or majority, will be the plan that will be implemented in response to that said crisis, keep in mind, the plans would range from good to very good, why?

This is because computers have stronger "brain" power and can come up with good ideas more easily, thus making it almost impossible for there to be bad plans from them. However, it is not specified which plan is good or very good,

Because of the fact that the council members will naturally vote on the very good option, so by not specifying which is the best and which is the less good plan, it is merely left up to the council members own personal opinion and will.

= A Fair and Equal Society =

[[File:LuckEgalitarianism.png]] Equality of Luck [[File:LuckEgalitarianism.png]]
Now, this is a form of equality that is often not mentioned in society, that is equality of luck, now because of this, this form of equality is gonna need its own definition.

So what is luck egalitarianism? Luck egalitarianism is a view that the main fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck, such as being born with poor native endowments, having difficult family circumstances or suffering from accidents and illness.

Now, because of Owfist ideological nature, I believe in global luck egalitarianism, seeking to synthesize the principles of compensating people for undeserved bad luck with  cosmopolitan international theories.

As such, Owfism wants to end the notion that there are people who are worse off because of a condition that was not caused directly by the individual, it not being a fault of their own, and instead being a result of their unfortunately bad luck.

He believes that this equality is paramount as a person skills and abilities led to differential distributive justice incomes. This is unfair, why? Because one's own natural circumstances were not determined by themselves, but instead by a "natural lottery". As such, this must be made up for.

[[File:Social-ism.png]] Equality of Opportunity [[File:Social-ism.png]]
I also believe in equality of opportunity, believing that every person in society should have an equal right to have an opportunity and should not be excluded because of their social hierarchy.

As such, I naturally come to oppose oppressive hierarchical systems of Slavery, Apartheid and the Caste System, I believe that black people (or other previously oppressed races) should be brought back in society but not through affirmative action but through having the same equal opportunity, for them to be able to pursue the same jobs as other people do.

Now, this form of equality has come to be typically associated with the Third Way, and that is fair, as it has been used by them, especially by  Blairites in the United Kingdom.

However, I come to reject the Third Way, as I am well, a socialist and do not support  capitalism in its modern form, as it is itself an oppressive hierarchical system that does not even provide equal opportunity, let alone equality of outcome.

I believe that if people do not have equality of opportunity, they may never have  equality of luck, believing that equality of opportunity is a precursor to the eventual, final goal:  Luck egalitarianism.

In economical terms, these are the 2 most important forms of equality, however, there is a third form of equality that needs to happen:

[[File:Prog-u.png]] Societal Equality [[File:Prog-u.png]]
= A Fairer Society =

[[File:Merit.png]] Job Merit [[File:Merit.png]]
= Means of Production =

[[File:Cooperative_Capitalism.png]] Business Competition [[File:DistProg.png]]
= '''Solving Societal Problems =

[[File:Antwork.png]] The End of Work as we know it [[File:Antwork.png]]
= Technological Revival =

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Saving the Environment Through Technology [[File:Ectrans.png]]
= Liberty and Well-Being =

[[File:Humanismpix.png]] Humane Justice [[File:Humanismpix.png]]
= End of Religion =

[[File:MathTheo.png]] Secular Education [[File:MathTheo.png]]
= A United World =

[[File:Pac.png]] Doctrine of Peace [[File:Pac.png]]
=Philosophy= RE-WRITING ALL OF THIS!!!

[[File:Existentialism.png]] Existence and the Meaning of Life [[File:ExistPhenom.png]]
However, there are still some metaphysical questions that are still left unanswered, those are the questions of what is the meaning of our life, are you inherently constructed or rather "programmed" to have life have a meaning to a certain individual?

Now, there are many attempts at answering this question, as this is an important philosophical question that has been asked for quite the time in human history, with many takes ranging from the fact that there is actually a meaning to just there being no meaning at all.

Now, there is no inherent meaning to life, as life isn't a thing in it of itself, but rather is defined as a condition, one which thus separates animals and other living things from "dead matter".

In conclusion, this thus means that life just simply cannot have meaning, as it is merely a condition and not a thing with meaning, like a human. As such, it is blatantly wrong to say there is a meaning.

It is thus also wrong to say that there was a programmed meaning to life given to us by some sort of authority, whether it would be governmental or another form of authority figure.

With this, the meaning of life is basically a human construct, one which is made by the individual living that life, and it thus just sums up what he did across that life, which means that a meaning to your life is essentially, created by the individual, by living that life, whether it would be partying or studying or whatever.

According to Owfism, humans are born "blank", and over time in their own life begin to add meaning to their own life, through their own means, without requiring an higher authority to do so for themselves. As such, I come to believe in the quote "Existence precedes essence".

Now, let's take an analogy, let's say there is a baby, that baby has just been born. Technically speaking, he has done nothing, which means that he is of no essence. However, he as a baby, exists. Which means that he has existence. So yea, it is clear that existence is precursor to essence itself.

And that in life, the baby which will eventually be a kid, teenager then adult and so on will begin to gather more essence, by doing the things he would end up liking, whether it would be art, science etc.

In conclusion Owf is an existentialist, as it is the existentialist philosophy that believes in the idea that life, specifically, the meaning to that life is created by the human, without it being programmed by a higher being or authority, with that meaning being created by living and doing things in that life.

However, this section also makes mention about existence itself, now what is existence, how did we become an existing being? That is to be answered.

[[File:Absurd.png]] The Absurd [[File:Absurd_ears.png]]
Now, what is existence? Existence is the fact that we are here, in this reality and that we are living in this life. However, that isn't the main question here, the main question here is why do we exist? Why are here in this reality?

Well, the answer to that, is that we, well, do not know. The odds of us being born are staggering, scientifically, it is around 1 in 400 million. There is just no way we can know how we, ourselves, instead of some other guy won the race.

With this, we can conclude that our existence is absurd, as it was unlikely and it is also unknown as to how we were able to win the race for existence, and not let's say another sperm. But, what should we do with this realization?

There are many possibilities that we can resort as a result of the eventual realization that this is all just absurd, however, I will not touch every single one of them obviously, but only the main three ones, which are the most important.

The first one is the consideration of suicide, this is a resort that is to be taken by the people who just cannot handle the idea that their existence is absurd and that there is no meaning to life. Now, this may seem good on the surface, but...

As Albert Camus said: Suicide is a larger absurdity than not facing absurd, so, by "quitting" the absurd you do an even more absurd action than what life is, an absurd.

Now, the second solution proposed by Camus is a "leap of faith", now what is the leap of faith? The leap of faith is the assertion that there is more to the world than we think, such as a "god" which gives life purpose.

However, these first 2 solutions are, according to Camus philosophical suicide, this is because of the fact that these two ideas escape from rational behavior and thus rationality.

But, there is a final solution, that being embracing the Absurd, the absurd condition, to acknowledge the absurdity of seeking any inherent meaning to anyone's life but continuing to make your own personal meaning to life based on how you lived that life.

In conclusion, on metaphysics, I combine the principles of existentialism and  absurdism, believing that our existence in this world is absurd and that we can only make a meaning to life for ourselves, not bound up by any higher authority.

[[File:Monism.png]] On Mind and Body [[File:Solipsism.png]]
Now, we still haven't answered the metaphysical question on what is the mind and the body, or rather, do we have free will? Is everything determined? Now, this topic seems to be pretty separate from metaphysics itself, as it does not study the nature of the universe but rather the nature of the mind and body.

I know, there is a whole section to this called Ontology, which is a branch of metaphysics that concerns itself with the nature and relations of a being. However, I am just gonna include Ontology within metaphysics, and not make it it's own separate section like some others users here have done it.

Now, the first question that concerns us is the question of if the mind and body are connected or are they separate? Naturally, some people will affirm that the mind and body are separate, with this idea being called dualism and it has been advocated by not just users on here but also philosophical thinkers, not just western but also eastern.

However, believing that the mind and body are separate is just not true. Now, how can this be debunked? Well, let's take an analogy: Let's look at a statue. A statue has a body, as we can see, it has hands, it has feet, it has a torso, it has a head. It looks just like a human. However, a statue cannot walk, cannot jump, cannot talk etc.

However, the human can do all of those things that I have mentioned, why is that? That is, in my opinion, because of the mind. Without the mind, the necessary muscles to conduct said actions like walking, talking and jumping will not work, thus basically rendering them useless.

With this, we can conclude that a human can truly exist through the mind, thus we can conclude that the human is actually just a brain, with an added layer of organs, skin, blood streams and many other biological stuff.

As such, there is no way the mind and body are separate, as it is clear that without the mind, the body cannot work, it cannot do the actions it does right now, like jumping, walking, talking etc.

This belief, the belief that the body and mind are not separate is called monism. Monism is a metaphysical (and theological) view that all is one. As such, it affirms that the mind and body are one, and cannot be separate.

Now, does that mean that we don't have free will? Are we determined? Do we have no individuality? Now, that is wrong. As said, we are actually just a mind controlling body parts to do certain actions. The actions we do in the mind are actions that we, the mind, aka us, have decided, it wasn't decided by external forces.

Now some people point to the existence of god as a rejection of free will, however, it can really be spinned against the existence of god, as since we have free will to control our body with the wantings of us, the mind, we ourselves choose to do this. God is all-knowing (the most common form of God), and thus if we suddenly no longer want pizza and want pie, god wouldn't had known that, he would had known we wanted pizza. As such, God is not all-knowing, thus taking down a property of the omni-god.

In conclusion, my ontology comes to support the ideas that humans indeed have free will and that we, the human, is merely just the mind (the brain) that is protected by a layer of skin, organs and other things that are not the brain, and we, the brain, control the actions of those said things, with this, the body and mind are not separate, supporting the ideas of  monism.

[[File:Rene_Descartes_.png]] Reason and Sensing [[File:Clib.png]]
Now, in epistemology, there is an important debate that has been going on for hundreds of years and that is the debate between rationalism and empiricism. With the main rationalist being Cartes, and the main empiricist being Locke.

Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on experience and sensing.

Now, a main term used by empiricists, more specifically by John Locke, is the idea that our mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa), with it saying that individuals are born without built-in mental content, and that all knowledge comes from experience and perception.

While yes, at first, it may seem like this is accurate, for example if we can touch, smell, taste, see and hear a thing then it must be real, the tabula rasa must be the correct way we gather knowledge, right? However, there are conditions in which our typical senses (touching, tasting, seeing, hearing and smelling) are to fail us. There are many examples of this type of thing happening, whether it would be water being hot even if we set it at a mid-temperature because we were out in the cold etc.

However, we are going to use our own analogy. Let's say it's spring and you are outside. Your senses notice that, despite it being 20 degrees Celsius, that it feels mild or sometimes even sort of cold. However, if you go outside during the summer and outside is that exact same temperature, your senses notice that it is hot.

Your own senses are also subject to placebo effects, for example, people who believe in homeopathy (medicine from natural stuff like plants and water) say that they felt better after taking it, but that is merely the senses tricking you through the placebo effect, by believing that thing makes you better, it made you feel better, even when it shouldn't have had you otherwise not believed it.

Meanwhile, when those same homeopathy dudes, who assume regular medicine does not cure them and they were given regular medicine, they did not feel better, even though it should have. Yet again, thanks to the placebo effect.

Now, what is the alternative to these faults of empiricism? The solution is thus a very simple one.

Now, what is it? That solution is Rationalism, rationalism seeks to account for the faults that typical sensing has by applying the mind into the mix, and not just the 5 main senses of the body.

Through sensing, you would conclude for example that it was colder on the spring day and hotter on the summer day however through reason and knowledge you would come to conclude that it was equally as hot (in weather) on those days.

Owfism believes that people should disbelieve everything they heard or perceived, believing it to be untrustworthy or purposefully said as a lie in order to trick the person, with tricks like these not being realized that were wrong in years.

As such, Owfism believes that we should disbelieve local things, believing that local doubts should exist.

However, I am not a solipsist, why? Well, solipsism affirms that everyone else doesn't exist, and only you exist. However, you will believe that you think therefore you are the only person that exists, however, another person, who holds this same belief believes that only they exist, and you don't exist. Yet through Solipsism only you exists. So who only exists? You or the other person?

I believe that the human is actually just the mind, and if you use that mind to think (through reason and knowledge) then you exist, but if you only rely on senses, you actually just don't exist as an independent person, as you're bound to by the feelings of other people or objects.

[[File:Kant.png]] World Understanding [[File:Kant-icon.png]]
So, what can we conclude from empiricism and  rationalism? Well, the things that we can conclude as that while our senses on the surface may seem good, in reality they have some flaws, that can be accounted for through reason and knowledge.

So, through this we can say that there are 3 main ways we can thus understand the world around us, those 3 things are Intuition, Reason and Understanding. Now, what are all of these three things and how are they useful?

First off, let's mention intuition. Immanuel Kant states that intuition is the sensory impressions given to us by the objects around us, for example, us touching a flower would activate the sense of touch, while bringing it to your nose would activate your smell.

So basically, intuition is the sensory part of our understanding, or rather, the empiricist part of our understanding of the world around us. That is the conclusion that we can draw from intuition.

Now, let's move on to reason. As said by Kant, reason is the logical destinations we are to get to from these sensory impressions, for example, your senses will feel something, however, it is only through reason you can conclude that it is a for example white flower.

And finally, Understanding allows us to comprehend things without having to infer them from intuition (or the sensory impressions that were given off).

Intuition (sensing) is useful as it allows us to know how an object smells/tastes and looks like. Reason is useful because it allows to know what that object is and finally Understanding is useful because it shows we have improved, because

As such, I come to believe that all of these 3 elements are equally important, however, one shouldn't be used more than the other.

However, Kant would affirm that there are 2 worlds, the phenomena and numina, that's where his transcendental idealism comes from, however, as a  monist, I believe that we live and can only live in one universe  (even if I believe there are other universes), (that is unless we somehow become an inter-universe civilization, although that would be very unlikely as we would have to resort to building things that somehow match the laws of physics of another universe.)

[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]] Hegelian Dialectics [[File:IdealismPhil.png]]
Now, what are my beliefs when it comes to system of logic, or rather systems of dialectic? Well, personally, I believe in the idea of Hegelian Dialectics. Now, how does it work?

Now, like other dialectic methods it relies on contradictory processes between two opposing sides, sides which do not like each other.

Hegelian Dialectics utilizes a formula of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. However, while these are the most common terms used to describe his formula, it actually was abstract-negative-concrete. However, we are going to use thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula, we are to describe the formula then each one of them first.

The first thing that comes is the thesis, followed by a reaction, that being the antithesis and finally by the synthesis, which is, as the definition of synthesis says, the compromise emerged from the thesis and antithesis, agreed to by the people who made the thesis and antithesis.

Now what are the definitions of each one of them? Let's start with thesis. A thesis is a statement put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved (from Google), an antithesis is a statement put forward against the thesis (the statement put forward as a premise) and the synthesis, which is the combination of both statements in order to form a connected whole.

Now, does this dialectic apply to any examples? Well, yes, and it actually has connections to Hegelianism.

Let's look at Capitalism-Marxism-Fascism. Capitalism is the first of the three to have emerged, thus, is it to be considered the thesis. Then, Marxism came in, as a reaction to the emergence of capitalism, thus it is considered the antithesis. Then, Fascism emerged.

How is fascism the synthesis in this dialectical case? Well, Benito Mussolini himself was a socialist before creating Fascism, however, when he was head of Fascist Italy, he opposed communism. However, he also opposed capitalism. Essentially, Fascism acts as a synthesis between the ideas of Capitalism and Marxism.

There are many more examples that can be used to justify the notion of Hegelian dialectics, however, we are just gonna stop here for now and go on to the next section, that being sociology.

[[File:Indlibsoc.png]] Wildeian Individualism [[File:Indiv.png]]
Now, we move on to sociology, and on sociological matters, I personally believe in individualism, it is being independent or self-reliant in life. We all know what that means. Opposite to it is Collectivism, that being giving a group of people priority rather than an individual.

Naturally, most would assume that capitalism is  individualistic and that  socialism is  collectivist, heck even some Socialists say that they're collectivists, even  socialist anarchists  call themselves that.

So, how the hell can Socialism be considered individualistic? Well, to do that, we can look at the philosophy of Oscar Wilde. Now, Oscar Wilde was an Irish socialist poet (who sadly died very young and who may have had a potential).

Oscar Wilde says that progress in thought is the assertion of individualism against authority, who only supports the status quo and does not want new change unless it is forced to or convinced to implement that change.

Wilde also acknowledges that being art itself is the most intense mode of individualism the world has ever known, thus acknowledging that art is the best way of expressing yourself's individuality and individualism in the world.

However, to being an artist doesn't mean to just paint, an artist is one who believes in himself and absolutely in himself, because he is absolutely himself.

However, Capitalism has proven to not be a system where men can prove that they are themselves, as it does not allow them to express themselves through the best form of being yourself, that being art.

Why? It is because people to work, work inevitably steals time from humans to pursue what they want best. As such, work must be made voluntary and only done by those who seek it, if they believe that it is what makes them be themselves.

As such, I believe in a socialist society where  work is voluntary and is not forced upon by the system. Why should mandatorily do the work, us an imperfect, feelingful being do the work that a perfect, feelingless machine can do quicker and better than we can ever do?

Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty. (- Google)

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Solarpunk [[File:Aneco.png]]
Now, we have established what is aesthetics in it of itself, however, what are my beliefs when it comes to aesthetics? What is actually beautiful? Well, that one thing that summarizes the aesthetical beliefs is Solarpunk.

Now, naturally as a human being, you are to lay the question, what is Solarpunk? Now, this will be explained in this section.

Solarpunk is a science fiction (sci-fi), literary subgenre and art movement that paints a vision of how a futuristic society might look like if humanity succeeds in solving major contemporary challenges that face us.

Now, what are those challenges? Those challenges are the challenges of inequality, climate change, poverty and many others that currently face us in this world. Solarpunk seeks to create a society in which all of these issues are solved.

How? Well it emphasizes positive psychology, thus rejecting the notion of pessimism. Solarpunk technically uses some more low-tech ways of living like gardening, permaculture, regenerative design, open-source technology and so on.

However, I reject its eco-anarchist form, as I am not really an anarchist but rather support a Solarpunk which synthesizes  Eudaimonia,  Libertarian Market Socialism and also  Eco-Socialism into main aesthetic.

And, Solarpunk can also utilize even some high-tech stuff, like, in a personal way, I would support nuclear fusion to be the main source of energy in an eco-friendly solarpunk society, however, I would also support a 100% renewable-based energy grid.

I would also support a negative-emissions economy, and that will obviously require carbon capture technology, not just natural carbon offsets but also man-made carbon offsets, believing that through investment this technology can become more efficient and also cheaper.

Good video (I recommend): What is Solarpunk? by Saint Andrew

=Personality=

MBTI
INTP (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving)

Enneagram
5w6

=Relations (Self-Inserts)=

Friends
Yoda8soup Thought (//) - Surprisingly, we are actually pretty similar, on economics, we both support market socialism and georgism. De-central computer planning is an interesting concept, socially, we are pretty much the same, however, you should be more libertarian. Civically, we are the same, except for defensive democracy, I don't like that. Although, you should be more internationalist. TLDR: Pretty similar, with some minor differences. (//) - Not bad! Especially on economics and a bit on social policy, we are actually in agreement, however you need to be more progressive and more internationalist, otherwise, not bad, as said before. Mattism (//) - Not a bad ideology, we are pretty similar, the only difference we have is that you're too protectionist for me and are also in favor of defensive democracy, you are also more economically moderate but other than that, you are a good ideology.

Celfloskyism (//) - Pretty nice ideology, and it clearly seems you want not just equality but also freedom for the Chinese people, although I don't really like the ideas of Irredentism, your cycle democracy is not really something I like. You support virtue ethics and existentialism, although I am not that utilitarian though. Otherwise, pretty good!

AshleyHereism (//) - Yo, this is actually based for an anarchist, existentialism and absurdism are very based! Oscar Wilde is also based! I don't agree with Diogenes, but he was savage and independent, and I like that. It's nice how you support some Stoicism. Overall, you're mostly an anarchist version of me, which is pretty interesting.

Uzarashvilism (//) - Economics wise, you are pretty similar to me, as we both believe in a socialist market economy, and the fact that we both believe that the Nordics are just (for now) the countries with the best economic model (or rather, least evil) in the world. Not bad, however, our difference comes in social and international issues, first off, you are too conservative, you can at least be more progressive by supporting SJW-Lite. Also on international issues, you can still be a globalist and oppose "economic globalization" (like me). So yea, too isolationist. But yea, pretty good overall.

Frenemies
Post-Councilism (//) - I hate vanguard centralism, and I am just generally not really into Communism in general, nor do I agree with Zizek, although you're quite literate in political/philosophical theory, which I admire. I wish to have said more but sadly I am not that literate in the beliefs you have so...

HelloThere314ism (//) - Your beliefs are not really beliefs that I tend to agree with, and also, on some parts, your page is unfinished so I don't really know how to rate you, but it is clear you know theory, so that's nice.

Ultroneism (//) - You are the most literate user on here on basically anything, now that's something, however, my opinions on your ideolo- I mean philosophy. In rest, my ideology disagrees with your ideologies on many things or I am just too illiterate on some things to give a proper opinion.

BasedManism (//) - I am just gonna beyond the ideas of based and cringe and just put you in frenemies tier definitely not because of the fact I am too lazy to read your page right now although I don't know, your page doesn't seem to mention ethics for example, only seems like it mentions metaphysics and logic. So, I can't completely judge your philosophical beliefs, so yea, you go here. Also come on at least I have some influence from Kant in epistemology

Neo-Kiraism (//) - Oh god what is this, this just feels like an SJW Commie in the flesh that right-wingers keep talking about, bruh why do you even sympathize with Juche, they're not even Marxist or progressive. Although, Absurdism and existentialism do bump you up into here though.

Enemies
=Figures=

S
Mikhail Gorbachev - You are the best Soviet leader ever, you tried to not just fix your stagnating economic situation caused by low oil prices and the war in Afghanistan (the soviet  Vietnam) but also increase political freedoms. Hot take, but you are probably the most socialist Soviet leader out there, even if you were the most pro-market since Lenin himself. I hate how hardliners, who helped orchestrate the fall of the USSR themselves even under your rule put the blame on you for doing it. R.I.P

Oscar Wilde - Your form of individualism is generally pretty influential to my sociology and good job on proving that socialism is not inherently collectivist, like how some other ideologies try to put it. You balance the best aspects of Socialism and Individualism, and for that, I am proud.

Elizabeth II - I know, I am a republican and do not support the system of monarchism, but there is no denying that Elizabeth II was a brilliant Queen, who set the idea of what constitutional monarchy actually is meant to be. Things are just different without the Queen. Yes, you tend to be apolitical, but that doesn't put you away from S tier. R.I.P

Marcus Aurelius - The stoic virtues are pretty good virtues that people are ought to have, also pretty based on the fact that you managed to dedicate to philosophy while still being Emperor. You also resembled stability during Rome, which is good, especially since the Antonine Plague brought so many deaths.

Stephen Hawking - The multiverse theory is a pretty good theory about the universe although it's pretty dumb how you said philosophy was dead when that is literally a philosophical belief and thus the existence of other universes, and yes, we need to go to space otherwise we may become extinct because of climate change, disease or overcrowding.

B
Joe Biden - B for Biden! Jokes aside, at first, it really seemed like a C tier President who barely got anything done and could barely form comprehensive sentences but now you are rolling man, Take down those MAGA Republicans! Save democracy! Still, you ain't getting more than B tier.

Rene Descartes - Your epistemology is so based, you figured out that we really cannot trust our senses and that we must thus use reason to know whether things are true or false. Outside of that, not too good, your politics are terrible, your ethics are good but very undeveloped, mind-body dualism is terrible, so yea, you're in B tier, although quite close to C tier.

Immanuel Kant - Yes, that is indeed how we understand the world, through intuition, reason and understanding. Without them, we are nothing. Reason is the most important. However, your racism is bad and also your metaphysics and ethics are not really ideas I agree with.

C
Barack Obama - I don't know, it seems like your presidency could had been better, but this is based on your actions not words, so... First off, It's nice how you rescued the American economy and set in regulations (albeit too few) against Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank Act, I hate how you handled the Snowden leaks and also you kept the PATRIOT Act... You also bailed out big banks which I don't like. The Cuban thaw was also a pretty good idea. Your withdrawal from Iraq was nice and your administration saw the death of Bin Laden, although, you should had left  Gaddafi alone. ACA could had been better though, well, it was better than nothing.

D
Nikita Khrushchev - It's nice how you tried sort of liberalizing the USSR after the death of him and all but that's mostly where your accomplishments stop, as under your administration you re-instituted  State Atheism, crack-downed on  worker co-operatives and toppled  Imre Nagy. D tier is your tier.

F
Klaus Schwab - I really wish you die, although, it is funny how people think the Great Reset is just some new corporate shit that seeks to oppress us, yes, it is very much oppressive, but the thing is this is just combining California and  Hong Kong and then sprinkling it some  eco-capitalism and bugs. Still, this doesn't make your Great Reset shit better. I hope the WEF and the Great Reset die along with you.

Leonid Brezhnev - First off, your intervention in the Prague Uprising and your declaration of war against  Afghanistan not only are pure examples of  soviet imperialism but the Afghanistan war literally ended up being a failure and literally caused economic stagnation, the collapse of the USSR itself and the rise of jihad terrorism because of US funding to fight Soviet forces. You know you belong in F tier.

Joseph Stalin - You are not a socialist but simply put just a totalitarian, who put literally anyone who opposed him to jail, you are also a pure, self-declared machiavellian, in a bad way. I could go on but finally... The only good thing you ever did was beat Hitler, although it is to be noted it wouldn't have been done with Western support and vice versa.

George W. Bush - I would just like to say, fuck you. The PATRIOT Act, absolutely fucking terrible. Standardized testing, absolutely fucking terrible. Afghanistan War: Eh, probably a right idea to take revenge on those who caused 9/11 but the US just overstayed 10 years and also the whole nation building crap was stupid. Iraq War: An absolute fucking mess. And to top of it all off, the Great Recession. You truly are a scum. You took away American freedoms and privacy and also wasted money on silly wars and tax cuts on the rich which ballooned the national debt.

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : INTP

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Announcement

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I need an ideology image (you know, like this: [[File:OwfBall.png]]) but one which actually encompasses my ideological beliefs. The ideologies that would be part of it are to be Geolibertarianism and Libertarian Market Socialism. (Can include 2 other ideologies in the combination, of your personal preference, must be ideologies Owf adheres to)
 * - [[File:Owff.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Thank you!

Comment
Owfism - Deleted old comments

Implianium - Add me

- Add me? :)

- Hi, I re-added you. Would you mind adding my ideology again?

- Readd me please.

- Btw, the geolibertarian market socialism page was my very old self insert, idc about it anymore so you can revamp it if you want, kinda like what Aaron did with Bleeding Heart Geolibertarian Market Socialism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Wow, I actually didn't know that, I just saw the page and just saw how accurate it was to my ideology, so I just adopted that. Yea, I could maybe revamp it.
 * - Also, could you please add me?


 * - Add me?


 * - Add Please.


 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - add me?


 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]]Uzarashvilism - Yo there, add me?


 * - Re-add me fellow Wilde enjoyer.


 * - Monism isn't the principle that mind and body are united in each "individual" human. It is the principle that all of reality is one thing, that there is no body or mind but rather these are modes or aspects of the one thing, as such you and I and every other human are actually one "object" or thing and thus we do not have bodies, but rather each seemingly individual body is actually just a "limb" or part of the whole.


 * - Could I use text of your ideology to my policies?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes you very much can.


 * - "Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on belief or emotional response." WHAT? - Rationalism is the principle that knowledge derives from reasoning, as such logical reasoning. While Empiricism is the epistemological belief that sensory experience such as scientific observation is the source of knowledge - it has nothing to do with belief, emotion, or opinions. What utter dribble, as if Descartes didn't also utilise empirical arguments and Locke didn't use rationalist principles.


 * - Gorbachev is based [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Indeed [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me lol