The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom) header
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom) profile picture

An aspiring Afro-existentialist; an atheist, a poet, a feminist ally, a son, and a lover ⛧⃝𓄃 Part-time hobby: Analytic Philosophy of Religion.

philosophy library
Joined August 2025
Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)Photo by The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 (@dStoolofWisdom)
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! ❤️🐦‍🔥
This user is graduating today 🥳💭
9
9
1
121
21,199
With enough motivation, humans are qualitatively capable of doing good things. In fact, just because doing something different has an agreeable thrill is enough. Besides, the Bible is filled with very controversial actions which would explain the projection of the will of men.
“Religion was invented to control people.” You really think men invented a religion that tells them to love their enemies, forgive those who hurt them, and pray for those who persecute them? 🤔
52
“Hard times” “Isolation” “Coping mechanism” “Undefeated” Una never enter am before and he show gan.
isolation. call it unhealthy if you want, but it remains the most undefeated coping mechanism.
2
72
“Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men's dreams”
Never bury your loved ones in a cemetery. Many who know how spirituality works will understand.
9
240
You are indeed a madman for eating up that story like vomit.
They called me a madman.
3
72
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
149
1,661
232
11,544
180,917
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
Yeah, philosophy in 2026 is all about LGBTQ: Logic Grounding Bayesianism Truthmakers Qualia
19
36
6
418
8,757
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.
7
8
6
21
3,354
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.
Nature has never been observed to produce information or functional order. Only intelligence has. Since we find information and functional order in Life, the best explanation is that it was designed by intelligence.
37
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!
37
262
8
3,677
69,677
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.
1
11
164
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.
20
394
You should take a logic class. Please. Please. I'm begging you. Please.
The same people who have terrorized and colonized the entire planet, the same people who took Africans away as slaves for four hundred years, are saying china is a dictatorship.
59
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?
Atheist when you ask them to morally condemn slavery (With an atheists moral criteria there’s nothing wrong with slavery in its purest sense)
1
4
140
Okay. There's nothing wrong with slavery and I want to own slaves. What now? Huh? Being all defensive is self-sabotage.
1
19
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
188
194
99
1,969
456,605
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 retweeted
🐞🐞🐞
222
542
88
8,766
89,916
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.
2
3
189
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?
1
47
Would those parables have lost their moral significance if they had not been so casually connected to the prevalent ideological barbarism of Jesus's day? This is not a gotcha question; it is a sincere one.
37