Despite heroes have an impact I dont think they change society

[Sustacel250]

For context. I let you know the software installed on my human brain.

I do not quote from authority when I say this. I say I take Hegel as "basically true". Its not authority quoting, I am simply saying he is true. The thing is the spirit of an age drive events and ideas win battles. In other words history unfolds and ideas start to matter. Ideas like for example "all humans deserve to pursue freedom". Now, if you take my perspective it doesnt matter if the french did it or it was americans. What matters is the idea happened and now is our software code.

I take it as a proof the idea exists, because it won in battles. At some point an idea was broad and general, but the process of unfolding of history makes it a software installed into every human brain.

Where I diverge from Hegel is that I dont think there is only 1 history, but there are more histories and more civilizations and there is no true end to 1 only history. I dont think there is a world spirit. I also think the only true destiny is geographical. But even geography can be transcended.

So with this intro you can now interpret my idea about heroes and saints. It was necessary to give the context to explain why I think heroes and saints dont matter.

I observed communism. I noticed communism demonstrated to be a failure. But among the various ideas of communists, some instead were proved absolutely true. One idea they proved is that individualism is impossible if you dont have access to material resources. I consider this idea definitely proved.
A second idea proved by communists is that mass consciousness is a cope and a lie. I consider this proved by the saint anarchists of the 900.

In a nutshell I think communism can fail. But it does not invalidates the insights. Instead some insights can be proved true despite the whole theory was a fiasco.

Observing that individualism cannot happen without material resources is a simple practical observation anyone can prove true. Autonomy basically isnt moral like american literature says. Autonomy instead is about constraints and choices. So communism theory proved true, I seen enough proof to consider this idea solid.

We done the experiments already, its time to draw conclusions. And another idea I consider true is mass consciousness is a cope and a lie. Collective narratives matter more than individual narratives. Direct action doesnt mean shit. No normie is inspired, no consciousness arises. This idea was already put to the test for 70 years in a row. And it created the phenomenon of communist doomerism. The idea is pretty much solid, persisting and attempting more rising consciousness movements is to be a fool who doesnt learns from history.

If you want to rehash a past idea or a past concept that failed, you need to justify it properly, for starting out you need to tell us why you are pursuing a dead idea proved fake by 100 years of testing. This is the bare minimum. To clarify, I am not saying is not worthy to make another experiment and all experiments are always valid. Im not ruling out ideas forever, Im saying you have to consider the past experiments.

Imagine it like with the dialog with flat earthers, they keep repeating old buried ideas and they memoryhole all the times scientists proved already the flat earth is a cope and a lie. If you want to put to the test, again, the idea the earth is a "spinning ball" feel free to do it I welcome you. But all I ask is for you to consider the past experiments.

Flat earthers keep recycling old ideas that already got disproved hundreds of times. So at this point its no longer a genuine form of researrch, because you sense the utter dishonesty in the flat earther. The flat earther has amnesia, he forgets events when it pleases him, he forgets experiments and forgets his history. But true experimentation isnt about "oh well fuck science lets try again endlessly". This is dogshit, its about standing on the shoulder of past giants and then try to understand what failed and next time you add the knowledge you gained to pursue another experiment.

Do I make myself clear? TLDR: ideas manifested in history, some failed some succeeded. Its always fair to question ideas and challenge failure, but all I ask is to consider results that were already achieved. I consider some ideas "basically true".

So I come to the saints after I explained why I think they perform a form of coping. Saints matter, i consider them artforms. I always admired them. Do they change society? Answer = no. Do saints make emerge a form of consciousness? answer = no. So why they matter? Because they are artforms and they model ideas and show what is the human potential, but they dont change society.