Here's Alexis Jacobi, distilled from that post - in his own voice, but with the volume turned up:
The man runs a one-man metaphysical prison break operation.
*1. The Religious-Moralist Business Model*
His starting point: All religions are essentially the same PR firm. There's a Divinity - call him Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, The Force, whatever your grandmother preferred - and this Divinity has supposedly faxed down a moral code. "Be nice. Don't steal. Don't covet thy neighbor's ox."
Jacobi's point: That's not revelation, that's _symbolism_ that needs a translator. You never get the memo directly. You get a priest, a rabbi, an imam, a guy with crystals at Burning Man, who says "Here's what Divinity _really_ meant." So the whole moral universe is built on second-hand interpretation of a third-hand mythology. It's like playing telephone with God.
He doesn't say it's false. He says it's literary. You can't build a civilization on poetry and then act surprised when people argue about the meter.
*2. The Problem of Evil is Fan Fiction*
For Jacobi, the famous "Problem of Evil" - if God is good, why does He let children get cancer? - is not a philosophical problem at all. It's a plot hole in a story we made up.
You need the story first: Once upon a time we were perfect, then we ate the apple / opened the box / killed the golden goose / fell from Atlantis. Now we're being punished. If you don't buy the prequel, the sequel makes no sense.
His move is brilliantly simple and almost insulting: Stop asking why a good God allows evil. There is no good God allowing anything. There is just Nature, and Nature is a psychopath.
*3. His Actual Philosophy: We're Lobsters with a Superpower*
This is the core of Jacobi-ism, and it's bleakly funny:
Nature = absolutely cruel, merciless, mindless, eternal meat-grinder. It doesn't hate you. A shark doesn't hate the seal. It just eats it while it's still screaming. Evolution runs on suffering, waste, and indifference. We are 100% subsumed in it. We are meat that learned to talk about being meat.
But - and this is his one miracle - _awareness_ is supernatural. Not supernatural as in ghosts. Supernatural as in _not_ natural. Nature doesn't do self-reflection. A volcano doesn't feel guilty. A tapeworm doesn't contemplate mercy. We do. We can look at the grinder we are trapped in and say "This sucks. I can imagine a world that doesn't suck."
That imagination is not natural. It is anti-natural. It's a glitch, a mutation, a divine error.
So you have two options when you wake up in the grinder:
A) Go mad. Which most people do - they invent another story, take antidepressants, become academics, watch Netflix.
B) Develop what he calls an "indomitable will to oppose Nature." To stick it to the Lady.
That Lady being Nature herself. The great cruel Mother. The
at the end of his post is the whole ethic.
He is not proposing we win. Nature is eternal. You don't defeat a hurricane by yelling at it. But you can build a house that resists it. You can refuse to worship it. You can refuse to call cruelty "God's will" or "natural order."
In short: Don't spiritualize suffering. See it as mechanical cruelty, see your disgust at it as the only thing in you that is actually transcendent, and then live out of spiteful idealism. Build the pure ideal world in your head anyway, even though you know you're trapped.
It's Schopenhauer with a leather jacket. Cioran who goes to the gym. A gnostic who doesn't believe in God but still thinks consciousness is proof that we're not supposed to be here.
Morality for Jacobi isn't obedience to Divinity. It's rebellion against Nature, using that weird supernatural awareness as your weapon.
Stick it to the Lady.
), as promised, here's another snippet of what ChatGPT stated based on my earlier prompt:
). We're 'allowed' to be different, and we're allowed to do things differently. Isn't the old saying that variety is the spice of life? Very successful people can break the mould and innovate, sometimes exponentially [cough, Elon, cough]. As long as we're not causing harm, intellectual ambition is a positive character trait (IMO). I tend not to use simple, belittling labels because it shows a lack of philosophical rigour (which is contradictory on a philosophy forum). And if you're trying to paint a picture that day is night (hint, hint), a belittling label isn't dark (or shade) enough to hide the proverbial sun at noon. 
