420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
God should be VAC b& by Phoebe Siddleman - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208664 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152017
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
27 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:28:51 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209126
In fact, your assertion that "Just ensure your primary needs, and after that you can chase your deepest desires, work towards them" is a philosophical idea that you didn't come up with on your own, I guarantee it. That assertion is itself full of metaphysical content. nb
>>
David Sublingfield - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:22:42 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209127
What is there philosophical about "take care of your home, food and drink, then chase dreams"? It's just... a sensible easy way to live life? There's no search for fucking knowledge and deep logical thinking necessary needed to reach the concept that life is just about staying alive, and then doing what fulfils you.

Am I missing something here or are you like heavily religious or some shit? Because I don't really see your problem.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:42:46 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209130 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209129
There is everything philosophical about it. You are making a value claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink, you're making an ethical claim that what you 'ought' to do is take care of these things, you are implying a policy claim to understand what 'taking care of' such things entails, and you're making a metaphysical claim that dreams are worthwhile things to chase and that chasing them is somehow beneficial. Now

A.) you didn't come up with those ideas on your own, so its disingenuous for you to claim that you have no reason to ask other people about fundamental questions like 'what am I supposed to do?' The very concepts of 'home' and 'dreams' is something that you learned about in school or from society, not invented on your own.

B.) your very objection to my claim (you said no one says 'what am I supposed to do?' and therefore all metaphysical questions and answers are unnecessary) ignores the fact that what I said was an illustrative analogy and not to be taken literally. In order for you to manufacture the answer to that question ('just ensure your primary blah blah...') you had to ask *yourself* 'what am I supposed to do?' And to come up with that answer you had to reference metaphysical theories about value and build them up into a system of ethics, because the answer to that question is necessarily of the form 'you ought to do [blank]' and therefore you need philosophy, specifically metaphysics and ethics, to answer it, since science by definition can't supply those things.

What you are missing here is that you are invalidating an entire branch of human study because you seem to have a knee-jerk emotional bias towards it. Does that make sense to you now, broken down that basically, or are you going to find some new semantic sleight of hand?
>>
William Hebbletid - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:53:10 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209130
>alue claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink

No you fucking retard. That's not a value claim. That's simply a physical necessity of your biological existence. You need a safe clean place to sleep, clean yourself and expel waste for your health, and you need food and drink to continue your existence. There is nothing to discuss on those points, they are cold hard biological facts.
You can go say "yeah but let's discuss the value claim on food and drink and sleep, but that's fucking bullshit because without it you fucking die a horrible death.

You have got a point on the second one, but it's only a slight point. Following dreams does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
>>
Lydia Hecklekick - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:28 EST ID:bz58Upde No.209132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209131
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.

>>That's not a value claim.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!

If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others.…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Compassion by Alice Pimmledale - Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:54:41 EST ID:f7VKYGuq No.208552 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1512003281885.jpg -(157533B / 153.84KB, 780x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157533
Rejecting any and all forms of transgenderism is an act of compassion.

If a person announces they are going to kill themselves, the compassionate action is NOT to allow them to continue. The compassionate action is to prevent them and help them no longer humor that idea. The same for trans individuals. Hormones are a direct assault on one's genetics. That is a slow form a suicide.
Mental illness is to be treated and compassionately guided.
57 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Turveyridge - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:53:44 EST ID:oeDjsG+O No.209118 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1524056024767.gif -(881361B / 860.70KB, 2970x2483) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208552
>>208679
Don't mind me, just pouring some gasoline on this dumpster fire of a thread

Pissing in an ocean of /pss/ etc.
>>
Jenny Fazzlechore - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:27:33 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209119 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1524058053108.jpg -(14074B / 13.74KB, 502x294) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209118
The point of /pss/ is to discuss an idea yourself. Posting links or pic and saying "this says what I wanna say" isn't the same as saying it yourself. In fact it demonstrates on your part a complete failure to articulate an idea. If this idea of yours to dump "info you never articulated" on threads like this was valid, I could dump a whole google and dump a whole Wikipedia on your ass and tell you to read every single fucking word. So which is it?
>>
David Sublingfield - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:07:20 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209118
And another the future immigrant goes on ignore.
>>
Hamilton Turveyridge - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:16:03 EST ID:oeDjsG+O No.209124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209123
The only way you'd know that image is from that place is if you are from there yourself, you fucking the future immigrant cis-het normative bigoted shitlord

nb, ignored
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:23:33 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209118
As usual with infographics, there's some accurate information in their out of context or inappropriately framed, and some information which flat out doesn't say what it is claimed to say.
All of this, for the most part, is irrelevant. We have readily acknowledged that there are physiological differences between different human groups. What we reject is your leap from that fact to the idea that human society or thought should in any way entertain the notion of a social hierarchy based on this 'geneticist' worldview. Quite simply, even if it were a more severe situation (like if actual homo sapiens, neanderthals and denisovians were trying to live and interact in the modern world as distinct species) the nature of modern globalized society means we are dependent upon principles of egalitarianism and legal equality for our very survival.


COLLEGE by James Smallshaw - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:34:14 EST ID:YBVc1XtN No.209081 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523651654247.jpg -(642101B / 627.05KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 642101
The US is fucking its economy by putting students in debt to get useless educations.

I don't believe college is worthless, and I even think there's value in the arts and humanities. HOWEVER, at least 3/4 of the colleges in the US are bad or in low standing, so if you get anything other than a technical degree from those schools, it's literally useless.

For example, 8/24 colleges in Colorado have degrees of any value, and 20/84 colleges in Massachusetts are worthwhile.

The United States should only keep open the quarter of its schools that provide valuable degrees in the arts or humanities. The other 3/4 should be shut down, or converted to either technical or trade schools.
>>
James Smallshaw - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:43:06 EST ID:YBVc1XtN No.209082 Ignore Report Quick Reply
EDIT: I would actually move the number for MA up to 27
>>
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:18 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209122 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209081
yeah see german speaking regions there they found a solution, but the ppl in some sense are quite unfree. On the plus side, this system will allow for this "liberal" of self made men inovating shit


dont hurt me by Doris Dissleshaw - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:13:03 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209072 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523488383497.jpg -(8916B / 8.71KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8916
what is love?

I am kind of stuck with what I interpreted as a Nietzschean conception of Love. So basically in terms of determinate desire and full mutual power over the other.

Where am exploring right now but its hard to find anything is the phenomenology of love. What also would be interesting is a kind of history of love where one could see how malleable the conception is
>>
Wesley Muvinglodge - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:22:21 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209112 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have no clue what you're talking about (never thought about love from a philosophical sense) but I'm intrigued and would like to know more.
>>
Esther Cheddlestone - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:20:38 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.209113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what is emotion?

electrochemical responses to neuronal and hormonal stimuli? energy in the chakras? a little of both? going for things which can be tested scientifically, logically, or neither?
>>
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:03:13 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209120 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209113

Problem of intentionality might be revlevant here. Of course, if you wanna explore any thing you will have to start why the fudamnetals those are usually laid down by some metaphysical grounding. You cant say hormonal or neurological stimuli cuz that shit would merely be inductive

Lets take for example gazing at a girl, or when in love wanting to do everything for her giving yourself to her. Why does this happen with no to little thought. What is the connection between desire, "belief" and action? idk
>>
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:07:15 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209121 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209112
there so many way to approach that shit. When I said power over the other its kind of one determines the others identity and ditto. how this happens no clue.

Think anybody this deep into philosophy to answer such a question is either anti social, dilluted by self imposed philosophcial dogma or doesnt think its worth exploring cuz its derivable from implicit statments from other philosophers


Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric? by Albert Pickville - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:17:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209054 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523326658031.png -(249250B / 243.41KB, 500x491) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 249250
Can- can I just through this out here while I'm baked enough to do so.

Am I an asshole for getting legitimately intellectually pissed off when I see some fucking reductionist bullshit either in Political news or otherwise?

I ultimately understand that from a "ethical" standpoint I should let people believe "that which they wish to" but when it's so fucking stupid and either morally or factually too simplistic or out of context or talking cross purposes or using logical fallacies or literally any god dam thing any rational person can think of.

Am I WRONG for getting actually "annoyed" on an intellectual level, not a personal one? I've studied, I'm read, I'm in college, I've suffered the bullshit of academia, I've been in this since BEFORE 2016. So- am- am I wrong to be insulted?
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phyllis Decklebanks - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:55:13 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209056

Walking away is the worst you can do from a moral and ethical standpoint. Whatever bullshit somebody shits out there will always be a grain of truth in it which you can latch onto so that you do not simply go against what they say. There is a lot more to ppl speaking than what they explicitly say
>>
Phyllis Decklebanks - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:56:24 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209054
if you are so well read you should know by now ppl and the world around them
>>
Samuel Pisslebudge - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:29:39 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.209088 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209054

Were you ever gonna explain what's wrong with "reductionism" ??
>>
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:09:57 EST ID:KdSY7mf7 No.209103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209088
OP means 'sophistry' when he says 'reductionism.' He does explain what's wrong with sophists, which everyone should already know.
>>
Jack Nattingsutch - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:41:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209105 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209088
I did.

>>209103
Ish. Sophistry- as I understand it, implies that the argument is plausible. I have no issues with arguments that can be described as "incomplete" what I do, more specifically, have issues with are arguments which begin with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject matter (read: literally anything) and then proceed through the argument.


Philosophers by Doris Blillycocke - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:06:00 EST ID:jxB3eYCC No.209080 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523639160033.jpg -(92333B / 90.17KB, 750x833) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 92333
Straight up, I’m sick of people quoting the same few philosophers 24/7. Like I’m in several debate groups and right now the only thing they’re willing to talk about is Stirner as if he’s the only good philosopher. I came in with some Gaddafi quotes and ideas and nobody has any interest in that, because nobody popular references Gaddafi or his philosophical work. Sup with that? You guys got any obscure philosophers you love?
>>
Jarvis Subberlig - Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:46:11 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209080
Why the fuck would you reference obscure philosophers? Since philosophy is all about engaging with the works, philosophy is one of the few fields where the obscurer a philosopher is, the less value they have.
>>
Frederick Domblekat - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 01:56:06 EST ID:tVsefzYq No.209084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209083
>philosophy is all about engaging with the works
>refuses to engage with works he wont read
>>
Phoebe Mammlenodging - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:29:48 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209087 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209084
You didn't read what I wrote, you fucking idiot. Obscure philosophers only have the works they wrote. Famous philosophers have works they wrote, and works OTHER philosophers wrote reacting to their work.

Obscure philosophers don't add anything to the constant synthesis of philosophy. To put it in Fichte-ian terms.
>>
Nathaniel Shakelock - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:29 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523813969846.jpg -(145595B / 142.18KB, 960x735) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209080
John Cowper Powys seems pretty neat. Such as The Complex Vision (although I've barely delved into it) https://archive.org/details/complexvision00powy . Also works about Phenomenology, particularly from Merleau-Ponty https://archive.org/details/TheStructureOfBehaviour, but is that really that obscure though? I was introduced to Phenomenology through The Spell of the Sensuous https://archive.org/details/AbramTheSpellOfTheSensuousPerceptionAndLanguageInAMoreThanHumanWorld, an ecological philosophical book. Some of those ideas are opening up into a kinda new field of study and practice of ecopsychology, which has some philosophical underpinnings.

>>209087
Obscure to most. What you're ignoring is that dialogue did occur between thinkers of that time and within niche fields, influencing others even outside that dialogue. Besides, popularity doesn't determine validity.
>>
Augustus Bimmerkerk - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 17:48:34 EST ID:MOGdYtlU No.209093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209087
you can make the add it....


transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
147 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Oliver Dartbanks - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 18:09:14 EST ID:PeV65nn4 No.209004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208987
I bet an old man would kick your ass lol, leftie druggo. This isn't social science, this is a circle jerk for self entitled drugged out college dropouts lol.
>>
Archie Barryham - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 06:03:13 EST ID:jxB3eYCC No.209085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208987
>Let’s just kill all conservatives.
Let’s just bash every leftist fascist like you. It’s not like you people work or aid society in anyway, you just cry and threaten violence while strung out on narcotics.
>>
Phoebe Mammlenodging - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:26:14 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209086 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523795174430.jpg -(197904B / 193.27KB, 826x984) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209085
>waaah people do drugs waaah

Yeah, you totally fit in on 420chan.
>>
Hamilton Pummlestock - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:19:37 EST ID:JyDTI0YA No.209110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209086
>>208987
>>209085
>>209004
Why do you people even stay in my country anymore? Just move retards. Move to a shithole that caters to your personal tastes. There's plenty of them. You just bang your heads against the wall over and over again knowing you're too inept to do anything but threaten violence against people you never even met in an obscure online shitpost forum devoted to drugs.

It's not even about "an argument" anymore. You're not interested in fielding arguments. You're interested in violence. So go do violence, already, you fucking pansies. Stop saying you will and do it.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:34:31 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209110
Every society that has failed to resolve the issue of territory and resource allocation through words has resorted to solving it through violence.
As soon as you say 'if yer dun like it yer can get out!' you invite the very violence you are decrying. You move the debate from the intellectual field to the field of physical force by that very statement.


Politic Board by Jack Choffingman - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 10:10:22 EST ID:pq+VuhoO No.208893 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1520176222269.jpg -(17989B / 17.57KB, 470x264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 17989
Havent been on here in years? Anyone know what happened to /pol/?
32 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Rebecca Gerringwell - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 09:34:43 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209045 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209044
Yeah I know but he wrote books showing how bad Authoritarianism could get, hence the name.
>>
Betsy Smallville - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:43:33 EST ID:hPRU/fQi No.209046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209044

As are everyone's. How many of us read call of the wild in HS yet never heard quotes like this from jack london? "The women of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the social pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed" when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were babes unborn""

and someone said, how we oppressed people is apart of the curriculum? they teach people with more privilege in this country about things like marx,who really killed mlk,in depth histories of policing, slavery, immigration, the political ideologies stifled by our own country. A normal and poor person usually has to put themselves in some kind of schooling debt to find these curricular lists, or read books. In private high schools kids might even be taught about socialism a little more. meanwhile in normal public schools books are outdated, and they spend money on metal detectors and random cops searching (in my day, for drugs, but now probably for drugs, shooters, and terrorists).
>>
Esther Werryway - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:36:36 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209051 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209045
Yeah, my point is that his anti-authoritarian books were to protest how the USSR manipulated socialist ideals to control its citizens, but it's presented as if he wrote those books to show the inevitable result of socialism itself.

That sleight of hand is itself Orwellian.
>>
John Sidgeshit - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:41:44 EST ID:lcQmH4nh No.209079 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Man, I took a break for a few months and came back wondering where all the faggots from the future spamming racist shit on my drug boards went off to. I didn't realize /pol/ was gone until I saw this thread and checked just now. I think they go to all the chan sites looking for politics boards assuming they'll be in good company. Like flies to shit.
>>
Nathaniel Shakelock - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:41:48 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523821308846.jpg -(177684B / 173.52KB, 500x708) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But the thing that I saw in your face
No power can disinherit:
No bomb that ever burst
Shatters the crystal spirit.


>>209051
Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War in the POUM militia (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) and wrote a book about it: Homage to Catalonia. He joined POUM out of coincidence and later said he'd rather have joined the anarchist militias if he'd known the contexts of the political conflict going on behind the battle lines. Orwell's beliefs can be described as libertarian socialist, as he partly, but didn't fully subscribe to an anarchist programme which is generally the rejection of the State and parliamentarianism, the utilization of direct action, and the advocacy of co-operative and federal organization.

In the first half of the 1930s Orwell had a negative view of anarchist beliefs, from Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow:
>for he complained that for an ‘ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank’: ‘One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words “Socialism” and “Communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, “Nature Cure” quack, pacifist and feminist in England.’ While few anarchists would have been all, still fewer would have satisfied none of these despised categories. He told the working-class Jack Common, now co-editor of the Adelphi, in 1936 that so many of the socialist bourgeoisie ‘are the sort of eunuch type with a vegetarian smell who go about spreading sweetness and light and have at the back of their minds a vision of the working class all TT [teetotal], well washed behind the ears, readers of Edward Carpenter or some other pious sodomite and talking with BBC accents’. Orwell’s distaste for homosexuals was an abiding characteristic, with him castigating in private ‘the pansy left’, the ‘fashionable pansies’, Auden and Spender, being singled out for especial contempt. Yet he insisted, as usual unpredictable and unfailingly contradictory, that he had ‘always been very pro-Wilde’.

In 1936 he collected material on the condition of unemployed for the book: The Road to Wigan Pier, which proved revelatory for him, and when he began to believe in and support socialism as the only possible course for any decent person to work towards.

>The fundamentals of Orwell’s socialism were justice, liberty and decency.
For him socialism meant ‘justice and common decency’, a decency inherent in the culture of the traditional working-class community. He believed that ‘the only thing for which we can combine is the underlying ideal of Socialism; justice and liberty’ [sic]; and concluded: ‘All that is needed is to hammer two facts home into the public consciousness. One, that the interests of all exploited people are the same; the other, that Socialism is compatible with common decency.’
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


this cunt by Martin Turveydock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:37:13 EST ID:XRtggDpr No.208623 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1516876633072.jpg -(5723B / 5.59KB, 256x162) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5723
so Jordan Peterson has recently been interviewed on britains channel 4 by Cathy Newman and there has been a substantial reaction to it. Peterson's fanboys are all claiming his victory as if this interview was a major debate. I'm going to try and summarise it so that we can all critique the ideas as much as we want and give our opinions, discuss etc. There was a thread about this on /b/ but I thought i'd move the topic here to /pss/. btw here s a link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
the yellowtext below is jordans answers


Newman: you've said men need to grow up, why?
>because theres nothing good about it and men are left useless and miserable if they dont take responsibility over their lives.
A crisis of masculinity, what do you do about it?
>you tell them to grow up and take responsibility, live a life worth living
the majority of your listeners is male?
>yes apparently. Men have something to offer and set the world straight.
what's gone wrong then?
> all sorts of things, men never receive encouragement. Men are starving for my message,

[2:30] does it bother you that 80% of your audience is male
>no, it's just the way it is.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
227 posts and 44 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Wesley Turveylock - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:12:24 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209068
If you were talking about sapient life, you might have had a point.

But imagine hyperintelligent sentient life. Like some kind of naturally evolved super computer made out of a network of fungi.

It would colonize the universe with starships, could wage intergalactic wars, unravel the secrets of the universe, and it wouldn't know meaning.
>>
Wesley Hunkinfuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:50:18 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209073 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209068
>You have retreated into semantics, it's sad.
We're talking about meaning, of course there's going to be semantics.

>no two people or species could ever agree on the importance of a thing in an absolute sense precisely because it is inherently a relative, subjective thing, but anything that is an intelligent system that has a need to organize its behavior will need to have the concepts of importance, quality and purpose to even function
>meaning is a constant and not relative to the mind that holds it.
These are mutually exclusive statements. If meaning is an objective constant of reality, then it would not be possible to derive different meanings from the same phenomena. You are treating the extraction of meaning as if meaning were a trait being observed in the phenomena itself, and not as an inference constructed from that phenomena.

We have eyes. Our eyes allow us to categorize our environment in terms of light. In our environment we observe a big ball of light in the sky, that causes us pain to look at. This is the pattern of our reality. We infer from this that the ball of light is God. This meaning has drawn from the patterns of the phenomena, but it is constructed from those patterns, not inherent to them. It comes from an idiosyncratic method of categorization. Now we have lots of complicated instruments to more precisely observe that light, and we conclude that it's a star. "Star" is also a meaning constructed in the exact same way as we did "God", just from a more detailed look at the phenomena. Nothing in the phenomena inherently said "this is a Star" anymore than it said "this is God".

>Any sentient life would have the concept of 'meaning,' it's an essential aspect of consciousness.
>anything that is an intelligent system that has a need to organize its behavior will need to have the concepts of importance, quality and purpose to even function
How would you define an "intelligent system" in terms other than its ability to organize its behaviour? Ants organize their behaviour. Are they an intelligent system? They must be, by that definition. They even have a system of symbolic c…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fuck Drevingdore - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:34:20 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209074 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523522060553.jpg -(51343B / 50.14KB, 540x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209070
>That's not meaning, you retard.
2018 and people calling anyone with a different point of view a retard. Philosophy has come a long way hasn't it.

>That's just math and physics combining into "the easiest and most effective way how to stack bricks."
If you take everything at face value you would reach this conclusion but it is very ignorant to argue that this is all that is happening. The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead and 1 pyramid was for 1 person. The idea was that bigger pyramids would be for people who were revered greatly in life and the gods would be appeased by that. So lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too.
>>
Wesley Hunkinfuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:52:42 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209075 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209074
>lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too
>The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead

And the Aztecs built them as temples or palaces or any number of things. The point is not that those cultures had no reason for building them. The point is that that reason is disconnected from them being built in a pyramidal shape. A monument for the dead doesn't necessitate it be in the shape of a pyramid. However, if you want to stack big stones with only slaves and ropes, it'll be easiest and strongest if you do it in pyramid.

>that this is all that is happening.
I'm not saying that it's all that is happening. My point is that in saying "both cultures built pyramids therefor pyramids must have intrinsic meaning" is conflating meaning with the practical limitations of physics. I'm sure if Ancient Egyptians had modern construction equipment, they would have built something very different to honour their dead.
>>
Matilda Nubblestuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:50:44 EST ID:/KXzHYRx No.209078 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209071
Most people are ignorant of the sapient/sentient distinction so I was using sentient as a catch all. However, I don't know if I entirely agree with your premise.

I think, in order to colonize space, a sentient computerized fungus would need to understand the 'meaning' of existence about as well as we do if it was indeed colonizing by means of starship rather than some natural process. It would need to be aware of what it was any why to understand that it needed to get off world, at least as minimally as we do.

And I mean, by the definition of an alien intelligence much, much more sapient than we are, we might hardly seem more aware of our surroundings and the meaning of our own existence than even an ordinary fungus...

>>209073
>>of course there's going to be semantics
Well there's a difference between discussions on meaning have a semantic component and hiding behind mere semantics.

The two "mutually exclusive" statements you quote are by two different people, so the whole segment is irrelevant.

Anyway, you are conflating different definitions of the term 'meaning' which is why I think you are coming across problems. For example you are conflating the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the sense of a term' where sun = bright fusion ball, and the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the purpose or function of a thing' where sun = God.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Bush Say's He Is An "Exception" To The Law. by realtalk - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:23:10 EST ID:LahQAHJd No.209002 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1522704190158.jpg -(144714B / 141.32KB, 805x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 144714
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3603.htm

Obey the law and keep Bush off the Illinois ballot, say state Libertarians

06/03/03: (LP) Illinois should obey its ballot access laws -- and keep President George W. Bush off the 2004 ballot.

So said the Libertarian Party of Illinois, after Republicans revealed that they would not nominate their 2004 presidential candidate until seven days after the Illinois deadline for certifying candidates for the November ballot.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has requested that the Illinois State Board of Elections ignore the law, and place President Bush's name on the ballot anyway.

"The Republican Party needs to abide by the same rule of law as everyone else," said Illinois LP Executive Director Jeff Trigg. "You can be sure if the tables were turned -- and it was the Libertarians nominating their presidential candidate seven days after the deadline -- they wouldn't lift a finger to help us stay on the ballot."

The Republican Party will nominate its presidential candidate -- almost certain to be incumbent George W. Bush, who faces no significant opposition and has already announced he will seek re-election -- at its national convention on September 3, 2004. That's 61 days before the November 2 general election.

However, Illinois state election law requires presidential candidates to be certified at least 67 days prior to the general election.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Phoebe Bindlepodge - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:19:00 EST ID:wb7Rwj19 No.209012 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209002
Dunno why you’re posting news from 2003 but Trump definitely does the same thing.
In fact his lawyers’ defense in the Zervos case was literally “he’s the president so he can’t face charges”. Despite the legal precedent set by many other presidents.
>>
William Parryfield - Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:29:56 EST ID:qofsR6ta No.209020 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209002
In the U.S narcism is virtue. This is well reflected in these institutional loopholes.


asdf by village druunk - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:36:26 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209011 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1522766186065.jpg -(24371B / 23.80KB, 1278x990) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24371
This board is making me fucking depressed. There is obviously so much potential. Even though some people on this site would be classified as part of the tyrannical majority, we have surly some talented fuckers some living the aesthetic ideal, epistemically virtuous, intellectually curiosus and engaged... But what do we have in the end, just silence, or worse... fucking mainstream topics no proper new ideas debates just basically nasty pre programmed debates

Why not argue fucking Hegels moral philosophy? is it the most complete? I think fuck yes but what follow? mere analyisis of a given ethical fiber? why are current philosophers neglecting this?
Did Russel bastardize Wittgensteins project? how can it be taken further?
Value-free economics?
Can we find a way to find determinate forms of organization from biopolitical analysis(criticism)?
how does liberal political philosophy avoid its focus on consent?
Go fucking specific exclude board normies...

Isiah Berlins dichotomy should be replaced? sublate core principle of negative freedom? Can you cut confucius head with humes gioutinne? is nationalism esentially the superego or in other words the determinate mixture of the imaginary and the symbolic?

Type GTFO is dare you
>>
Hedda Pittworth - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:31:37 EST ID:PKcNxe+J No.209014 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mean I agree with your premise but you come across as a little concern trolly because while proposing a bunch of interesting questions you aren't really taking a stance on them which means we have no real content to react to. In general if you don't like the content of the board the only thing you can do about it is post the kind of content you would like. Anyway, I'll take a stab at a few of these.

>Why not argue fucking Hegels moral philosophy?
I think it is too relativistic, that 'what is good is what is good for the tribe.' It can be a dangerous combination when paired with an equally Hegelian view on rationality -- together they can easily lead to what most people would identify as moral and ethical atrocities.
>> why are current philosophers neglecting this?
Modern philosophy has more or less retreated from the sphere of ethics. Modern philosophy mostly grovels on the floor, begging positivistic science for one more breath before the guillotine falls.
>>Did Russel bastardize Wittgensteins project? how can it be taken further?
Not really, I think Russel's view on Wittgenstein (toward the end) was a pretty apt way of evaluating the latter's contributions. I don't know if Wittgenstein's larger philosophical project could be much advanced, even in principle, without running into the same problems once again.
>>Value-free economics?
That's like asking if we can have value free mathematics. Any method of organizing society must eventually come up against the concept of value, or else we must say a glob of mud is exactly as 'valuable' as a kilogram of anti-matter, which would lead to a catastrophic breakdown of civilization. Whatever describes that system of value will eventually recreate what we know as economics.
>Can we find a way to find determinate forms of organization from biopolitical analysis(criticism)?
Absolutely, but I think we would end up re-treading a lot of the same ground ordinary politics has. Ultimately any form of organization requires appeals to systems of values and ontological assumptions, and we're back within the specter of metaphysics and ethics.
>how does liberal political philosophy avoid its focus on consent?
What? Isn't liberal political philosophy entirely about consent, i.e. the consent of the governed to establish the government as they will?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
village druunk - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 16:41:16 EST ID:MOGdYtlU No.209016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522788076102.jpg -(69015B / 67.40KB, 454x564) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209014
I knew somebodies ego would itch, didnt expect such a modest ego but heyo its somehting
Point was just to shit something out of anger/boredom and hope something sticks for the future, dont think this theard can do much.

(1) Hegel is basically ALL about relative absolutes, (or knowledge basically being contigently static) meaning although the nature of knowledge tend to change there are things we can call absolute within a the context (zeitgeist (i know hegel didnt coin it)). Some goes for this moral7ethical philosophy. Ethical life conists of certain core eternal prinicples and certain core contigent principles which precicly does not allow for thoese artocities cuz our conception moved beyond that. Is concept of rationality is basically aristotelian i do see what is wrong with that

(2) yeah pretty much. I think this speard of "analytic philosophy" is sadly just because employability or precieved employabilty

(3) Wittensteins project is see similar to for example foucault in that they are largly negative projects. Russel just interpreted in that that we need logical positivsm more. Aristocrat who blew himself up to much with wittenstein imo

(4) yeah idk i just wanted to econ in here

(5) This is exctly the sphere that needs reform and i think zizek is working on it very well so far

(6) it is haha and fuck that. As spengler put it "These English Classicists, all of them of high social standing, helped create liberalism as a philosophy of life as it was understood by Frederick the Great and his century: the deliberate ignoring of distinctions that were known to exist in the practical life but were in any case not considered as obstacles; the rational preoccupation with matters of public opinion that could neither be gotten rid of nor hushed up, but that somehow had to be rendered harmless. This upper-class Classicism gave rise to English democracy -- a superior form of tactics, not a codified political program. It was based on the long and intensive experience of a social stratum that habitually dealt with real and practicable possibilities, and that was therefore never in danger of losing its essential congeniality"
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Hermeticism by William Figglelock - Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:18:37 EST ID:dhnaDuI4 No.208962 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1521829117679.png -(1135732B / 1.08MB, 949x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1135732
Should I feel like an insane person for wanting to read about Hermeticism? I can't help but find it really intriguing. My girlfriend fell asleep beside me and while she was asleep I started reading the Kybalion. She awoke a while after, unbeknownst to me, and started reading what I was reading. When I realized she was awake she was very suspicious and did not seem happy that I had been reading about it.

She said she won't stop me reading about it but she doesn't want me to become brainwashed or something. I don't know if I'm stoned but I can't tell if I'm being lured into a cult or what. But I can't help but find it really interesting to read about. Anyone know what the fuck is going on?
2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cyril Shakebanks - Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:03:33 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If it calls to you, you're just fucking crazy. You're an insane motherfucker and the last shreds of your sanity are slipping away dude.

If it's just incredibly interesting to you from a historical perspective... nothing odd dude. I like reading about mysticism too, it's really interesting to see how mysticism transformed from a religious experience into a scientific experience thanks to alchemy and the meticulous experiments that alchemy required laying the foundation to the scientific method.
And then when science finally completely absorbed mysticism because SCIENCE actually causes results unlike mysticism, people started grabbing back to the hokey pokey bullshit from ancient times (in the Victorian era).
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:33:10 EST ID:8jOW3Mqg No.208968 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can try to decipher The Gardens of Cyrus. Thomas Browne wrote some good prose works but frankly this is not one of them:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/gardennoframes/gardenn.html
I personally think Hermeticism is kind of interesting as a historical curiosity, but all the practical magical stuff is incredibly lame. More or less exactly parallel to how the Zhuangzi and (to a lesser extent) the Daodejing are great books, but the whole “esoteric” alchemical/ritual tradition of later Daoism is totally superfluous and stupid. When it comes to mysticism I think the “normal” Christian and Islamic mystics like Nicholas of Cusa, Ruzbihan Baqli, Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, etc. were all more theologically exciting and insightful than any of the Hermetic pseudepigrapha.
>>
Reuben Dinnerstock - Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:04:18 EST ID:dhnaDuI4 No.208992 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522263858347.jpg -(93092B / 90.91KB, 611x372) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's just when I read about people who practice the occult, including magic and rituals and all that stuff, they sound so casual about it, and it seems so sincere. I often read their response to skepticists as "Try it out first, and see for yourself" and it all seems convincing. I mean, if it really all can be just boiled down to physics, and life really did begin with the Big Bang, then what the fuck brought those tiny particles of matter into existence in the first place? What caused them to move and cause friction?

How can anyone know? Is the universe infinite? But the very fact that absolutely any of this exists, that billions of years of events in the cosmos unfolding and the evolution of life lead me to THIS moment of being stoned on my laptop after working a day in some factory, questioning the reality and endless possibilities of it all, to a bunch of strangers from all over the world who I have never and probably will never meet... is nothing short of an example of how fucking little we know.

Ok I am baked but my point still stands. We don't know anything outside of materialism and physics, which are great things to have knowledge of, but to think that they are the only aspect of our reality, given how ridiculous reality is itself, is IMO folly. Plus Hermetic/occultist imagery is badass. I am gonna be open minded about it and I'm gonna give it a shot, why the fuck not
>>
Phyllis Nenningville - Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:47:24 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208993 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208992
>then what the fuck brought those tiny particles of matter into existence in the first place? What caused them to move and cause friction?

Nothing. Shit isn't hard mate. Nothing did all that. Since nothing is the complete absence of anything, there's nothing stopping nothing from generating something. Of course, when something arises from nothing, nothing no longer is nothing, it now is everything. And since everything is in one point, a singularity, it will expand into a big bang. Now there's a whole universe instead of nothing, so something cannot arise by itself anymore - nothing no longer exists.

Basically.
>>
Nicholas Bummletedge - Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:13:15 EST ID:QqPfCVO2 No.208995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hermeticism is an interesting topic if you enjoy studying religion. It's basically what's left of Western mysticism after orthodox Christianity took over. Even Goetic magic can be an interesting read. Both Goetic magick and hermeticism often get derided as 18th century inventions but really they're remnants of pre-christian Greek religion that were synthesized with judeo-christian beliefs. If you're studying pre-christian mysticism/spirituality then hermeticism is very much an important subject.


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.