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


Pseudo-intellectualism by Frederick Wozzlefod - Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:26:55 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.196971 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417552015888.jpg -(1146601 B, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1146601
>Post your favorite pseudo-intellectual quotes.
44 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jarvis Brookson - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:43:49 EST ID:p8vFWZIp No.197083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197080
>Isaiah does talk about Christ, the passages about Immanuel are in reference to Christ. You must know that already because you seem to know your Bible well.
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is clearly directed at Ahaz and fulfilled, beginning in... Isaiah 8:3. Matthew took the Jewish word 'almah' to denote 'virgin', which is a horribly awkward stretch, chalked it up to the story of the virgin birth, and then ignored the rest of Isaiah just so that it can make sense.

Then's the no-brainer: Jesus was quite obviously not named "Immanuel". Neither was the child of the prophecy, though... which is kind of the point; Immanuel denotes "god is with us", while the tongue-breaking 'Mahershalalhashbaz' denotes 'making haste to the plunder'. Now, the backstory: Ahaz has drifted from the worship of YHWH, and during his reign, Judah was plundered by the Assyrians, with Ahaz being condemned and denied funeral privileges for his adoption of Assyrian customs. Ahaz's son, Hezekiah, however, made a grand return to the old ways, commenced a sweeping reform, banished idolaters, and reinstated the worship of Abrahamic faith as it were... Thus, completing the prophecy!

I must admit, this retroactively constructed prophesying has its charms as a means of story-making. It does make a good story, does it? I won't touch upon its political implication in regards to the rest of Isaiah, that'd make for a wall of text.
>>
Simon Wovingville - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:04:47 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.197086 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197082
I think what you're talking about is the supposed Q source. It may or may not have existed, it's a hypothesis. If it did exist, then it's sad that we lost it, but what we have been given in the four Gospels preserves Jesus' teachings so that's a consolation for us. My own theory, which has no real basis in fact, but is what I like to believe, is that the Q source was an oral tradition, just like the Genesis was an oral tradition before it was written down.

If the unedited text existed, we would know about it. So many texts exist for what is considered canonical, and we know about the supposedly suppressed Gnostic writings. If there was an unedited version of anything in the Bible it would be well known.

I do not believe that there is a collection of books that were written by God. So a book being considered apocryphal is really no concern. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Inspiration. All God actually wrote is what was given to Moses, everything else is just inspired.
>>
Simon Wovingville - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:11:38 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.197087 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197083
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)
>>
Eugene Berringmetch - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:12:04 EST ID:SKpv0XYc No.197095 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197086
>I think what you're talking about is the supposed Q source. It may or may not have existed, it's a hypothesis. If it did exist, then it's sad that we lost it, but what we have been given in the four Gospels preserves Jesus' teachings so that's a consolation for us. My own theory, which has no real basis in fact, but is what I like to believe, is that the Q source was an oral tradition, just like the Genesis was an oral tradition before it was written down.
Gnostic sayings were long theorized to be a basis for Gnostic Acts and Gospels (on the same basis as the non-gnostic ones), but remained a theory until... found, in Nag Hammadi. So guess what, we wouldn't know.

>If the unedited text existed, we would know about it. So many texts exist for what is considered canonical, and we know about the supposedly suppressed Gnostic writings.
Epiphanius, Gerome and Origen, for instance, quote Ebionites, Nazarenes and Hebrews, and we know fuck all about these Gospels apart of these quotations.

To boot, well, there are suppressed Gnostic writings that we do know of. It's the Nag Hammadi library, which was hidden in Nag Hammadi out of fear for persecution by Athanasius' men.
>If there was an unedited version of anything in the Bible it would be well known.
There is not "One, original Bible". The Gospels show blatant signs of intertextuality between themselves and the apocrypha and the pesudoepigrapha, present different accounts that cannot be reconciled, are further contradicted by Acts and the Epistles, which also contradict each other, because fuck consistency. The canonical Bible is a harmonized canon that was chosen from a larger body of works, some of which predated the synoptic Gospels!

>I do not believe that there is a collection of books that were written by God.
So far, so good.
>So a book being considered apocryphal is really no concern.
Good, good.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Shit Blathershaw - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:39:22 EST ID:hdrBaS0Q No.197097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196972

Communism actually doesn't look good on paper, once you consider human nature.

Usually the first question conservatives always ask when they hear it is along the lines of "why not just do an easy job or avoid working at all, instead of working hard and contributing as much as I can to society?"

If I get the same shit whether I'm a doctor/engineer or do data entry, I'll probably just do data entry because it's easy and there's no incentive to do otherwise.


What is this whole "life" thing? by Shit Blathershaw - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:39:09 EST ID:hdrBaS0Q No.197077 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417923549762.jpg -(111657 B, 731x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111657
Is it possible to "waste your life"? If so, how does one define what is a waste of time vs. what is not a waste (not necessarily "productive" use of one's time, but that may be a possibility worth investigating)?

Has a person who makes a meager living and lives in a small dwelling playing video games for the majority of his life "wasted" his life? Is a person who becomes famous, invents something important, creates some artistic masterpiece, becomes rich, or something similar, "better" in some way than the first person mentioned?

How do you make your way in a world which, by all available evidence, appears to be absurd (in the Camus sense of the word)? That is, how do you figure out what to do with your limited time in this life?
>>
Charles Hullykutch - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:51:28 EST ID:VrwK6CiK No.197079 Ignore Report Quick Reply
no energy is created or destroyed. you were given some energy from the planet then you give it back. sitting in a cave for 20 years has had people do great things. add video games even you can have a breakthrough
>>
George Gundleham - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:51:07 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>how does one define what is a waste of time vs. what is not a waste

By making up what defines waste vs not a waste, moment to moment. No one can decide that but you.
>>
Shit Blathershaw - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:33:42 EST ID:hdrBaS0Q No.197096 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197079
>>197089

It's this whole subjectivity vs. objectivity thing, though. Subjectively it seems you can just go ahead and believe whatever the fuck you want, but ultimately it's delusion in the face of the objective truth. Namely, that there's no inherent meaning in anything, yet as a human I'm compelled to try to find it anyways even though it's a futile pursuit (that is, it's absurd).

If I were immortal, things would make more sense I think. All of the hard work and suffering I put in to improving myself, learning things, experiencing new things... I would get to keep them. As it stands, I'm stuck with a limited lifespan, and with the destruction of my brain comes the destruction of my memories, feelings, everything.

It all seems kinda pointless even if you led a perfect, happy, hedonistic life full of pleasure and no suffering. You'd still die and it would be like it never happened in the first place, even if there is reincarnation, your memories aren't preserved so it's the same problem.

Hard to figure out what to do with your life when you know in the back of your mind that ultimately, nothing matters or lasts. If we were immortal I could at least understand the "well, just enjoy yourself and be happy forever", but that's not the case for us as things currently stand.

Is the only choice self-delusion? I've considered going back to believing in God (or at least, my own version of the Christian God, an all-loving personal God where hell doesn't exist) since it seems like the belief would make my life happier. If I'm wrong, it doesn't make a difference and I'd never know anyways after dying, and if I'm right all the better.

I don't think suicide is the option, but I don't think ignoring the matter of our mortality is correct either. There's gotta be some sort of 3rd option of dealing with a life that, for most of us, while it can include a fair bit of pleasure, will often include a lot of suffering as well. A life that is finite and short, that when it ends it's as if we never existed in the first place.


Philsosophy should be taught in primary (aka elementary) school by Angus Handerham - Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:25:53 EST ID:mKxE8yJc No.196870 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1416896753547.jpg -(72397 B, 800x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 72397
nb
44 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nicholas Chandlesadge - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:54:18 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197075

.....piaget was a leading theory in cognitive development and a big part of our idea of educational theory. Its neither now.

I'm glad you feel so sensible about it, however the examples you list don't hold to this day.

Bloom's taxonomy does presnet a model for cognitive development because its explicitly about how we cognitively learn. And the steps of mastery of knowledge and information, and guess what concepts.

Thats why its more relevant to this topic.

The entirety of the steps of blooms taxonomy that encompass all fields of knowledge because there our methods of acquistion, comphrension, reception and manifestation of those fields are encommpassed with in it.

This theory points out that the entire hiearchy is able to be reached by any student including k-6. But they access it varying degrees and varying levels.

It has nothing to do with them being able to concieve or think conceptually or not.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nicholas Chandlesadge - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:02:59 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197076

....a child repeating me and my friend on accident, no matter how many times some child somewhere may do it, does not mean that automatically there is only one explanation for why they said what they said. Nor does the fact that it often happens proove any other explanation, other than the one concerning it being a common phrase.

Saying me and my friend has more to do with a large amount of other factors combining.

One letting the person know of your friend that you have. Two knowing that the other person you are talking to can see you and knows of you, but doesn't know of your friend. And three the basic process of remembering something or recouting an event.

It may have to do with answering a question from an authority figure, about what you did, and starting with you, and trying to bring in another figure that was apart of it.

The incident itself doesn't prove egotism because it doesn't prove that this is the child's agency, which is required for egotism. You could say the child is self centered, because they are centering the story and world around themselves by happenstance.

But ego centrism is more concious, and this incident no matter how many times it happens within in age group proves nothing, about a child's ego centrism.
>>
Nicholas Chandlesadge - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:13:53 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197088 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197078
yeah you claimed that, but an instance of a teacher being understood by students who have more exposure to teachers and class taking, and educational excerise in general completing there tasks, says nothing about the cognitive ability of a younger child.

People still believe that in our later teens we open up critical thinking and mental ordering in our brains, and especially the part that has to do with list making and organizing. And they use this to explain the teaching of college, based around crossreferencing and recongizing ideas as apart of different cannons or lists.

Yeah that idea is a big part of shit these days, and it to has its problems.

But nobody believes that we open up new parts of our brain by age alone, in the way you describe, at least not exactly and in especially in a big consenus way.

The educational theory now is that you have acess to all parts of your brain generally and you develop and expand them as you get older.

Cognition of concepts, abstracts, concrete data, analytical, synthetic, memorization, storing data are all going on, and you develop each as you go sometimes in intertwining fashion.

We don't usually believe one age has an impossiblity to deal with or access a part of their brain, but people might believe that as you get older you are more developed in an area because thats maturation and people do still believe in that.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Barnaby Chesslefoot - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:22:16 EST ID:MDEj4Nkl No.197092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197088
Holy fuck is your M .O. to simply spam whenever anybody contradcits you?
>>
Eugene Berringmetch - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:39:54 EST ID:SKpv0XYc No.197094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197088
>however the examples you list don't hold to this day.
You mean the experiments? You mean the behavior of the children changed from that time? You mean that the experiments with levers, train tracks, cups and water etc. suddenly no longer show any consistency anymore?
>Bloom's taxonomy does presnet a model for cognitive development because its explicitly about how we cognitively learn. And the steps of mastery of knowledge and information, and guess what concepts.
>Thats why its more relevant to this topic.
>The entirety of the steps of blooms taxonomy that encompass all fields of knowledge because there our methods of acquistion, comphrension, reception and manifestation of those fields are encommpassed with in it.
>This theory points out that the entire hiearchy is able to be reached by any student including k-6. But they access it varying degrees and varying levels.
The point is, Bloom's taxonomy pertains to educational objectives. If we made teaching a 6-year old child the concept of leverage, as per the aforementioned example, an objective, would it be possible to teach an average child apply the concept in practice?
Empirical evidence suggests not.
>The incident itself doesn't prove egotism because it doesn't prove that this is the child's agency, which is required for egotism. You could say the child is self centered, because they are centering the story and world around themselves by happenstance.
Once again, you seem to misunderstand what I said. I spoke of *egocentrism* during childhood, not *egotism* - and it makes a world of difference. *Egocentrism* as a outlook on things provoked by an undeveloped, or still developing Theory of Mind.
>People still believe that in our later teens we open up critical thinking and mental ordering in our brains, and especially the part that has to do with list making and organizing. And they use this to explain the teaching of college, based around crossreferencing and recongizing ideas as apart of different cannons or lists.
>Yeah that idea is a big part of shit these days, and it to has its problems.
>But nobody believes that we open up new parts of our brain by age alone, in the way you describe, at least not exactly and in especially in a big consenus way.
>The educational theory now is that you have acess to all parts of your brain generally and you develop and expand them as you get older.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Let's have some fun by Betsy Crucklewill - Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:58:23 EST ID:vS8+qKFH No.196784 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1416535103774.jpg -(1546412 B, 1448x2016) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1546412
We say who our favorite philosopher is.
We make judgements about each other based on this.

I'll go first, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
64 posts and 13 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
David Secklestone - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 03:22:04 EST ID:fltNOnc1 No.196944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have to give a few

Kierkegaard

Nietzche

Heidegger

and Carl Jung because it worked on me as philosophy, and seemed as somewhat a philosophical opposition to freud's less philosophical psychology at the time
>>
Phineas Tootville - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:04:33 EST ID:M0kUBQdO No.196949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1417255473725.jpg -(184462 B, 623x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 184462
>>196784
Henry david thoreau
>What a neckbeard

I like the eastern philosophies as well, but i'm just getting started with that
>>
Cedric Bunstone - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:34:04 EST ID:+xYp+5pw No.196952 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196949
>What a neckbeard
If he were alive today, he'd write about the dignity and solitude of basement dwelling.
>>
Phyllis Gudgeforth - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:43:47 EST ID:JnHK/Edw No.197063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196784

My favorite philosopher is Laozi.

>>196908

Philosophy and science are one. The hypothesis and the scientific method are philosophical constructs; the only difference between the two is that while philosophy focuses on logical proofs, science focuses on observable experiments. While it is true that science came from and is a subgenre of philosophy, I do not believe we have done ourselves any good by finding people to purely pursue scientific endeavors; we have, on the contrary, raised generations who equate theory to fact, and have allowed ourselves to become satisfied with an unproven but heavily supported conclusion.

The only way we can truly prove something is through philosophy and its principles of logic, such as those written about by Aristotle. Science has fallen short and should either try to be more like philosophy or accept its place as an incomplete (and some would say inferior) area of study.
>>
Lillian Pocklewill - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:31:40 EST ID:JSHgGLXT No.197093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196903
I like Watts, and I respect the effect he's had on modern, secular-minded Westerns by turning often dense philosophical expositions by turnininto easily-digestible musings, and he did have a way with words, but his ideas were hardly earth-shattering and IMO he doesn't really offer anything that can't be found in more depth elsewhere.


Homophobia - Natural or Learned? by Faggy Turveyson - Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:26:46 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.195667 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409520406233.jpg -(122598 B, 305x488) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 122598
Is homophobia an evolutionary trait, as in, a natural aversion or is it a learned trait?
55 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Samuel Billingshaw - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 06:22:25 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.196982 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196980
>homosexuality is not a disfunction because it's not a fucking transmissible virus that will wipe out humanity,

That's not what defines something as being a dysfunction though.
>>
Phineas Gillersog - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:48:12 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.196983 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196982

That's technically true. It's not a dysfunction because it doesn't interfere negatively with the life of those who have it, nor with the life of the people surrounding them.

Unusual doesn't mean dysfunctional.
>>
Samuel Billingshaw - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:43:48 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.196984 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196983
But it does interfere negatively with the lives of some of those who have it, because it could destroy their reputation and their relationships. So it is a dysfunction for them.
>>
Phineas Gillersog - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:55:12 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.196985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196984

Dysfunctional doesn't mean provocative either.
If anything, it's narrow-mindedness that's dysfunctional, because it makes you violent and unreasonable, so it's really the people around them who have the problem. Sure, they might use the word "dysfunction" to say "bad" in a seemingly more intellectual way, but they wouldn't find any solid reason to back it up. It's like calling a rude person "sociopath".
Learn to distinguish a word from a bark.
>>
Simon Fellypog - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:32:55 EST ID:fFOfrqv3 No.197091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196984
This must be pretty common thinking amongst some people.

>WE will destroy their life
>WE will make sure they know they are a bad person
>WE (not everyone) has a problem with them
>THEY have a dysfunction because WE will make it one

Do you see a problem with this, oh Reuben?


Are we all slaves to something? by Oliver Pedgesork - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:14:12 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.197059 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417904052026.png -(521673 B, 200x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 521673
Slaves are seen as something that have no choice to do what they want to do but instead have to do what the master wants them to do. But its not that simple for me because the slave is following the orders of the master because he wants to follow the orders, since the master will execute him if he will not.

I fear that the same is true to all of us, we are being motivated to do things because the result of not doing it is something that we do not want. So it its very hard to see in any clear way who are slaves and who are not.
>>
Charles Hullykutch - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:53:00 EST ID:VrwK6CiK No.197081 Ignore Report Quick Reply
im floatin through like water bro. im a slave to my brain and body
>>
George Gundleham - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 04:39:45 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>But its not that simple for me because the slave is following the orders of the master because he wants to follow the orders, since the master will execute him if he will not.

That just means he wants to live. Following his master's orders is a means to that end. If he found a way to live without following his orders, he would take that chance and never look back.
Sure, in the meantime he technically wants to follow his orders, but putting it that way makes you forget what's the primary objective, and what's just a tool to achieve it, once you'll discard once you get a better one.

Like, you don't really want to work, you want to survive. You need work for that, but it's not what you want. As soon as you find another way to survive that's better than working, you'll choose that, and not lose anything.

You could say you're a slave to what you want to do, but even that is wrong: you can kill yourself any moment, so it's still your choice.


Dissappointment by Ernest Waffingnig - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:47:12 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197016 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417765632055.jpg -(53393 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53393
what does it mean to be dissapointed?

and also what does it mean for the expectation that was disspointed.

If one has come to learn something to be one way, and then they are dissapointed what does that mean, if you have a thesis about things and it meets its anti thesis, do they cancel each other out?

Is this what disspointment is, or is it something else. People often go through feeling mistaken about whatever they were dissapointed in or from if they are disspointed. And others go onto regard dissapointment as a set back but may not regard whatever understanding they have as mistaken.

Just in general what does it mean to be dissappointed?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ernest Waffingnig - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:58:26 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197027 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197025
Ooope read the last part of it.

that's all true.

Being anxious and paranoid can result in that. But even so if one feels like something that always is true and could never not be true, gets broken one day out of the blue.

There has to be some state for that specific quality in an existential crisis. A philosophical description of it, with perspective about it that won't narrow it to fit a particular conclusion.

A description of that state in detail is what i'm asking about. What is that place?
>>
Simon Chummlebire - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:54:50 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197026
>Would you throw away a bucket that has always worked but has a problem now, or would you try to remedy it.

It depends how much time and effort it would take to repair the bucket. If it impinges on other shit I have to do, I have to ask myself if I'm willing to sacrifice that or to just get a new one.

>yeah but you can not get the answers by the nature of the persons response on clarification, and leave it up to more trust and more time to see if that trust pans out, to see if that expanation is right.

It's your job to make sure the explanation is right, or if he's bullshitting you. You have to find some way to have a definite proof, definite enough for you anyway, and to make that person give you that proof. You have to set the terms, you can't leave that part to him.
If you can't trust the person anymore, you have to replace them. It's not gonna be the same, but we have relationships for utilitaristic personal reasons, even if that reason is as apparently trivial as "I just like to be around them", or "I just like to watch them do their thing". If you can't trust that person, you can risk that lack of trust poisoning you, or you can cut your losses and go on, look somewhere else to get what they gave to you, in some way or form. Or you have to sacrifice the satisfaction of that need of yours in order not to sacrifice satisfying other needs. Like if I like to fuck someone but I'm not sure if they'll steal from me or not, sooner or later I'll have to make a choice.


>>197027
>There has to be some state for that specific quality in an existential crisis. A philosophical description of it, with perspective about it that won't narrow it to fit a particular conclusion.

Being lost? Left wandering? Something along those lines, I think. The dark night of the soul, maybe. Getting lost doesn't narrow it, when you're lost you can go anywhere, so it fits I think.
>>
Shitting Shakebanks - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:00:58 EST ID:MDEj4Nkl No.197029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can dictionary threads go to /lit/ or something
>>
Frederick Bannermore - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:58:12 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197040 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197028
These are helpful, thanks man.

I think it might be lost.
>>
Frederick Bannermore - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 01:36:30 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197029
this could literally be applied to anything, if there is a word for it. I don't know why you would tie dissapointment into that, as a fresh dig, unless you assume the massess don't know or aren't familar with it. Which i assure everybody is, i gurantee you dissapointment is an essential feature to the average joe's vocabulary.

Just as Kierkegaard or heidaggar discuss anxiety as a concept. Just as many philosophers combine a psyhcolgical state with a philsophical reading, for a better concept and a fuller understanding, i was looking for philosophy on dissapointment.

Go penetrate yourself.


Methods of determining "function" by Barnaby Niddlebat - Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:21:05 EST ID:vS8+qKFH No.196727 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1416187265222.png -(268974 B, 684x883) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 268974
So Aristotle basically says that the function of something = the distinctive feature of that thing, or the thing that that thing does that no other thing does. When you think about it with tools it works. Very well.

He says the thing a human does that nothing else does is "rational thought". So therefore the function of a human being is think rationally.

Any other interesting arguments surrounding the determination of functionality?

By the way I'm not saying that I think humans necessarily do have a function at all, it's just interesting. Pic unrelated, I think...
46 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:16:59 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197006
once again it would be a purpose

not the purpose

which i would say

and everyone else would as well

they would have to
ADMIT

if something has the potential purpose and it is used that way that object had that purpose.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Isabella Pesslechid - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 06:36:27 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197002
>But it was self fufilling, he chose to narrow it, not because he was trapped, but because he trapped, himself in that for his own convenience because that was the course he sought.

Well yeah. I didn't mean the object traps you, I meant you can forget it was you who trapped yourself. This happens more easily if you search for approval, as seeing people trapping themselves in the same way by the same thing gives the illusion it's the thing that traps.
That's why I think asking questions like these seem like a recipe for deluding yourself: you already know your own take, why not just follow that? The trap is gonna come from you either way.
Of course you can also just treat other people's answers as inspiration to navigate within yourself.
It just seems people seldom do it with this conscious purpose, and more as a way to put themselves in the role of the victim, rather than the creator, in a more publicly convincing way.
>>
Emma Drinnerchadge - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:08:27 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.197011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197007

>so you are implying the object was never actually used?
no, that's obviously not what i'm saying, why are you pretending to be retarded?

we dont really seem to disagree, you say that an object has multiple purposes, anything it can be used for is a purpose the object possesses. I think this is awkward as all hell, and very much at odds with how people normally use the word purpose, but I'm not going to say that its wrong because its basically equivalent to my point which is that subjects define the purpose of objects.

>You can't broaden your definition of purpose, to be something outside of imbued or destined to be

this is confusing phrasing, if i understand you correctly, you are implying that I am the one who wants the definition of purpose to be something metaphysical like destiny or "imbuing"? I am trying to do away with those concepts and say that purpose is just whatever the subject plans to achieve by interacting with an object.

your post is incredibly redundant man, use some editing, did you really need all those single line statements to repeat your point over and over. I agree with almost everything you are saying

the only place there is friction is that I think most people do not use purpose in the way that you are using it, most people believe purpose IS something imbued by a creator, it IS "limiting" or whatever else you are saying. so you are arguing with the wrong person when you try to tell me that I am using a narrow definition of purpose, I am using the one people colloquially use
>>
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:16:19 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197012 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197011
I'm saying that because I posted something and you responded with that still wouldn't be the objects purpose but rather something in your mind, if you found a use for the object. And i'm trying to make a rhetorical point that despite whatever worldviews their may be or the populist rankings of the different ideas of purpose. Wouldn't the object still be used despite us insisting on all of it in some way. Thats what i'm asking by stressing the question.

I know you didn't say that practically, but i'm attempting to suggest that its practical use in this instance, implies a philsophical purpose, because of the object's potential being activated in a certain way.


On the second point.

you said it would have nothing to do with the object, if this were the case. I'm pointing out that a person finding a use within an object isn't necessarily them defining the purpose in a majority way. Despite them recognizing for themselves because of their intepretation of it. Ala, Its not used for a hammer it IS a hammer.

Its true that its only equipment because the human recognized it as such, but purpose also includes if that potential was there to be harnessed.

Thats why the object itself can be said to have purpose.

I don't know if you really understand repetition or your just thinking this is an opporutnity for criticism, so i won't go in to any long winded expanation. Suffice to say a pattern with repetition can enhance the meaning or it can stall it. I don't really think elaboration, is redundancy even when it can seem redundant.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:24:55 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197009
People putting themselves in that role can equate to them making a case for why they actually were treated that way.

Hence their desire for you to see them as such through the public eye.


yes if you search for approval you may get trapped.

But on the other hand we seek validation as well, and those two things can become blurred.

I think at times people are trapped in a sense, because they are trying not to be and they are.

On the other hand i think people have those rationales that narrow and expand the boundaries to suit a given suspicion and we trap ourselves. And at times we may want it that way.


"Strict adherence to the Abrahamic faiths is incompatible with a funcitional modern society" by Nigger Pockman - Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:14:07 EST ID:oAO73+Si No.196915 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417205647802.jpg -(297383 B, 1440x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 297383
Do you agree?
27 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Seckleforth - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 04:13:36 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.196948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196940
It's not that the Old testament does not apply to Christians, it sets out a pattern of morality and there is a lot that Christians can learn from it. But the law that is set out in the first five books of Old Testament is not intended for Christians, and abiding by it is unnecessary and would be harmful to their faith.

I think the OT verse you are referring to is Leviticus 18.22

>You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Paul also condemns homosexuality (along with a lot of other vices) in his Epistles, which are in the NT. Vices that are condemned in the OT didn't become acceptable under the new covenant, but the penalties set out in the law no longer applied. And the dietary laws and the laws about animal sacrifice were superseded by the new covenant.

I think maybe modern Christians who like to quote the verse from Leviticus do so because homosexuality is a much more important issue for them than it should be. There is no record of Jesus mentioning homosexuality, which to me suggests it's not an issue that should be of primary importance. Sexual morality is important, but other people's sexual morality shouldn't be the main focus of a person's faith.
>>
Caroline Seckleforth - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:20:54 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.196950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196940
Also, it occurs to me that it is not just Christians who like to cherry pick from the Old Testament. OP cherry-picked a couple of lines from Deuteronomy to make a point, and I doubt he considers himself to be a Christian.

nb
>>
Doris Sedgebatch - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:33:48 EST ID:8BQbnIjV No.196951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196936
>If the Bible is the word of God or divinely inspired, then to say that God's laws had to be tailored to what his followers found acceptable at the time is ludicrous
Not really, considering they were God's chosen people. From their point of view, he was just telling them they were right all along.
>>
Shit Cozzledale - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:00:26 EST ID:5NX7kavu No.197004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196948
Also worth noting that modern christians (and society at large really) don't understand what the writers of the old testament were actually referring to when they discussed homosexuality. Most ancient Semetic cultures (Jews, Arabs, etc) recognized the existence of "third-genders" (trans, passive gays, masculine lesbians) and considered them a distinct gender apart from "man" or "woman". The homosexuality discussed in the old testament referred to "men" lying with "men" (ie two cis gendered males fucking eachother) as this was seen as promiscuous and a form of excess, hence degenerate in their eyes. Somewhere along the way this Semetic view of homosexuality was synthesized with the traditional European view of it (where the passive partner was considered homosexual, and the penetrator straight) and the modern definition of the act/term took shape.

IDK though, Christian anarchists seem pretty cool and I wouldn't mind living amongst them. I was actually just thinking about Jesus, "prosperity" christianity, and the 'cleansing of the temple' (Jesus bullwhipping capitalists in a synagogue for counting money when they should've been praying) earlier today and I was thinking how Jesus's execution could be interpreted from a perspective of historical materialism. There were a lot of prophets and fringe cults active in the Roman empire at the time of Jesus but most didn't suffer the level of suppression that early christians did. Proto-socialist movements began to gain traction in the empire around this time and the upper classes were fearful of a proletarian revolution (the Roman senate sending death squads to murder the Gracchi brothers and their followers is a good historical example). Jesus being executed for threatening the economic hegemony of the ruling classes seems more plausible than than his being executed for claiming to be a "messiah".

Anyways I think Christians like Tolstoy and Muslims like Shariati are pretty cool for the most part.

That was too much to type from a phone, fuck.
>>
Molly Dummlespear - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:09:58 EST ID:vS8+qKFH No.197010 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sure, if you define a "functional modern society" to be one that isn't compatible with Abrahamic faiths... What the fuck is a "functional" modern society? Shit question.


Is there a different but undocumented type of ''pedophilia''? Or is it documented and known? by George Chublingworth - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:40:21 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.196991 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417624821135.png -(77442 B, 1041x866) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 77442
I have seen 2 news articles involving woman teachers and their male student. What i remember is that the pedophilia only applied to 1 student, and the women seemed to be in some kind of insanity, explaining that they were just so deeply in love.

But always (except for the two examples above that i heard) pedophiles have multiple victims and even know that they will have more. Yet in the above example, it seemed like the harmful intentions and deeds were not driven by pedophilia but this urge to actually marry and live together forever.
>>
Phineas Gillersog - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:56:26 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.196992 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can tell yourself anything while you're doing anything.
Isn't this just a case of bullshitting and self-delusion? Self-justification comes in all shapes and sizes.. The more convenient ones are the the most unrealistic, because they allow you to bullshit yourself forever while you do whatever you want. Like the case you're talking about.. She can tell herself that lie forever without ever having to admit it was a lie, because I doubt her victims will ever want to marry them.
>>
George Chublingworth - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:10:15 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.196993 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196992

Well that is the thing, in one of those case, where the victim was 12 years old- she actually married him later in life and now have kids. But your right, maybe its all just a very elaborate lie.
>>
George Chublingworth - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:24:38 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.196994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196993

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mary-kay-letourneau-back-jail-article-1.1568037

here she is, but she is back in jail for not appearing in court, for some ticket she got.
>>
Phineas Gillersog - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:08:33 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.196995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196993

Ehi, just because it starts as a lie, doesn't mean it can't become true. I'm more surprised the kid went along honestly, but what do I know. The article seems straight out of the onion though, lol, I really don't know what to think.
I'll say that 12 years old is a little different from 5 years old, at that age you already have sexual urges, so while it's an abuse of power, the situation is a little different. What would really weird me out is seeing someone being abused at a very young age ending up marrying their abuser, regardless of gender.

You're gonna link me that too aren't you?
>>
George Chublingworth - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:03:58 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.196998 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196995

ha! luckily no, i have no links regarding that. But to tell you the truth, i would not be surprised if she is still molesting children. Anyway, i think this is a new or just a very rare type of pedophilia.


A powerful question. by Edwin Greenforth - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:34:54 EST ID:jmU7Oj7S No.196392 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414625694347.jpg -(160751 B, 736x918) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 160751
What is the beginning step for a deity to be created? There has to some sort of undiscovered force we haven't grasped yet that dictates things beyond just the properties of this reality.
106 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Huzzlewudge - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:43:54 EST ID:fltNOnc1 No.196866 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196819
pretending you are unfamilar with philosophers doing the same thing is odd.

You might not like nietzche, you might love nietzche, you might have no respect for him, feel indifferent, or have no knowledge of him at all.

But the kind of thing hes doing when he links truth with something else, and curiosity as something else. Is the same thing nietzche, socrates, kierkagard, and others do.

Its not the butchering of the english language.

Its how many many people seek to write. Are we all james joyce no.

I'm not james joyce.

But i'm not going to pretend that its not super easy to say have a sentence appear as hogwash or meaningful, and it be the same sentence.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ernest Bundale - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:56:58 EST ID:8BQbnIjV No.196867 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196866
>but famous people do it
Is not a valid excuse.
>>
Augustus Favingstune - Tue, 02 Dec 2014 03:04:40 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.196968 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196867
its not an excuse its an explanation for how i know you are familar with what hes saying.

and probably means you find many phrases perfectly enlightening that share the same "flagrantly getting it wrong"

Whether or not he excuted it artfully i am avoiding, because i don't know enough to say.

Its not really uncommon for most of what makes up are examples of good writing in the english langauge and in language in general, to use langauge in that kind of a way.


And its really really really common in philosophy. And its highly highly highly common for anybody who wants to appear grounded, to call it mumbo jumbo when its used today.

When they lack the exact same precise thinking in their criticism of these aphoristic leanings and obfuscated meanings as the spirtualistic wordiness they are attempting to shoot down.

There concept of clarity, is already inherently fuzzy. Half the time that debate tactic works not because what was said didn't make sense, but because it sounded complicated because it was not only for the listener but for the speaker, and they lose whatever thought that they had.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Whitey Blythehood - Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:09:13 EST ID:MDEj4Nkl No.196970 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196968
You're arguing in favour of something and making it seem even less appealing, FYI
>>
Augustus Favingstune - Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:19:38 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.196974 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196970
well now we're not even talking about if that kind of sentence is valid or not are we.


Do others make one better? by Isabella Hullerken - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:33:40 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.196052 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1412282020655.jpg -(180087 B, 788x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 180087
Do others make one better? Why and why not?
8 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Cunkinbury - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:06:47 EST ID:Ljon3JaU No.196852 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Some others can make you better. Some others can make you worse. And some others have little effect either way.
>>
Caroline Cunkinbury - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:07:34 EST ID:Ljon3JaU No.196853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416766054928.png -(13282 B, 197x239) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13282
>>196082

Damn.
>>
Archie Hirryduck - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:26:42 EST ID:x8RlX/iB No.196868 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416882402197.jpg -(6144 B, 256x192) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6144
>>196082
HAHAHAHAHA that was a good one ty
>>
Ian Paffingpetch - Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:49:11 EST ID:Ljon3JaU No.196869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oranges are, overall, a good fruit, and I bet I won't get banned for this post.
>>
John Shakespear - Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:53:12 EST ID:fxTkE7A6 No.196963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Others make you, that's it. If they make you better or worse is contingent. You're in your very foundation already in relation to an other, if they make you better or worse is a matter of who they and you are, and what the current circumstances are


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.