Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Psychology of Machine Imprint Individuals

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 20 Sep 2020 04:42:26 EST uUksQtLJ No.210288
File: 1600591346851.jpg -(123697B / 120.80KB, 719x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Psychology of Machine Imprint Individuals
So what's the diagnosis for an individual that understands only their own boundary and choice, not how their action of choice leads to a consequence, of others making a choice?

As in, everyone has a boundary and can make a choice, and it causes others to make choices, but this guy only understands themselves, so any stimuli applied to them, is duplicated by themselves, indefinitely.
Augustus Seffingspear - Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:09:10 EST AOuUNGAb No.210291 Reply
Can you provide a concrete example of what you're describing? I'm not wrapping my head around it...
Matilda Fuckingspear - Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:22 EST uUksQtLJ No.210292 Reply
Someone that played with feces, instead of toys, as a child.

You know, an American police officer.
Eugene Clullyworth - Tue, 13 Oct 2020 01:00:52 EST RSXq79L7 No.210305 Reply

Someone who isn't capable of understanding other people's autonomy.

Myopic, short-sighted, arrogant, ignorant, stupid, idiotic my be a few, charged, words to describe these people.

How to Abolish the Police: Lessons from Rojava

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:47:57 EST jgrixynN No.210150
File: 1591199277087.jpg -(78711B / 76.87KB, 600x817) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. How to Abolish the Police: Lessons from Rojava
>The possibilities of establishing hierarchies of power and authority are significantly reduced in this alternative method. The people are the protectors of the people, those that they live with and interact with daily. The proximity of the ‘security forces’ to the community, being drawn from their own neighborhood ensures that violations do not occur. Where they do occur community mechanisms of justice, honor and restoration are immediately activated through the neighborhood communes. Monopoly of this process is further prevented by encouraging everyone to participate through a roster system. Anyone can volunteer. This includes the elderly, particularly women as sources of civil protection. There is nothing empowering, nothing restores the soul of a traumatized, war-torn community than seeing the matriarchs of your neighborhood confidently at street corners wielding ak-47s for the protection of the people. Unlike the terrifying images of police brutality in the US, these images do not inspire fear and terror. They inspire communal confidence, pride, self respect and belonging. Of course, in Rojava the elderly do have to take on more responsibility due to the fact that most of the young men and women have been fighting at the front lines in the war against ISIS terrorists.

25 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Martha Nicklecocke - Sun, 27 Sep 2020 13:16:46 EST wkablpIZ No.210295 Reply
1601227006298.jpg -(99118B / 96.79KB, 600x872) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Prison abolition is often derided as idealistic or utopian, but it’s more achievable than some might think. In fact, decentralized communal defense models and widespread restorative approaches to justice already exist in Rojava, the Kurdish name commonly used to describe what is formally called North East Syria. As many activists have noted, this autonomous region in northeastern Syria provides a striking modern example of how democratic solidarity in resistance to growing authoritarian power worldwide can inform present-day political efforts within the United States.
Fucking Bardworth - Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:59:33 EST YxS7GzvM No.210304 Reply
1602446373215.jpg -(12737B / 12.44KB, 220x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
what if people dont agree with each other? Should we socially engineer them or outright suppress them with violence or exile? If we decide that we must socially engineer society, how do we make progress without some sort of state to organize and legitimize these decisions based on democracy? It seems like there is so much engrained into our system that would go against social progress that nothing will ever change before its too late.

Im partial to the idea of integration between the human mind and AI being one of the most transformative events that could forever change this system. Being able to access infinite amount of information objectively would liberate constructs of the human ego. Ofcourse, there is the real issue of these augmentations only being available to the wealthy and powerful or them using this technology to further control to population. The revolution in a sense should be to delegitimize the powers between capital and the state. Anarchists tend to agree that hierarchy's are a natural progression in societies as they grow larger. With these two factors, the fundamental system of capitalism and anti-statism would seem the only viable solution into changing the system.


View Thread Reply
- Fri, 11 Sep 2020 21:24:33 EST kxaXF70q No.210286
File: 1599873873513.jpg -(62359B / 60.90KB, 720x654) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. JUSTICE
Should one take justice into their own hands?
Matilda Fuckingspear - Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:16:13 EST uUksQtLJ No.210293 Reply
That would violate selective prosecution rules in the United States.

Anyone invoking authority as anything other than statement of institution contract, including a law enforcement individual or body acting as if they are an authority, a parent or doctor doing so, or alternately somebody treating the group of a population as if they hold authority, is violating precedent of arrest under American establishment of the American Freemason doctrine that accredited state bodies, including your driver's license, employs.

The one exception is an elected official, whom has their leadership contract of personal rights, removed, by virtue of facing election to office - until of course, divested of power and returned to citizenship status.
Nathaniel Pimmleford - Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:42:23 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210294 Reply

No OP they shouldn't, the reason is because trained professionals usually follow protocol and make 100% sure this person is (with evidence) guilty and they are given a chance to defend themselves in court

Vigilantes usually don't follow that, if they think someone's guilty they kill that someone usually without a fair chance to defend themselves.
Martin Dommerwell - Sat, 03 Oct 2020 23:46:59 EST Pr3KJWoH No.210303 Reply

> trained professionals usually follow protocol and make 100% sure this person is (with evidence) guilty and they are given a chance to defend themselves in court

holy shit are you joking mate

sartre was right

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:33:52 EST fGHDtkRk No.210300
File: 1601634832051.jpg -(67269B / 65.69KB, 543x349) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. sartre was right
I don't think the dude who wrote this was a fascist or any kind of bigot or anything close, or maybe even on the right, he seems nice enough and I don't want to malign him, so I don't mean in a moral sense, rather I'm strictly talking about the argumentative style, I saw someone write this:

>Social justice is such a bizarre historical aberration since it involves Guilt based cultures, which are derived from Christianity, and then enough wealth and stability that the majority populations are willing to be demonized. If the majority white population is barely getting by, they won't be very happy about being called oppressors. Similarly, if you need your young male population to be aggressive to fight off your neighbors, talking about toxic masculinity seems silly

And against all better judgement I couldn't help but write a response (posted below) and it ended up taking almost two fucking hours and being 15 times as long and I STILL feel like I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of all the ways what he said is wrong

How the hell do you effectively argue against something like this? It's like they can just say whatever they want and it's a thousand times harder to debunk what they're saying, which leads people who could to just give up which in turn allows the ideas to spread.

The people making these arguments are not all bad people. It would be much easier if they were. We could just discount it offhand and attack them as people, deplatform, whatever, but this isn't necessarily the argument of someone who is genuinely a bad person.

I just see something like this and it's like we're living in completely different universes, but this line of thinking is wrong enough that I feel like it can't just stand. I really want to talk to people like this and they seem nice and amicable and then they hit you with 20 wrong things in a row and you're just bewildered by it, and you start to think "I don't have time for this", but I really do think that someone has to do it. If no one does, if these ideas go unchallenged, they can lead us down a very dark road.
Martin Hezzleway - Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:40:18 EST fGHDtkRk No.210301 Reply
It took a huge toll on my writing too because I was just trying to hammer out everything as quickly as possible and it just became a fool's errand and I started getting more and more discouraged:

That is a little ill-informed, to be particularly generous. First of all, the concept of social justice is not based around "guilt" it's based on righting the wrongs of the past which objectively still have a discernible negative impact on huge swaths of the population.

If one feels "guilt" associated with say slavery for instance, then I would say that's down to said person feeling a false connection to their past which in reality they simply don't have. I don't defend the founding fathers (or any historical figure) on a personal level because I have no conceivable connection to them. They died hundreds of years before I was born into a world they couldn't have begun to have imagined. They were people just as we are and flawed just as we are, and we should be frank about their (many, many) shortcomings and be wary of deifying them in the way we tend to in America. Their accomplishments were not mine, I have my own, and I feel no pride in the accomplishments of others living or dead, at least outside of my family.

The concept of reparations and recognizing and working to eliminate systematic racism is akin to helping victims of a natural disaster. I am as white as they come, but I feel no guilt or shame about what my "ancestors" did, since again I have no conceivable connection to them. However, it's very easy to recognize that with-in our current moral framework in modern society, they committed horrible atrocities against the first peoples of the Americas, the people of Africa, Asia, Oceania. While there is certainly ample evidence for the existence of implicit bias and although I clearly benefit from white hegemony, with respect to slavery I did nothing wrong, I had no part in it.

The similarities to Christian ethics is an interesting point, but as far as we're concerned here I don't find particularly relevant.

"A majority of the population being willing to be demonized" is a point that I absolutely empathize with and many people on the left are far too quick to say annoying scoldy bullshit without considering the material conditions that leads people to where they are, even bigots. I don't think there's a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater though, I don't think that people misunderstanding or misrepresenting a theory automatically invalidates that theory.

I'm distinctly not a fan of the book White Fragility for instance. On a very basic level, none of the social critique is particularly off the mark in my view. The problem is the same as it is with all liberal critique which is it completely ignores class as it intersects with race and the fact that bigotry and capitalism are inextricably linked.

As much as we all hate to say it, we genuinely have waaaay more in common with the average Trump fanatic and even the alt right than we do with executives like Jeff Bezos or hedge fund managers. Anyone who says we can achieve any semblance of equality in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. within capitalism is dangerously wrong.

To point out that bigotry is a societal ill not a personal failing of individuals is not to excuse it, but only when it's acknowledged as such can we effectively do something about it. It's ironic to me that a group so often considered "postmodernist" by detractors of liberalism and of postmodern thought still in general has such a basic "good vs. evil" outlook when it comes to politics.

So no, I don't think calling ALL white people or ALL men or ALL straight people or whatever "oppressors" is accurate at all nor is it productive. You're absolutely right there, however, I would say most of us don't say this, and people have a tendency to take these impartial observations of things personally. But I can only speak definitively for myself.

Right, so the point about war and toxic masculinity is a lot harder to succinctly address, mainly because I find it to be a little silly and we're probably too far apart to even start, but I'll take a stab at it. Firstly, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that masculinity in and of itself is toxic. There is nothing wrong being masculine. As a straight woma…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martin Dommerwell - Sat, 03 Oct 2020 23:41:49 EST Pr3KJWoH No.210302 Reply
i completely vibe with your perspective and admire your efforts but ultimately i doubt they will yield any result. i gave up long ago on trying to show fools the light. until they are ready to seek it themselves they will grunt in anger and fear like a chimp being shown fire

hey. you are not

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:47:17 EST kNaIhZ+S No.210296
File: 1601426837327.jpg -(167597B / 163.67KB, 600x586) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. hey. you are not
a republican
Jenny Clenderhune - Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:23:32 EST fGHDtkRk No.210297 Reply
i thank god every day that i managed to get out
Jenny Clenderhune - Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:20:30 EST fGHDtkRk No.210299 Reply
I'm not a libertarian, not in the American sense at least


View Thread Reply
- Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST /XQxUE3u No.204775
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Meditation
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
145 posts and 18 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Ian Honkinridge - Mon, 13 Jan 2020 01:21:07 EST zc6SoWDP No.209921 Reply
1578896467953.jpg -(54073B / 52.81KB, 564x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> Meditation has kept me from being so caught up in the future that I can't enjoy my life as it is.

Meditation does this for me. Meditation also helps me from being so caught up in the past that I can't enjoy my life as it is.

Sometimes I will have a memory of a really embarrassing time in my life, or a time someone betrayed me, or a time I was suffering in some other way. Sometimes I dwell on those memories for hours or days. Sometimes when I am alone I have really positive memories of times I was with friends or family surrounded by love and I feel happiness because I remember their love but I also feel sad because I am not near those people.

Sometimes when I think about the future I have fantasies about how my life may be better. The difference between my fantasy and my real life brings suffering. Sometimes I have great anxieties about things such as social events, job deadlines, or death.

All of my thoughts about the future or the past bring suffering. Meditation is an important tool to learn how to be in the moment.

Looking for abscure symbol

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:06:38 EST gO6vZ8SZ No.210155
File: 1591646798509.png -(18288B / 17.86KB, 103x88) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Looking for abscure symbol
Im trying to find out what is this grey on white logo in the picture.
Its from a political meme, so I guessed some of you guys might know.

Thank you in advance for your time.
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:46:57 EST DjpVXflu No.210237 Reply
From the context wouldn't it be some weird illuminati shit?
User is currently banned from all boards

why is this graph?

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:01:42 EST fGHDtkRk No.210034
File: 1586257302955.jpg -(89341B / 87.25KB, 610x610) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. why is this graph?
I saw this on Wikipedia just now. It's being used to exppain an incredibly simple concept. It's comparing inferior goods (for which the demand goes down as income goes up) with normal goods (for which the demand goes up as income goes up).

That's it.

What purpose does something like this serve then? Anyone who could make sense of this graph could easily grasp something so simple without any illustration at all. It seems far more obfuscatory than anything.
23 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
hey its elliot from unlv - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:04:03 EST LR61quQn No.210279 Reply
Holy Fucking Shit. I think ii still haver this same fuckign graph installed nope... nvm it was installed on my chrome.
i remember reading this post in my dorm room.

Now like.. a billion thoughts later,
i even spent a week trying to look for the cure for cancer. I know it has/had to be somewhere

turns out I ffound sme scary ass shit instead.

but this? this is not scary.
hey its elliot from unlv - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:07:52 EST LR61quQn No.210280 Reply

I had ran into a collective of images, that are just like this in similiarity \ and was going to master excel and... save Enron.

and the the Lehman Brothers.

Use the examples,
Execl it,
but i mean.. i think its too diifficult to explain a graph like this unless you have a college degree... to give you an answer to your question.

Finding solutions, you know.
now I think someone cause a havocacy orr some shit, now its like... dude... we were looking for fucking solutions, or i was or something, then I started looking for cures.

Where the fukc...
oh my god.

/ends finding the cure for anything .

looks like school starts in 16 days anyways.
perfect timign tojust recrecreational
Caroline Penkinfare - Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:23:04 EST 9cwa4O41 No.210283 Reply
The point of the graph is to allow you to make NUMERICAL, QUANTITATIVE predictions about future given some projected constraints. The "concept", as you say, can be grasped without the graph (perhaps even more easily without the graph) but the concept is "only" a qualitative grasp which will have difficulty making concrete/accurate predictions about the actual numerical changes. "X" increases when "Y" increases is easy to understand, but the rate of change in X as Y increases is more difficult to understand, but allows you to make more accurate predictions about what X will do given an arbitrary value of Y.

What are some books/work that I can read about Socrates?

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 15 May 2020 05:09:48 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210100
File: 1589533788557.jpg -(41782B / 40.80KB, 500x349) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What are some books/work that I can read about Socrates?
I know plato and aristotle wrote lots about him, but where should I start?
14 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Shitting Bollerford - Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:32:29 EST JyDTI0YA No.210275 Reply
Socrates was executed because he had strong connections to the Thirty Tyrants Sparta installed to rule over Athens in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War.


View Thread Reply
- Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST D27gVweR No.208297
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. transphobia
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.
291 posts and 48 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Priscilla Drizzlewell - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:56:34 EST fGHDtkRk No.210268 Reply
>I've never met a single person who hated trans or gays in earnest

I know that you're saying this in bad faith. No one can not see what's wrong with this picture. You aren't clever.
Edwin Shittinggold - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 06:32:43 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210271 Reply
1596450763981.jpg -(90023B / 87.91KB, 1600x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>I have never met a single person who hated trans or gays so therefore people do not hate trans or gays

That's your logic...

Lmao I fucking love diogenes

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:31:52 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210254
File: 1595763112234.png -(700650B / 684.23KB, 1000x1500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Lmao I fucking love diogenes
This guy was legit the first troll.

He and diogenes constantly had several encounters and Diogenes trolled plato every single time or mocked him.
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:54:02 EST fGHDtkRk No.210258 Reply
1595814842540.jpg -(97352B / 95.07KB, 1200x630) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
He was pretty cool, at least the Diogenes we think existed, but it doesn't matter what the real one was like. Pyrrho of Elis was also mind-blowingly ahead of the curve and came up with a lot of ideas eerily similar to the ones we started to realize in the later 20th century.

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are probably the three most overrated philosophers of all time. They should only be studied in critique, as examples of where we once were and why that was flawed. They only became the three representatives of Greek philosophy because their narratives were the most enticing, not because what they thought was actually the closest to reality.
Phineas Fadgelid - Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:55:41 EST n9leFrZZ No.210260 Reply
Perhaps but some of this actually did happen. Diogenes always annoyed plato by shitting in his seat and leaving or just eating really really loudly.


View Thread Reply
- Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:53:47 EST G9E83KJu No.209719
File: 1562723627517.png -(916035B / 894.57KB, 1274x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Internet
Where will social media and the internet be in 10 -20 years?
My guess is we will all be wired into the net, where we cannot tell between online and the real world - constant virtual reality.
We will adapt a hive mind and all consciousness will become one
14 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:56:03 EST DjpVXflu No.210242 Reply
I think future generations are going to be so disgusted with this shit that a new "dark age" will emerge. Do people really want their children to have a porn machine replace all of humanity forever? All of thought replaced by a billboard? A brand, coca-cola, carved into their fucking skull? Away with it
User is currently banned from all boards
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:46:51 EST fGHDtkRk No.210257 Reply
1595814411540.png -(261986B / 255.85KB, 660x335) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You say this as if we have a choice lol and with a suspicious amount of hope 🤔

Postmodern"ism" is descriptive not prescriptive. It's not saying that it's a /good/ thing that there can be no one grand narrative to life and that ultimate truth is impossible to attain and will be forever. Just that it is a thing, which is clear. We've past childhood's end and no matter how deep we bury our heads in the sands of ideology this will still always be the case. The only thing we can do at this point is buckle up and figure out how to exist, and it's not nearly all bad or even mostly bad, there are some truly amazing things about the time we're living in and I don't think there's any denying that, we just have to figure out how to cope on a societal level with the fact that everyone necessarily lives in a different universe and that while there clearly is a thing we call reality or an actual noumenal universe, as beings-in-the-world we can never attain perfect knowledge of it. The project of philosophy will therefor never end, and no resolution will ever be made. Literally the only thing left to do is embrace it because there is categorically no going back. Even if some one belief system became the sole method of deriving knowledge and all others were put down with force, that wouldn't change reality, and the illusion would require unimaginable force and violence to maintain.

Looking at your other posts I don't know if this sort of discussion is quite your speed. Everybody has different skills and abilities in life and ways they prefer to live it though and for the most part a "live and let live" mentality is the only one we can take in postmodernity. Which is the condition we will be in until the end of humanity whether you like it or not. So there's no shame in not having been exposed to the same things "educated" people have and I wouldn't be nearly this glib if you weren't also a reactionary piece of shit. Literally the only single way forward is to figure out how to cope with this ultimate revelation and continually strive towards answers we know aren't there. No positivist, modernist ideology, be it fascism, communism, or liberal capitalism, or literally ANYTHING that any one person came up with, can possibly save us now.
Ernest Geshkitch - Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:03:23 EST nN2ySUGs No.210261 Reply
1595880203668.jpg -(98546B / 96.24KB, 1042x781) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:34:22 EST Nwy2IF3I No.209138
File: 1524303262008.jpg -(20998B / 20.51KB, 494x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?
I want to talk about the concept of knowledge and truth and how we approach its understanding. I am not convinced that logic and reason can serve as the only tools for understanding truth. Here is an example using atoms I have provided to make my point more clear.
>500 BCE Leucippis develops a theory on atomism. It is the idea that everything is composed of indivisible elements called atoms.
>Early 1800s Dalton develops his own atomic theory, where he specifically says “Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed”
>1879 – 1918 Many scientists such as William Crookes discover “subatomic particles” such as protons and electrons, which are smaller than atoms.
>1964 Gell-Mann and Zweig both develop the Quark model showing that hadrons (such as protons) are made of quarks, which are smaller than subatomic particles.
We run into a bit of a problem here. Either we conclude that Leucippis and Dalton are wrong because things are made of smaller things than atoms and atoms can be subdivided. Or we can conclude that Gell-mann and Zweig actually discovered atoms, to be consistent with Dalton’s definition, and we need to rename what atoms used to be called, since Daltons atom was something that could be subdivided. But maybe we might discover something smaller than quarks and where does this end? Then we need to either rename what an atom is yet again or call it the sub-sub-sub-atomic particle.
All of this means that truth is constantly unfolding and reshaping itself. Even now, if we define anything we might end up realizing it wasn’t what it seemed to be at the time and there is a whole new deeper area on the topic to explore. Maybe rationalism has failed to grasp the nature of truth reshaping itself, so all arguments rationalism creates become undone every time a new phenomenon is discovered.
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Clara Faddleway - Thu, 07 May 2020 23:07:43 EST AOuUNGAb No.210074 Reply
All of reality is already here.
The main limitation is man's perspective.
As we devise configurations of matter to expand and amplify our senses, for example a magnifying glass, we will "discover" more of what has always been there.
Doris Ninnerpot - Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:58:33 EST I8Z3gBUH No.210252 Reply

Not trying to be an ass, but why would be the presupposition of indivisibility if they apparently can keep being divided? I know your example was theoretical but would it be important for science or something to have an absolutely indivisible element?
William Pickspear - Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:56:57 EST wkablpIZ No.210253 Reply
I think rationalism does have its own problems and limitations, but I think it's also important to point out that you're critiqing a very specific kind of reason it looks like: empiricism, or more pejoratively positivism (i.e. the science only concerned with appearances). I think that there are ways of knowing outside of merely sensory experience, and this is hardly a new debate.

Christianity discussions

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:14:16 EST uW5n27ks No.210245
File: 1595294056993.jpg -(62075B / 60.62KB, 800x449) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Christianity discussions
So, Protestants. Why do you not believe in the "Deuterocanon" when it was obviously thought of as Scripture by early Christians and referenced in the New Testament? Martin Luther and John Calvin were heretics who arbitrarily deleted Scripture they didn't fancy (even some of the New Testament like Hebrews and James were almost removed because they didn't agree with it).

For those who don't know, Protestants use only the Jewish books of the Old Testament and exclude Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch because they were written in Greek after Alexander's conquests and Protestants believe in Phariseeism I guess.

Also Sola Fide is retarded. A mass murderer could just become "born again" before he is put to death and then will go to Heaven because he "believes".
Caroline Bunhall - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:19:48 EST OCqJM9mw No.210246 Reply
When you think about it, Gnosticism is the only branch of Christianity that isn't completely retarded.
Beatrice Pickleridge - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:44:28 EST JyDTI0YA No.210248 Reply
Gnosticism is a slur. It doesn't mean anything. It was nothing more than a derogatory term Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and the like used to group a wide variety of disparate belief systems who's sole unifying factor was their unorthodoxy. Some supposed 'gnostic' sects aren't even dualistic. Others were far closer to modern Protestantism than anything resembling Sethianism or Manichaeism (the Cathars in particular are one such victim of the Church's attempted grouping of all heresies under a singular banner). 'Gnosticism', as a unified category with supposed shared theological tenants, arouse purely because orthodoxy willed it into being. To even compare second century belief systems (the entire proto-orthodoxy period) with later fourth century derivatives is an extreme stretch of the imagination, much less later medieval belief systems, yet the term Gnosticism is an inherent push to achieve just that. At best, it's an reductive oversimplification. At worst, it's little more than shoving a bunch of unrelated heresiarchs into an amorphous mass with no narrative cohesion to speak of. There's no Gnostic bible, only a group of vaguely-related and heavily debated texts lumped under the same label (and note that many supposed gnostic sects were happy to use certain orthodox Christian works like the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles) No sect of supposed Gnosticism called itself Gnostic until the modern era after the recovery of the Nag Hammadi library, thousands of years removed from their theological forebears.

Know that when you use the term Gnosticism and refer to it as a specific 'branch' of Christianity (which is humorous because some so-called 'gnostic' sects don't even consider the Christ, like the modern Mandaeans), you're using orthodox Christian theology. You're using the long-dead thoughts and opinions of the orthodox Church Fathers in a way quite converse to how the supposed Gnostics of the day regarded themselves.
Caroline Bunhall - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:54:41 EST OCqJM9mw No.210249 Reply
Actually you're right, all of Christianity is completely retarded.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.