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
"Ethics" by Polly Cezzlestock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:49:27 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207869 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489189767598.jpg -(494515B / 482.92KB, 1152x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 494515
So, CRISPR is coming into its own. If you don't know about this new gene-engineering technique, then check this link:

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9

Essentially it's a rehash of a natural system found in protists that's now used to make targeted and precise edits in any genome the user wants. It's revolutionizing genetical biology world-wide, but the research into its obvious health implications is stymied by so called ethics in most of the first world.

So I'd like to discuss ethics and science. I'm just not talking about CRISPR, but general modern miracles of science that's hampered by old-world thinking like surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research or replacement of mitochondria in fertilized cells Which can heal an inherited, rare and lethal decease but is outlawed in most of the world because courts decided the resulting child ends up with "three parents", even though the child only share mitochondrial DNA with the donor.


Now obviously I'm on the liberal side of the debate here, but I wanna know what /pss/ think about these new technologies. Should we play "god" in order to save/improve lives, or is there a thin red line Humanity shouldn't cross? Are these ethical concerns really grounds for outlawing certain possible techniques, or are these ethics remnants of a world where life was the realm of religion?
>>
Frederick Chezzlewick - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:44 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ignoring personal experiences due to a nephew dying at the age of 7 from a genetic disease, fucking hell yeah we need to play God.

We will need all the tools we can get to ensure that humanity will survive the coming 10,000 years and won't end up as a bunch of fossils.
>>
Cyril Gadgekeg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:13:33 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207900 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207869
Speaking as one that was born with a unique and extremely rare disease, yes. Yes, let's "play god". It's one thing to only give this tech to the elites so they can change their DNA to make them into supreme geniuses and everyone else becomes a slave caste.

It's another thing to cure disease. Imagine reversing down syndrome and these one's can actually lead a life of greater potential.

Only people that disagree with such a thing are religious goobers and or people that have no idea what it's like to live with an illness.

David Pakman recently with Matthew Liao on this very subject: http://philtech.io/class-blog/2016/11/the-crispr-future-might-be-a-little-blurred/ (not the interview. it's currently for members atm. )

The idea of being cured yet having religious morons taking that cure away from me and others infuriates me. It's like those moral turds that go against assisted suicide when someone is dying from terminal cancer. Who are these people? Where did they get their nerve?

Fuck your ethics! Give me the goods, doc!
>>
Nathaniel Trotstock - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:34:27 EST ID:USA6SDn7 No.207956 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Being afraid of "playing god" is for people haunted by spooks.

CRISPR everyone up, fam.


Family by Caroline Nossleshaw - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207850 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47743
What's up with family? What's up with heritage?
These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?
Family is a group of people you share genetics with, who you have no choice of selecting, and heritage is people/events that have happened long in the past that you may be connected to genetically.
I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage; you had nothing to do with it. I don't understand the point of being proud of your family; they're not you, nor are they people you've chosen to have in your life. And I don't understand the point of loving people simply because you share a genetic bond; there's nothing special about my genetics or anyone's genetics, really.

So what's up with this stuff? Why is it so significant to people?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:32:06 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's up with family?

Without your family you wouldn't exist or you'd be dead, assuming you weren't rescued by some third party

>What's up with heritage?

Your culture is what your ancestors have been building for years and years, and there's a lot of value that comes with the cultures we're lucky enough to inherit. You're basically asking what the value of culture is. Heritage is accumulated culture across time and generations.

>These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?

Because they know that without the human beings in their inner circle, which in most cases has the family at the center, and their culture, they would be swimming in an ocean of chaos and death that they wouldn't be able to deal with at all. The alternative is being born in the wilderness alone and freezing to death immediately or being eaten by something.

>I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage

Your ancestors produced societies (and survived successfully pre-agriculture, which is in some ways even more remarkable) that allowed their genes to propagate over hundreds of years, which is pretty much a miracle in its unlikelihood, not to mention all the benefits of culture that you benefit from. Without these things you wouldn't have a history, which would mean you wouldn't have any foundation to build the future on, you wouldn't have art, you wouldn't be able to read these words or have any conception of what words are, etc.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Sidney Bimmlestitch - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:49:00 EST ID:p5PWfvYz No.207931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207927
>you are the product of thousands of years of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't a process . Its closer to the lack of a process. Its fairer to say "you are whats left over after thousands of years of natural selection."
Not trying to be a dick just autism
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207932 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931

I see what you're saying I think. Basically life just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and we're what stuck because it worked well enough.
>>
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931
It's still a process. Process doesn't necessarily imply intention or thought. The reactions of chemistry are described as processes, and occur as an entropic breakdown in the same way that evolution does, yet are still fantastically complex and multi-staged enough to be described as 'processes.'

Not trying to be a dick but just autisming harder.
>>
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:00:54 EST ID:uRNFOzYS No.207954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931
I disagree with you too, but not for David's reasons. I think that natural selection can seem like "a lack of a process" in that randomness has a huge effect on it, however on an evolutionary scale, myriad traits have substantial effects on the results of selection. Not trying to be a dick just aiming for max autis


What do you think of a real life vigilante? by Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207586 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216720
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
39 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:43:58 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207834
>Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.
Meh, it's neither. The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem. Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

All that stuff in the news about police brutality is bullshit. I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news, and I realized and verified that every story was false, except for like 2. Like, there was a case of a flash-bang grenade frying a baby. That's undoubtedly brutality. But then I'd see countless cases of the cops man-handling a violent black perp and all the blacks would scream BRUTALITY! or a video would surface of a black man escaping resisting arrest and then getting shot, and BLM and so on and so forth would screech BRUTALITY!

Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.

But there were also some mishaps. For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot, and the AK47 was modified to look real, as in all the safety features, like the orange nozzel, were taken away from the gun to make it look like a real AK. Mind you, the person who reported the child said that the gun appeared fake, however the dispatcher never mentioned the 'looked fake' part to the police being dispatched so they were told, 'Black kid is running around with a gun' and they gunned him down on sight pretty much because he aimed the gun at the police. That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremly stupid.
>>
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:09:25 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
> I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news

Oh really? You convinced me. Some random the future immigrant must know his shit so much better than actual staticians and sociologists.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
>>
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.


>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207828
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Psychoanalysis by Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207810 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79804
So I first learned of Lacan and the enduring legacy of that wacky cokester Freud from my well-read friend who is incidentally also a Stalinist, since fringe opinions come in clusters. Now I'm reading more Lacan and Freud, and some Deleuze & Guattari, for a grad seminar on critical theory (so it's from a literary/cultural standpoint rather than a clinical interest). This is the kind of spooky shit I like to study, esoteric and abstract and more about asking questions than getting answers. Who's got opinions? Anyone been analyzed?
>>
Nell Sabblefitch - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:25:47 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>top left
>repress death drive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin

Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially reported as a suicide.

I don't know anything about Lacan, though Zizek talks about him a lot. I've only read a bit of Frued and some Jung. What's Lacan's deal? I remember Hegel is relevant somehow.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:15:07 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207813 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207812
>taking abstruse theoretical concept at face-value
>as though a drive has anything to do with anyone else's gratification but the subject's
>entirely ignoring historical and material conditions, to include the imperative to rapidly industrialize an agrarian backwater, in the interregnum between a civil war where most major global powers intervened on the side of the ousted regime, and an imminent fascist invasion

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lacweb/

Advocating for a return to what he claimed to be Freud's most fundamental discoveries about the unconscious, Lacan was about two major things, in the readings I've done: desire is predicated on lack, and the unconscious is structured like a language. Rather than Freud's ego/superego/id distinction, Lacan drew the major distinctions as between an Imaginary order (found in the mirror: imagery, falseness, narcissism and self-concept), the Symbolic Order (where language facilitates the ascendancy of Law and Structure), and the Real (not reality, but beyond language and unassailable by analysis, and hence unattainable). The desire–lack thing is where Hegel comes in handy, and I'm woefully behind on my Hegel, but it seems to be about a complex of recognition and a displacement of desirability involving an inscrutable Other: you desire to be desired by the Other, who is very much like Freud's mother figure.

Lacan's also got a pretty nifty tripartite distinction of mental illness, distinguished by reactions to the Symbolic castration (cf. Freud's phallic stuff): the resentful neurotic, the Law-fixated pervert, and the paranoid psychotic. I was told that as soon as you start learning about these categories, you annoyingly start diagnosing yours and everyone else's behaviors in their terms. And just wait til you get to the pseudo-algebra, now there's where you can really blow your systematizing and totalizing load. Jouissance!
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am extremely suspicious of Lacan. In short, I do not believe that behind the curtain there is anything of theoretical value. Positivist dullards like Alan Sokal have said this about almost every postwar French thinker, but let me try to make the case that unlike Jean Baudrillard or Gilles Deleuze, who were entirely capable of lucid prose and whose occasional difficulty is a stylistic choice, Lacan's density is an intellectual smokescreen, expressly designed to disguise his fraudulence.
Watch this video of him reading Proust, or for that matter any of his public lecturing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

What's impossible to miss is how affected and grandiloquent his speaking manner is. I've attended my share of lectures given by professors with a taste for theatricality, but Lacan's affective display extends to almost every dimension of his public personality, down to his outrageously foppish cravates and silk shirts. That he possessed an electrifying manner is not just my opinion, as Elisabeth Roudinesco was inspired to argent revelry in describing him as "[a] sorcerer without magic, a guru without hypnosis, a prophet without god." Even more significantly she noted that "students had the impression that the master was speaking... in a coded message secretly addressed to them alone."

The fact of his virtuosic charisma leads me to believe that Lagan was a malignant narcissist, whose entire intellectual career was a sophisticated strategy to win him praise and adulation. Consider: Nietszche's prose is soaring and possessed of a brilliant wit, while Nietzsche the man was entirely ineffectual and forgettable. This is the way you'd expect it to be; the artist is dwarfed in stature by his work. Lacan is just the opposite. In person he was magnetic, while his writing is unbelievably turgid, almost unreadable. Why is that? When you realize the essential fraudulence of Lacan's personality and oeuvre, it becomes obvious. His writing was intentionally obscurantist so as to allow him to keep the con going. In another time and place he may have ended up a cult leader, but it so happens he became a French psychoanalyst instead.

In fact, the army of discip…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207847 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207824
I always felt like I was being too pretentious for not liking Lacan simply because of how overblown and pretentious *he* is. I always kinda assumed that there just was something 'behind the curtain' that I just hadn't read or wasn't getting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:35:02 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207847
Lacan thrived, even depended, on that uncertainty. When the charismatic narcissist begins speaking he wins over some in an instant, while a few see through him just as quickly. The larger fraction of the audience, though, remains uncommitted, and it is by vigorous exercise of charisma that he convinces them to suspend their disbelief -- "perhaps I just don't understand it, perhaps I'm a philistine; perhaps he really does have it figured out."


The Decline of The West by Edward Ducklecocke - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST ID:fk7xMmwU No.207331 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37129
I'm in the process of reading pic related and I've been interested in the idea that the West is in terminal decline and will soon collapse for a while now and I'm fairly convinced that The West is basically done. What do you guys think?
47 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:54:38 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207817
Well, you just agreed with me that rights are in fact a social construct that we've spelled out, so you're right, this will go nowhere because we're in complete agreement.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:55:50 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207817
There's something you said that's an entire enigma to me, though.
>philosophical absolutes
What the hell is that?
>>
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:54:26 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207826
I said it was a social construct that is based on philosophical absolutes, which is why its content isn't arbitrary. But please, go ahead and use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions.

Philosophical absolutes are a priori principles. They are absolute because they are not contingent on other phenomena like a posteriori principles. This is a very subtle and abstruse concept which I'm sure you will try to misunderstand, but what I am suggesting is that fundamental conceptions of rights, like 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' emerge from a priori facts about what it means to be a sapient, subjective consciousness. Life is important because we are organisms, liberty is important because we have self-awareness over our own conditions, the freedom to pursue happiness is important because our internal subjectivity produces vast diversity that no one definition of happiness can fit.

My point being that a sapient beings rights aren't random, or arbitrary, or generated purely by consensus. They may be protected or agreed upon by a group reaching consensus, but they emerge from the properties of sapient beings a priori and are merely recognized after the fact a posteriori, in the same way that a group of scientists may have to get together and reach a consensus to publish a paper that declares a new scientific law, but the law already existed as an inherent aspect of reality and was merely waiting to be discovered.

To provide a counter-example to show why rights aren't purely consensus based, imagine a society that by consensus determines everyone has the right to throw people in the volcano. For a long time this might continue, simply because everyone believes that it is so, but eventually there would be someone who would refuse. After a long enough time, someone might refuse loudly enough that someone else heard them before they got chucked in, and people reflecting on their refusal would cause discussion of the event to spread. People would eventually begin to question why the consensus was reach…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:47:52 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207832
I'd love to educate you more on this subject, but I don't converse with mother fuckers who are so rude as to randomly insult the person they're conversing with. I'm just going to leave you with the proof that I'm correct. I enjoyed our talks until you ruined it. Goodbye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:27:02 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207846 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207841
>>use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions

Well at least I called it ahead of time. As usual, you make inflammatory claims but aren't willing to hang in for the inevitable consequences, and act like you won by harping about definitions.

That the crappy editors at wikipedia equate rights with norms is utterly misleading, and if you actually follow the reference for their use of it you will see that the person copying the textbook made the same error you made regarding the difference between the a priori origins or rights and the fact that we must agree on recognition of them, in understanding the line in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

If a norm is a prescriptive statement about the world of the format 'things ought to be this way,' then either all norms are culturally relative (there are no universal 'ought to's) or some norms arrive from universal ethical principles and some arise from culturally contingent ethical principles. The social structure which enforces the recognition of a right is necessarily a norm, because each culture would enforce rights differently. But precisely what I am saying is that the 'universal, inalienable' rights are not norms, because they are not an 'ought to' we have to enforce but an 'is' that is intrinsic to reality, which is the opposite of what a norm is. Alternatively, one would have to argue that all morality is relative, in which case once again a morality that includes universal, rather than normative conceptions of rights is equally as valid as one that doesn't.

So if you want to actually engage in discussion, defend your links. You told me that I was actually saying the opposite of what I was saying and demanded to know 'what the hell' I was talking about, but apparently me prophetically saying you would be too 'butt hurt' to actually respond was so offensive that you don't want to respond or defend your statements. Imagine that. Once again 54P, I would suggest if you're going to make strong statements, at least have the…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


If the Bible is the word of God by Nigel Gerryshit - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST ID:oxJMfop8 No.201897 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 240556
why the fuck doesn't it have anything in it like

  1. Genetics and how all that shit works

2. The laws of physics

3. How to build an environmentally friendly engine

4. How to cure cancer

5. How to prevent the bubonic plague?

I'm serious.

Why didn't God just include all that stuff?
69 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:20:59 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207822
I'd agree with you if Jesus wasn't also in the Quran.
That being said, the Quran was written 400 years after the Bible, so, technically Jesus could be made-up.
But I think in reality Jesus is like Beowulf. He was just some dude, and one day legends about him spread, and then they become larger than life by all means, to the point where all the stories surrounding him might as well be fake.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:13:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207823
The assumption lies with those that treat the Bible apart from all other myths of its day. Richard Carrier will eventuall cause a snowball effect which will pull away the shroud of obvious biases to allow people to finally understand the obviousness of it all.

Jesus being in the Quran just means that one work of lit took from another wlrk of lit to give itself more merits.

It could be that Jesus was just some dude that snowballed into what it is today but there is good evidence otherwise.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207829
I recommend looking up Richard Carriers lectures. The Jesus myth people donated him to see if there is any merit to the idea. Think of it as the zeitgeist film but researched by a legitimate ancient historian phd. He changed his mind and realized that there is merit to the ideas. An example, cult of Romulus even had a passion play and its dated older than christianity.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:36:14 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207831
Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't matter. I know the stories surrounding Jesus are mostly if not totally false, so, who cares? Teaching lessons via myth is just a normal part of history.
>>
Nigel Sondlespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:02 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207844 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207839
It matters when the alternative is believed as historical fact. Christianity rests on the idea that this all happened in reality to give itself credibility. It matters in the social and political and even psychological sense. It also matters in a scholarly sense. It hampers scholarship to give credence to a thing that does not deserve any and only given throughg enerations of assumptions which carries over from its inception thousands of years ago.

Some atheists argue believers are in some ways victimized by these beliefs that has a strong hold over our government policy making and ways in which societys behaves. I think there is a very good argument to be made that if they are victims then it would ethical to offer help.


We have to talk about louie ck by Beatrice Cloffingman - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 00:52:00 EST ID:ZQywfuGk No.207508 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1482731520273.jpg -(18093B / 17.67KB, 640x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 18093
Now louie is alright but there is something that he said which got me thinking like a dog stuck in the dog door. You see that guy was on a interview and he comes up with this way of looking where "a little white girl doesn't get to complain". He continues on about how when his kid was sick and he got her flavored medicine which she didn't want. "what do you mean no? People are starving to death and you say no!? You don't get to!"

And it hit me, okay she is not starving and that's better than the alternative but in a way, she resembles what society has sacrificed inorder to not starve. That little girl sick but she still thinking about petty shit like the flavor of her medicine, she forever in this headspace where things like that matter. The sacrifice is a clear mind replaced by that of something like a consumer.
31 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Graham Baddlebury - Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:35:02 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207757 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1487716502986.gif -(2021114B / 1.93MB, 185x171) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207756
>You're a bit emotional for /pss/, but then again pretty much everyone here who's not me is too emotional.

Reread your post, and you'll figure out the joke yourself mate.
>>
Cyril Wallerworth - Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:23:58 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207756
Everyone who comes to this board are emotional children who like to get their jollies from trying to sound smarter than other people they don't know on the internet. And there are like five of us, and we're all garbage people. Don't try to deny it.
>>
Ernest Pablingway - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:50:09 EST ID:YONArVoZ No.207759 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207758
This, I just came here by accident and you're all the worst.
>>
Fucking Brocklewick - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:57:11 EST ID:5T+lpeRC No.207760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207753
>lol I'm smarter than you
>but I"m not stuck up look at this ironic blingee anime gif I'm chill
>I'M SMART FUCK OFF
>>
Cedric Drebberwan - Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:42:25 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1487860945964.png -(49043B / 47.89KB, 642x1424) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207758


Stimulant psychosis by Thomas Buzzville - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 02:46:38 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207672 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1486021598585.jpg -(1003863B / 980.33KB, 2448x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1003863
Realization of the Individual

An Informal and Incomplete Attempt at Documenting Ramblings of Stimulant Psychosis, as a Less Fucked-Up Freud Would Attempt With Only Anecdotal Evidence and Subjective Observations

Extinguishing Sex in
Delapidated Gender Politics and

A letter to an old and new friend,

Would it be personally irksome to suggest that by rekindling a frienship with the "you" that always existed in my mind, represented through your thoughts and actions, and now modified, complemented, and made whole, in all practical pretenses of recognition, a gendered-persona in my mind, lets me realize the ultimate muteness and insignificance of how I (and certainly others) change behavioral patterns (voluntarily or involuntarily, passively or actively) when attempting to communicate with the opposite gender, as if that particular gendered individual is inherently predisposed to respond a different way, and additionally the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?

The idea of the "transgender" individual is uncomfortable for a large portion of humanity, across sexual orientations even, and this uncomfortability is due to an unwillingness of the ordinary individual to confront their own firstly amorphous and effectively raw Identity as they can illustrate outwardly for others or inward for themselves in any honest confidence without fibbing and cutting corners in important internal dialogues. Even individuals with singular missions through career or personal obligation of manifesting an idea in physical reality through some non-monetary motivation, struggle with the perception of themselves after completion, as their own understanding of their identity even during their 'mission' was not guided by some inherent imperative intrinsic in identity, but rather by a belief maintained by the constructs, irrespective of any moral grounding, that restricted the ability to self-actualize through a mode of self-expression which did not include the creation of art (this working definition of art being the representation of an idea, one's own or collectively amalgamized with others', through a medium unsullied by the self's neccesity to maintain a contrived character in order to survive.

I only preface this realization of mine with the fear of its possible irksomeness to you because its framing implicitly recognizes your transition, which is effectively a masked question of your actual existence, as it questions every others'... However, this only means that you have largely come to terms with the time, space, and reality you inhabit, and from my point of view, have gone further in the never-ending journey in self-actualization toward the ideal of Nietzsche's Ubermensch (as i interpret)
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martha, OP - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:53:42 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207678
Additionally, do you think that [the] prose can have a place in the presentation of the raw idea for discussion?

Would you say there is validity in the notion of the ordinary individual feeling uncomfortable with the transgender phenomena due to some cognitive dissonance, the dissonant truths being the public persona and the internal self? And the behavioral reaction being avoidance, prejudice, and possible violence? Or on the flip side, a total and complete acceptance of the transgender phenomenon through the self-actualization of identity unbound by any gender, but wielding gender as a tool for self-expression. (and this is by no means implying it is a "choice" in self-actualization of gender, on the contrary, it is a deeply held conviction of one's Identity, an imperative to be expressed much like a gene.

NB
>>
Oliver Harringpore - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:44:36 EST ID:hKRevDFH No.207685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you have conflicting ideas here, if my interpretation is correct.

You make the claim that people attach too much to their biological gender, and that discarding our biological urges is our path to the true self.

And then you place emphasis on transgendered individuals who place almost all of their attachment to their idea of what their biological gender should be. It seems out of place.

So is sexual identity important or not?

Or are you calling sexual identity one means of self actualization where the expression of the individuals 'art,' where art is any external expression of the self, is another means of self actualization?
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:16:30 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207685

Not saying that individuals attach too much to their biological gender, or thattransgendered individuals place too much value in ehat their biological gender should be, but that the aforementioned is not a part of true identity, but its appendage, "persona"

My idea of identity is neutered. What is presented for external observation is persona, which is what is sexualized.
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:25:23 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207685
Sexual orientation and Gender is a mechanism of self-expression for the true identity, through the apparatus of persona. It does not neccesarily imply the identity to be one thing or another inherently, but that the persona is neccessitated to engage and immerse itself in the terms of gender and sexuality.
>>
Matilda Doshman - Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:49:04 EST ID:AY3IYDOV No.207688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207672
"I wont say that I'm proud of you because I feel what follows the emotion of pride is the ideation of some degree of my participation in your 'good' or 'achievement', which further implicates an idea of ownership of some portion of your being,"

I really like that. Pretty sound logic to me through and through, but let me double check i'm getting your message.

You write, "the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?"

You mean to say that because of our animal origins, the egoic/lesser mind creates a "normal" or "likeable" facade to attract mates while also adorning qualities that further ensure survival based off environment, and upon discovering their facade,the person realizes their true self, which i gathered from your loose definition to be some amorphous creative force, thereby rendering the awakened individuals identity as both limitless and illusory.

Pretty sure that's what you meant. Either way good read, I really enjoy hifalutin prose. Your style really does reflect the honeymoon phase of amphetamines for me..definitely seemed stimmmmmed


Callout Culture by Basil Crindersun - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:44:07 EST ID:oDJItcGo No.207590 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484369047663.gif -(3204803B / 3.06MB, 320x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3204803
Have y'all ever had the pleasure of being called out? I know the supposed purpose is this is to warn others about "dangerous" people but in practice I don't think I've ever seen it used like that. It's all nothing more than insecure people trying to outshame each other, usually hypocritically. Most fandom drama I've seen is played out exactly like that.

I'd put it on kids being immature, but grown adults do this sort of thing all the time. I think part of it is because people are jealous of other people's talents, so they target creators whose abilities they covert and hide behind the excuse of them drawing porn of children's cartoons of something.

I just wonder what motivates people to get so angry at cartoon drawings they have to attempt to destroy a person's life.
12 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
George Dummledale - Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:42:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207644
So true and wise.

They reject the police because they're being lied to. They think the police are some sort of gang, like in Mexico. They say things like, 'You'll think differently when the police shoot your son!'
Americans are wrapped in paranoia, especially surrounding the police. Literally every encounter I've had with the police, while breaking a law or not, have been very cool and chill, and the police clearly just cared about making sure everything was safe. Except for this one time a cop tried to fight me when I was 17 and bike riding in the Jersey Shore. I'm sad I didn't call the police to file an official complaint about that 20-something steroided-up little fucker.
>>
Cedric Dommlestone - Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:01:11 EST ID:58c+uNGL No.207658 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207644
I don't mean to challenge you sir. Because I am absolutely fascinated by what you've said. Could you name any of these "radical circles" by name or are you just generally associating that with the anti-authoritarian left?
>>
Molly Subberfield - Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:55:39 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207668 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207658
Please, challenge all you like. Yeah I was speaking in general regarding the anti-authoritarian left. Sometimes drama would bubble-up on the internet. Though no specific examples come to mind.
>>
Rebecca Bozzleway - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 05:14:04 EST ID:YONArVoZ No.207684 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Now I remember why I don't come here, /pss/ is the most autismal board on the site.

nb
>>
Frederick Brurringdetch - Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:49 EST ID:p7ZQMKx+ No.207735 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Scratch?


There's absolutely no central ethos driving modern thought and this is a good thing by Edwin Hickleket - Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:57:41 EST ID:/8HhZCXH No.207641 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1485478661593.jpg -(73018B / 71.31KB, 940x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73018
Every time it's a slow news day for some posh culture zine I see articles crop up about what makes this generation tick. They say we're too detached and ironic one day and then the next they say we're big on sincerity. We either care too much or too little about the world, relationships, religion, everything. They go on and on about what philosophies dominate our youth culture but what they say we think is constantly changing and never really gets it right. There aren't any movements in our culture that take hold of the vast majority of young adults anymore. There aren't any cultural idols or iconoclasts. There are very very famous people but for everyone who worships the ground these celebrities walk on there are as many who would spit in their faces. The Internet and in general the free access to information and quality of our schooling has brought up a generation where almost no one agrees on anything. Everyone has their own ideas about everything because they don't have to get their belief system from either their parents and teachers or counter-cultural movements. People can go online right now and read thousands of pages from the great works of every philosopher who has ever lived and been recorded. They don't have to suffer through learning by a lesson plan that directs their thought by only including the "right" things. And they don't have one single alternative to what's considered the "culture" of the "majority" at the second. Sure, most people don't care about any of this stuff and they just want to eat, sleep, fuck, feel valued and have fun but that's how it's always been. Only recently has the lack of any philosophical guidance brought this to light. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this way of thinking either. It doesn't make them dumb or immoral it just means they don't have any interest in ideology. If 99% of people in the world were like this it would still be better than when people followed a belief system insincerely because that's what they were supposed to or because they wanted to rebel. I think maybe someday this will change, I don't know how it could but it might, maybe by force of som…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Hedda Crommlebury - Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:00 EST ID:BKJX7E+7 No.207646 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I tried to read your post mate, but it's a wall of text in the fullest extent of the word.

Please use spaces between chunks of texts next time ok?
>>
Eugene Dartbanks - Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:42:57 EST ID:wbhmCm0d No.207648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207641
The past wasn't homogeneous either, we just tend to pigeonhole things more when they're further from us.


Existential dread by Polly Pishbanks - Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:50 EST ID:fxoRXnTe No.207530 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1483203050436.jpg -(187800B / 183.40KB, 716x494) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 187800
Hey /pss/, sorry for not being more philosophical, but I would like to get some advice from you all. It'll be hard to present my problem in a way that will yield the best results, so bear with me.
My friend has been struggling with finding a meaning to life. He's very intellectual, so he has done a lot of his own research by way of philosophy, and I'm pretty sure he considers himself an Absurdist. But he's not comfortable with the fact that nothing has meaning. Now I've read some Camus and I do agree that there is some quelling of these anxieties in the fact that at least Nothing is real, but this isn't enough for my friend. I've tried to get him to explain his feelings a bit more but I don't want to act like I'm analyzing him by writing things down as he explains. So again, I apologize if none of this is very clear.

That being said, I'll share some of the things I can recall him saying. He says he's bored with everything, and a lot of things that once gave him joy fail to excite him any longer. Some of these things are simple, such as video games, and he says he dislikes activities like this because they're not beneficial over time. So I ask why he doesn't do something that is beneficial, such as reading a book or learning something new. He does a lot of reading and learning, but again argues that even all this knowledge he acquires has no benefit because it will all die with him. Another thing I noticed when he talks about this is that he often says 'nothing matters on a cosmic level'. I tried saying that everything serves a purpose, using the example I read on here how a table is more than the sum of its parts, it serves a purpose for us to use it to rest things on. He then said that everything is nothing but atoms, and atoms have no purpose and that they simply exist.

I don't know. He finds no purpose in anything. I want to help him find a purpose for at least some things. Science can't really prove that there is a meaning for things, so I'm at a loss for what to tell him.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:25:35 EST ID:vano1wpA No.207546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207545
It's a consequence of the totalizing effect of secular materialism on people's understanding of the world. Without a God, they conclude there is no locus of causality and morality, and therefore there must be nothing at all; they don't realize that to pose the question (of existential meaning) is already to be defeated.

Let me share something a very smart man once told me. Imagine arranging everything this way:

Aesthetic
Moral
________
Logical
Theoretical


"Aesthetic" here means what's apparent to the senses, "logical" the system of inductive and deductive reasoning, and "theoretical" the overarching framework of knowledge. Now what he convinced me of is that the only sensible way to understanding is by going from the top down -- you start with the sensory realm, you use that to develop your moral conscience, you use that to develop your system of reasoning, and finally you arrive at your theory of the world. The failing of countless otherwise very intelligent people throughout history is they went they wrong way about it. If you start by elucidating your theory of reality, you will never get to a correct moral understanding. That's why there's a line between the moral and logical. You can't get there from here.

"The meaning of life" is going about it totally backwards. What can be said at all? This (consciousness) appears to be a source of mattering. Now one has an axiological leg to stand on. Have I made my point clearly?
>>
Phoebe Berrypag - Thu, 05 Jan 2017 03:28:33 EST ID:M2a7S9cl No.207547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1483604913998.jpg -(194730B / 190.17KB, 1155x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207546
Simply to exist and perceive is meaningful? Regardless of our notions about anything, personal or greater insignificance, wonder can be standing on the porch, listening to the rain, smoking, breathing, feeling the wind, gravity, my posture, seeing the city move, and a fat racoon cross the street.

That our ideas are the product of our experiences is generally a Phenomenological concept. I mean of Jean-Paul Sartre's thought, particularly "Being and Nothingness", about alot of things, consciousness in relation to becoming, having a dream or aspiration, which is negated by the possibility of not following through, or other real or imagined selves who have same or similar aspiration and don't follow through, but also reaffirmed by the possibility of actualizing the goal in reality. In between the intention and the action is nothing.

The translator has a far better summation in the introduction, my knowledge is pretty nil here. There's an interesting bit about emotion in the introduction too. Here's a long quote from the first chapter, the Origin of Negation, V the Origin of Nothingness
https://books.google.com/books?id=X6RtpboH478C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

"I assert that I am my essence in the mode of being of the in-itself. At the same time I always refuse to consider that essence as being historically constituted and as implying my action as a circle implies its properties. I apprehend it, or at least I try to apprehend it as the original beginning of my possible, and I do not admit at all that it has in itself a beginning. I assert then that an act is free when it exactly reflects my essence. However this freedom which would disturb me if it were freedom before myself, I attempt to bring back to the heart of my essence--i.e., of my self. It is a matter of envisaging the self as a little God which inhabits me and which possesses my freedom as a metaphysical virtue. It would be no longer my being which would be free qua being but my Self which would be free in the heart of my consciousness. It is a fiction eminently reassuring since freedom has been driven down into the heart of an opaque being; to the extent that my essence is n…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Phoebe Berrypag - Thu, 05 Jan 2017 03:31:32 EST ID:M2a7S9cl No.207548 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1483605092998.jpg -(98624B / 96.31KB, 800x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207547 (continued)
However the examination of the question and of the negation has given us all that it can. We have been referred by it to empirical freedom as the nihilation of man in the heart of temporality and as the necessary condition for the transcending apprehension of negatites. It remains to found this empirical freedom. It can not be both the original nihilation and the ground of all nihilation. Actually it contributes to constituting transcendences in immanence which condition all negative transcendences. But the very fact that the transcendences of empirical freedom are constituted in immanence as transcendence shows us that we are dealing with secondary nihilations which suppose the existence of an original nothingness. They are only a stage in the analytical regression which leads us from the examples of transcendence called "negatites" to the being which is its own nothingness. Evidently it is necessary to find the foundation of all negation in a nihilation which is exercised in the very heart of immanence; in absolute immanence, in the pure subjectivity of the instantaneous cogito we must discover the original act by which man is to himself his own nothingness. What must be the nature of consciousness in order that man in consciousness and in terms of consciousness should arise in the world as the being who is his own nothingness and by whom nothingness comes into the world?

We seem to lack here the instrument to permit us to resolve this new problem; negation directly engages only freedom. We must find in freedom itself the conduct which will permit us to push further. Now this conduct, which will lead us to the threshold of immanence and which remains still sufficiently objective so that we can objectively disengage its conditions of possibility--this we have already encountered. Have we not remarked earlier that in bad faith, we are-anguish-in-order-to-flee-anguish within the unity of a single consciousness? If bad faith is to be possible, we should be able within the same consciousness to meet with the unity of being and non-being--the being-in-order-not-to-be. Bad faith is going to be the next object of our investigation. For man to be able to question, he must be ca…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:32:51 EST ID:vano1wpA No.207570 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1484123571568.jpg -(461279B / 450.47KB, 2000x1394) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207567
>All the contents of the average human life is a salad bowl of circumstantial, transitory desires that do more to obliterate one's connection to their will to live than to advance any endeavor they may want to undertake before death.
Gotta be honest, this is a pretty bad sentence homie.
>>
Reuben Wirrystock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:49:47 EST ID:Kyyd6tev No.207581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207570
>one grammatical error
>pretty bad
fo you i fix
>All the contents of the average human life are a salad bowl of circumstantial, transitory desires that do more to wear down their will to live than to advance any endeavor that one may want to undertake in life.


Ancient Chinese story by Sidney Pezzlekere - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:46:46 EST ID:0bScNOuz No.207458 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481838406401.jpg -(65585B / 64.05KB, 400x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65585
Hey /pss/. I don't really venture into the social sciences too much so I'm not sure if this would be better suited for /his/ or not. In any case, a friend of mine who was a student of Eastern philosophy recently died. I have since then been trying to tack down a story he once told me. It was about an ancient philosopher who I think was Chinese. The story had the philosopher lying in a ditch when a person comes along and offers to help him. The philosopher made some clever remark and refused the man's help. I believe he said something about no one being able to help him but himself, or maybe he just liked the ditch or some other nonsense.

Does anyone on /pss/ know a possible source for this story or the name of the philosopher? I have tried multiple search engines and quieries to no avail.
>>
Shitting Gadgefoot - Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:37:44 EST ID:j9/Y0UW9 No.207472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207458
Isn't this just another version of the "No thank you, I am a holy man, God will save me" story/joke? A man in trouble refuses the help of men coming to his aid saying that God will save him because he is a faithful man and believes in God, and eventually the man dies and when he gets to heaven he asks God why he didn't save him and God's like well I sent three guys to help you out dude!
>>
Thomas Pockstock - Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:43:02 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There's one about two monks who help a lady across a river and the lady doesn't say thank you, so later that day the young monk is like fuck that bitch and the old monk says "I carried her across the river, you've been carrying her all day."
>>
Hannah Feblingfit - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:58:22 EST ID:rKFvzvQa No.207490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It may be a variation on one of those common stories. I was just wondering since I'm sure my friend said a particular name when he told it and I wanted to be able to look up the original text it came from. Thanks for taking a look at this.
>>
Eugene Pendlemut - Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:05:50 EST ID:Jv6wkL6u No.207573 Ignore Report Quick Reply
pretty sure that the story OP is talking about is a zen koan, though I can't remember the specific koan in question.

Google "The Gateless Gate" and "Shobogenzo" and get reading, it'll be floating around somewhere on the internet.


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