AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
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


Alan Watts~ Why Try To Change The World... by Augustus Hucklefeg - Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:48:30 EST ID:+5HMs+Sw No.194379 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402717710333.jpg -(45213 B, 540x745) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45213
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GrwF0PcS54


causation and laws of nature by Phoebe Pimmlewater - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 17:15:24 EST ID:ox1h66Se No.194170 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402175724932.jpg -(28966 B, 650x477) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 28966
How does a materialist account for the laws of nature?

I was watching this guy's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74eXAAN0K6g on philosophical failings of Christian apologists, and his first point was that Christians fail to comprehend the analytic/synthetic distinction. Specifically, he addressed the challenge by theists that atheists have some difficulty in accounting for the laws of logic, implying they must have some metaphysical Platonic essence (and he addressed their obsession with Platonism shortly after and also made a separate video on mathematical Platonism), when in reality, the 'laws of logic' are simply analytic statements which are true by virtue of the meaning of the words we use. By contrast, synthetic statements are statements which are not true by the meaning of the words we use, rather, their truth value is contingent upon how the world actually is (and the assumption therefore is that we verify them using empiricism). His argument is essentially that logic demands no metaphysical essence because the logic itself is just our analytic contemplation of concepts we have abstractly created and their meaning and relationships to one another. 'Logic' itself does not have a truth value, because 'logic' is simply a process we use to determine the truth value of other statements.

Why is this relevant to the laws of nature? Well, most atheists would also claim be materialists, i.e. they don't believe anything has any concrete objective existence outside of the scientific processes of matter and energy that we can observe empirically. This of course goes for anything we might arguably naively assume has a metaphysical existence, such as thoughts, consciousness, the self, concepts, numbers, et cetera. However, most materialists seem to believe in the existence of 'laws of nature', i.e. that to explain phenomena in the universe, we use science to observe general patterns in nature (let's completely ignore the problem of induction) and posit the existence of a general law which governs the causal relationship between events. At least in the common sense understanding of science, we would think of these laws as having some kind of transcendent exist…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Oliver Mucklesat - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:33:55 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194217
>You should probably read the thread.
I did now, and it seems the discussion is latching on to this "fine-tuned" thing. I don't know what I can say, I just disagree with the notion and tried to explain why. I've kinda given up on this idea of convincing people on the internet.
But it seems to me the question is actually about the function of life : why does life appear? What does it allow the universe to do?
Because the fine-tuned aspect is strictly about life as we know it, be it at the level of earth (and even then there are huge discrepancies, life under immense pressure at the bottom of the ocean, or in toxic environments, etc.) or the universe. The universe is what it is, it changed over time according to its laws, and there we are. Suppose a different universe with different laws, why would life be impossible? You'd just have some other kind of life working differently. The entire point here is to define what we mean by "life". Under other circumstances, maybe life wouldn't be carbon-based, work with a different chemistry, etc. but would still fulfill the same functions : self-preservation, consumption of other lifeforms (thus hunting), reproduction... This is what should be defined. Yes, the universe may appear "fine-tuned" for life/us, but what really happened is life appeared in the universe and "worked with what it had", to achieve those goals I mentioned. No why are those goals such, we don't know, and that may be because of some type of forces we don't know about yet, but the point is life just appears and does what it can. The idea of fine-tuning is inversing the perspective in my opinion.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:24:00 EST ID:TrFcKVc0 No.194220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194219
No I agree completely with everything you have said. Our universe is probably just one of many many different kinds if universe where a version of life arose to be able to say "these laws are fine tuned" etc. of course in the early days of the multiverse there may have been more chaotic and "breaking" universes. Idk, cladistical as a way for universal regeneration seems like a viable option for me.
>>
Thomas Panninghone - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:50:37 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194210

the thing is there is no guarantee that coupling constants can even be 2% larger or smaller

any speculation on just how fine-tuned the universe is will have no scale to base it on, we don't know the true range of possible universes, the constants may be defined by hidden variables that only give specific outputs
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:34:00 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.194233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194224
Ye, I never really understood how they came up with those values and constants, unless they are referenced off each other. EM force may be the standard at 1 perhaps? Lemme check:

Nope, it's Strong at 1, EM at 1/137, and the others at much much smaller strengths.
>>
Ebenezer Fezzleforth - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 22:18:00 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194244 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194233

everything is in relation to some value, the metric system was invented partially after we discovered all the physics, if I'm not mistaken, and so it uses units/constants that fit nicely into the equations of science that utilize them, for instance:
>The joule is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second


How do you know what sacrifices are worth making? by Shit Dadgefotch - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:49:02 EST ID:fYriP8BD No.194091 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401839342644.jpg -(536181 B, 720x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 536181
Reposted from /qq/


How do you know when you should sacrifice what you believe is right, for the benefit of someone else?
For example.

>You believe it is not right to kill
>There is someone about to be killed, who has done nothing wrong, you've witnessed the occurrence from the start, and know exactly who is at fault
>The only way to save the innocent is to kill the offender


How do you reconcile the action with your moral absolutism?

Now, what if, despite your best intentions, you accidentally killed not only the offender, but bystanders who were not involved with the situation at all to begin with? What if you kill the person you were trying to protect?

How would THAT be reconciled? Would it be forgivable due to your better intentions? Would there be no excuse for your mistake? Or is the terrible tragedy of innocents lost, simply the fault of the assailant who forced your hand into using lethal force to begin with?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Esther Cammleteck - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:24:54 EST ID:fYriP8BD No.194096 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1401841494558.jpg -(100030 B, 700x788) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100030
>>194094
...holy shit
>>
Oliver Ponnerstat - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:22:56 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194161 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>when should you sacrifice what you believe is right?

never. under any circumstances. in fact, if your actions contravene your ethics, you don't actually have the code of ethics or morals you thought you did.

on the other hand, we're probably not capable of perfect fidelity to anything - though that doesn't change what is good or right. the real world is more urgent, more complex than the scenarios that we use to test ethical systems.

would i kill the aggressor given the opportunity? i don't know. probably. would i instead risk my life to preserve the innocent and the aggressor, to the point of spending my life to do so? i don't know...i don't think i'm that good.

beyond this example, there are things that many people have decided that are worth more than human life. we consider them real, but also abstractions - like justice, freedom, liberation, power, truth, honor, duty, love, even beauty.
>>
Oliver Ponnerstat - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:33:32 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194162 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194091
also you seem to be wondering whether intentions (kantian ethics) matter, or whether only outcomes (utilitarian ethics) matter. i'd suggest that if you're interested in ethics, pick up some introductory text at the library that will present the various ethical systems and the arguments between them.

this is assuming that you maybe haven't done that, and that's OK if you haven't, because you're showing good insight into ethics without it. if you have, and you're just trying to provoke discussion, well, then i guess that's OK, too
>>
Cyril Hibblegold - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:04:37 EST ID:PKW/y/mn No.194235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194094
>implying there's an absolute right
All morality is subjective, what's right and wrong is up to the person to decide. Whether it's ethical or not depends on what the majority have agreed (something vaguely similar to law).

OP, what do you mean by right? Do you think there is some perfect way to behave that is known by the universe innately?

If there's a God or deity[/ies] that you believe in, it's surely what they say in any scriptures or texts. If it's not, consult with them.

If you're atheistic, how can you believe in a moral system that is detached from consciousness? Surely that which thinks is that which has morality, so whether something's "right" is whether or not you think it's right. Whether it's ethical is up to the community to decide through discussion and debate.
>>
Charles Carringchug - Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:29:43 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194304 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is there even any point in trying to answer questions like this in complete abstraction? "Hurrr what if you go back in time and could kill Hitler but he didn't do bad stuff yet"
This is stupid.


Time Wave Zero by Time Wave Zero - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:48:04 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194163 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402156084527.gif -(6752 B, 409x276) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6752
Is there any relationship between Time Wave Zero and Violent Unknown Event (VUE)? Please provide useful materials considering VUE
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Time Wave Zero - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 04:43:22 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194179
See: Cave allegory by Plato
>>
Basil Crunnershaw - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 05:32:11 EST ID:ox1h66Se No.194184 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194183

Plato's cave is just a story it doesn't prove shit.
>>
Time Wave Zero - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 13:57:21 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194184
It is not a story, it is an allegory for nature of reality
>>
Barnaby Breggleridge - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:24:31 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194200 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194193

Not all allegories are useful. Or meaningful.
>>
Thomas Panninghone - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:47:46 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194203 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194193

its an assertion, not an argument though, is the key

the guy asked for justification of this post

>>194171

plato's cave is not a justification for that post, its just a story


Publishing by Nigger Nullershaw - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:23:11 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.194113 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401902591266.png -(44444 B, 749x946) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 44444
What are some philosophy publishers who would accept and publish shitty papers? I have a few ideas I want to publish, but I fear rejection so much that it blocks me from publishing in any even mildly respectable journals.

Plus, I'm not sure as to whether my ideas are good at all, and English is not my primary language.

tl;dr: where could one publish shitty papers which would never get published in any other respectable philosophical journal?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Lydia Werringson - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:28:24 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194116 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194115

Wow that's awesome, man. I'm not sure about philosophical journals though.

Your school doesn't have anything like an editorial section of its usual publication where people can just write about any old thing?
>>
Phoebe Blackletere - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:29:29 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.194123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Your school doesn't have anything like an editorial section of its usual publication where people can just write about any old thing?

Nope.

Anyone? If not a journal, where *should* I publish my ideas?
>>
Thomas Shakestock - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:26:48 EST ID:OhN+XHOe No.194124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194123
A blog?
>>
Thomas Fuffinggold - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:19:07 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194113
Find someone interested in the subject whom you trust enough not to plagiarize the papers, have him/her read it, let the peer review commence, then fire up a blog and post it there.

While blogging seems to take flak for a lot of obtuse bloggers being around, the medium itself is sound, and is the best way for vocal folks to get picked for further publishing. If you have a solid blog with a sizeable following, you're going to be a much better candidate for publishing - not to mention the comments section of the blog will provide you with (sometimes irrelevant, sometimes extremely valuable) criticism, which you can use to improve upon your work. Adapt the way your ideas are written in to the medium and off you go.

I've been thinking about doing exactly that, but I've run into the same problems - fear of rejection. Well, that, and the fact that I while I can shit out academic papers with little problems, I have difficulties with adjusting my style to an actual audience (an academic essay will get the point across just as well, argumentation-wise, but COME ON, who'd want to read something that in his/her spare time). People tell me I should publish what I write all the time (whether they're right in their assumptions that others will want to read it, we'll see; I'm less than optimistic, though I want to give it a shot just for the hell of it), but actually getting around to do that is much more of a chore than I initially expected. So yeah, I can relate.

>English is not my primary language
Mine neither. Don't let that stop you; If your english isn't good enough for you to say what you want to say, just make it better.
>>
Walter Fibbleshaw - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 18:02:16 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194194 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Internet forums. And >>194124


OSHO by Alice Wuddlecocke - Sun, 25 May 2014 23:54:44 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.193949 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401076484490.jpg -(167141 B, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 167141
OSHO RADIO:

http://www.osho.com/iosho/radio
>>
Sophie Sonkinbury - Sat, 31 May 2014 13:42:24 EST ID:H6BqUVHS No.194025 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1401558144666.jpg -(77538 B, 640x798) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 77538
Osho on Corey Hart.
>>
Fanny Honeycocke - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 23:56:58 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.194181 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194025
I heard he was exposed to radiation after his arrest. Pretty fucked up.


so what is the ''truth'' ? by Betsy Dandlefare - Wed, 14 May 2014 21:50:33 EST ID:x6SL8oPH No.193552 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400118633444.jpg -(199974 B, 953x953) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 199974
I mean in order for something to be truthful, what must it be?
76 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Betsy Chibblemure - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:38:57 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194098
You kind of contradicted yourself now.
>2, +, =, and 4 being human constructs doesn't entail that facts about the *relationship* between those constructs are untrue.
Firstly, these are signs, they don't entail shit about their relationships by themselves. They can mean whatever they are wanted to mean.
Secondly, never did I say that those constructs *are* untrue, but rather, I said that depending on the starting premises (the other poster mentioned "some contexts", which I assume is the same thing), they may be so.


>If we assume the arithmetic definitions of 2,4,+, and =, then it is definitely true that 2+2=4. Therefore, the statement changes to "if we assume arithmetic, 2+2=4." Note that I include the "if" in the statement itself, making this an implication relation. I don't believe that statement, with the qualifications, is anything less than indisputable. The context being unreal (IF it is unreal - again, it's possible that reality may be discrete on some level) doesn't make the conclusions invalid.
And that's precisely what I've been talking about the whole time. If we assume premises that are necessary for the proposition "2+2=4" to be true (in whatever sense; not that we're limited to the one we all know and love from elementary arithmetics - we can fuck with signifiers and still get sound results), then it will undisputably be true. If we don't, then it won't. Voila.
>>
Jarvis Sommerdotch - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 01:01:16 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194099
>Firstly, these are signs, they don't entail shit about their relationships by themselves. They can mean whatever they are wanted to mean.

Not relevant. I'm referring specifically to the arithmetic interpretation of those signs, and that should be very clear from the content of my post.

I... don't see how I contradicted myself.

>And that's precisely what I've been talking about the whole time. If we assume premises that are necessary for the proposition "2+2=4" to be true (in whatever sense; not that we're limited to the one we all know and love from elementary arithmetics - we can fuck with signifiers and still get sound results), then it will undisputably be true. If we don't, then it won't. Voila.

You might have been, but at least one person in this thread is (or appears to be) claiming that:
>one more reason we can't say that "in reality, 2+2=4"

I am not denying that the statement "in reality, 2+2=4" without further qualification, without any kind of interpretation of those signs is literally meaningless. However:

a) the statement "in reality, 2+2=4 in base 10 arithmetic" IS true
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Betsy Chibblemure - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 01:53:10 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194102
>You might have been, but at least one person in this thread is (or appears to be) claiming that:
>one more reason we can't say that "in reality, 2+2=4"
That was me, and I feel I was not sufficiently clear. I meant that as a response to the peanut argument. As in, I meant that while it the proposition is true (under the assumptions that poster provided), it is not true "in reality", because mathematics is abstract and reality accessible by a single human does not constitute a formal setting of qualities which encompass all possible contexts.
I had an issue with using counting using concrete numbers to prove that "2+2=4" is true (and I felt that by extension, the poster tried to revoke the notion that 2+2=4 may be false; because while it *was* true in that context - and I said so - it says absolutely nothing about any other context). I didn't mean to attack the statement that "2+2=4" is true in base 10 elementary arithmetic (it is), so if that's what it sounded like, well, I should've worded it another way.

>Therefore, in the context of this forum, unless otherwise qualified, the statement "in reality, 2+2=4" evaluates to "in reality, 2+2=4 in base 10 arithmetic."
Well, I did not assume so, for what seemed to me as good reasons. But now that you spelled it out like that and removed the element that worried me, I can fully get on board with that.

>Still, the statement 2+2=4 is recognized to be untrue, and yet the math remains uncompromised.
Well, that wasn't me.
>>
Jarvis Sommerdotch - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 02:04:04 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194104 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194103
>As in, I meant that while it the proposition is true (under the assumptions that poster provided), it is not true "in reality", because mathematics is abstract

But, I wish to clarify, neither is it false. "2+2=4" is, bereft of some context, an outright meaningless statement. In fact, bereft of ANY context it's not even a sentence, it's just "stuff." I believe this is referenced earlier in the thread, but I'm mentioning it again just for the sake of completeness.

>Well, that wasn't me.

I'm aware. That was the fellow I just ignored.
>>
Molly Blythespear - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 23:13:31 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194117 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194098
>but 2, +, =, and 4 being human constructs doesn't entail that facts about the *relationship* between those constructs are untrue.
This argument, from the very beginning, has been to show that, in some contexts, that statement can be called true, and that in other contexts, it can be called false. I call you a manipulative cocksucker because you continuously manipulate the content of the conversation, and even go so far as to twist the meaning of the content so that it doesn't serve to render your posts meaningless.

Anyway, I'm glad you've ignored me. Now I won't have to respond to your nonsensical posts any longer.

>>194099
>Secondly, never did I say that those constructs *are* untrue, but rather, I said that depending on the starting premises (the other poster mentioned "some contexts", which I assume is the same thing), they may be so.
Bingo!

>And that's precisely what I've been talking about the whole time. If we assume premises that are necessary for the proposition "2+2=4" to be true (in whatever sense; not that we're limited to the one we all know and love from elementary arithmetics - we can fuck with signifiers and still get sound results), then it will undisputably be true. If we don't, then it won't. Voila.
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done sir.


I can't be the only one that thinks that this type of reasoning is dangerous. by Henry Fumblespear - Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:29:35 EST ID:mQWvZNmP No.194051 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401650975705.png -(237906 B, 783x919) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 237906
It implies trust that other parties will not use that information to their advantage. It implies that to be seen as "strong" one has to first be "broken". It implies that

"Tell me what you regard as your greatest strength, so I will know how best to undermine you; tell me of your greatest fear, so I will know which I must force you to face; tell me what you cherish most, so I will know what to take from you; and tell me what you crave, so that I might deny you."

Am I freaking over nothing, because I strongly believe that the "Emo" and "Hardcore" subcultures are not philosophically sound and breed neuroses where they may be none in the first place.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hannah Crezzlehot - Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:03:00 EST ID:y2WfCESH No.194060 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When the CIA wants to break people they use torture.
>>
Hannah Crezzlehot - Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:03:59 EST ID:y2WfCESH No.194061 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So if these people are going to be broken using songs (is that what this thread is about) they must either reeeeeeallly be weak or they're not breaking at all.
>>
Nigger Nuttingdale - Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:07:06 EST ID:mQWvZNmP No.194063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194058
You are right, of course; it bears no creedence to use such emotive phrases when talking about a topic that is already so open to reframing, and it goes without saying, no man is Titan; some of the most notable people were said to have been troubled beyond all reason. So maybe if something is beyond reason, perception is needed where reason ends?

I had not thought about the aspect that it could be about a shared mindset/mentality, I forgot that for any counterculture this is true. Typing objectively, that's gotta be a fascinating topic if you are in the know on such things (and I do not mean casually, I mean as though it is their job to study it).

I agree that to get the most from life, all things must be considered. Experience-wise it is a numbers affair. But then, what if in wanting to engage in that reality, they inadvertantly trap themselves in that negative cycle, yet because they belive that it's merely a part of the movement that they are with, they do not perceive that anything is amiss?
>>
Hamilton Bemblededge - Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:47:56 EST ID:ql8yDrkj No.194074 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You better be strong in the first place. by showing being fragile you can appear even stronger or more in tune with yourself than some another alternative of 'strong'.
You can show your wounded moments all the time and be a little bitch about it too.
>>
Hamarchy - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 18:02:35 EST ID:KMbaTIhO No.194173 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194051
>I strongly believe that the "Emo" and "Hardcore" subcultures are not philosophically sound and breed neuroses where they may be none in the first place
No way, that's nuts....its almost as if those artists and their fans have their heads firmly lodged up their asses. That can't be it though, right?


Religious Intolerance/People not adhering to the philosophies of their religion. by Augustus Dorrynet - Wed, 21 May 2014 18:07:00 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193857 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400710020038.jpg -(62704 B, 600x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62704
I wasn't sure what board to write this on since it primarily is about Religion, but I've heard some people state that Jesus is their favorite Philosopher so I figured this board might be the right place and it does definitely deal with social issues. I acknowledge that to millions of people Jesus is Lord and the Son of God but that aside he had some interesting philosophies and ideas about life.

Here's the thing, I have ran into an unusual amount of shitty christian people. Mind you I live in south Texas so that's not incredibly unusual. I always thought that this weird smugness or this weird "If you're not down with the bible, you're going to hell" mentality was just exactly what Christianity/Catholicism just taught it's people which is why I never really read into it or gave it much of a thought. In a sense, the people who practiced this religion pushed me away from it. I remember this one time in particular I was kind of surprised at something that happened. Only kind of, for you literal fucks out there. I was walking home from work it's a good 1.7 miles but down a stretch of road that's a some what major road in the city I live in. I get into this parking lot where all these businesses are and this van pulls up next to me (the parking lot was empty it was like 7 a.m.) this guy gets out and tries to hand me a pamphlet about Jesus and asked me if I was interested in any information how to save my soul or something along those lines, he had a big smile on his face and seemed friendly. I declined and he got right back in his van and drove away.

Here's the thing, if he would have offered me a ride home I probably would have taken the pamphlet or had a discussion with him, but he didn't. He's under no obligation to give me a ride either for all they know I'm a crazy person, and for all I know they're crazy people as well. I probably still would have declined the ride regardless for the aforementioned reason. Though a few years later I had a class on social conflict or some crap like that, and we had to do a report on one of the people on this giant list and I chose to do Jesus specifically the sermon on the mount. Reading into th…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
45 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fucking Niggerwater - Sat, 31 May 2014 13:52:10 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194026 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194021
exactly. this abyss, the apparent meaninglessness of the world and your desire for a meaning will compel you to choose a meaning. i encourage you to consider unconditional love as a meaning to your life

>>194024
tough question. ultimately, i don't know. an act of love for the sake of love, and nothing else. if God is that which gives being to existence, what does it matter how much stuff there is in the universe/multiverse/existence which doesn't love, as long as there are beings which can? is there some kind of quantifiable maximum of love God should fill the universe with? how many rational beings capable of love, or what quantity of love justifies the existence of existence to you? maybe our universe is filled with rational beings which love? maybe it makes no difference at all to God whether there are one, two, ten trillion, or whatever number of civilizations comprised of rational beings capable of love in the multiverse? why couldn't He just create another with more? maybe He does. and who knows? maybe to God, the existence of energy or any manner or matter is the fidelity of existence to the will of God, that God wills existence to be and it obeys is also a kind of love.

i don't have all the answers but it's fun to think about these questions
>>
George Drottingfoot - Sat, 31 May 2014 18:43:20 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194026
>i encourage you to consider unconditional love as a meaning to your life

Too late, I've already chosen "making awesome stuff that people can use to entertain themselves."
>>
Jack Nuffingson - Sat, 31 May 2014 20:02:06 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.194029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194028

Making stuff is an action, not a meaning. What is the reason for making this stuff?
>>
Ernest Billinggold - Sat, 31 May 2014 21:32:31 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194028
okie dokie. if one day you decide that's not enough, there's always love.
>>
Cornelius Gamblechidge - Sat, 31 May 2014 21:47:04 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194029

Actions can be meanings. I can live to do something.


God has nothing to do with moral realism by Henry Dundercocke - Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:44:53 EST ID:SOI2eaoc No.193181 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398876293978.jpg -(67267 B, 625x416) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 67267
Why do people think that if God existed, morality would be somehow "objective" and "real"?

Just because some powerful guy will kick your ass if you do something he doesn't like doesn't mean that that thing is somehow inherently wrong, unless you define "wrong" as that which will make that guy kick your ass.
31 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Matilda Bardson - Thu, 29 May 2014 00:09:03 EST ID:fUuCcAKU No.193988 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I just live by the rules
>Don't intentionally harm others
>Don't do things that victimize others
>Don't hurt anyone who has not hurt you first/tried to hurt you
>Violence is only to be used in self defense and as a deterrent to future violence/robbery/harassment

So basically, don't murder, hurt people, cheat, steal, etc.... and as long as what you're doing isn't hurting someone else, they have no business telling you to stop doing that.

Drugs are fine. Whether weed or meth as long as you're not stealing/robbing/hurting people to maintain your habbit. Drug dealing is fine as long as you don't rip people off or cut product/sell bunk product. Sex is fine as long as it's consentual (gay straight, w/e) and you're not hurting someone doing it, aka no cheating on your partner.

As long as I'm not hurting you, I should be able to whatever I want in my own home. Doesn't matter if you don't like me and my wife do meth a few times a week and fuck for 12 hours. Neither of us steal to pay for our drugs and don't commit any other crimes really.

I don't really see why this concept is so hard to grasp. Don't hurt people or victimize people, especially not for personal gain. Don't abuse authority if you have it. Treat people with respect until they disrespect you or hurt you.

Just be a decent person basically.
>>
Hugh Bardshit - Thu, 29 May 2014 16:32:19 EST ID:mWHXw+5G No.193994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193988
drugs are fine


one ofgods moreintimat laws is if u sell dugs then u goto hell
>>
Eugene Papperworth - Thu, 29 May 2014 16:55:47 EST ID:Eu67UtAt No.193995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because if you create a universe, you kind of have the authority to say what's ok and what isn't.
>>
Phyllis Dummerville - Fri, 30 May 2014 16:08:10 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193995

thats retarded

if the universe was created so that God could watch us all suffer terrible cruel deaths and commanded us to torture each other, what kind of fucked up twisted logic would make you think that his commands were even

>kind of

authoritative?


objective authority is a retarded meaningless concept, authority is just ability to convince people to listen to you, whether that's by threatening with force or anything else.

Being the creator of the universe does not in itself imply that you will be able to convince people to listen to you and it CERTAINLY does not imply that people are OBLIGATED to listen to you
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Graham Pullysat - Fri, 30 May 2014 16:34:11 EST ID:IDIZ+PfB No.194008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193995

I'm not sure that assertion would be very easy to prove.


Let's Talk Absurdism, Re: The Myth Of Sisyphus by Fuck Pittlock - Mon, 19 May 2014 18:24:32 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193720 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400538272426.jpg -(17703 B, 306x245) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 17703
In short: I like Camus's use of Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the mountain over and over again forever only for it to roll back down when it reaches the top as a metaphor for the human condition (that everything we do in life is ultimately futile and devoid of meaning).

The problem is, I don't think it works directly when compared to life. The thing that I think is scary about Sisyphus's fate is that he's doing this hard and monotonous physical labor for all eternity. Real life isn't like that. First of all, there's death, so we don't toil for all eternity. Secondly, our work doesn't necessarily have to be hard nor monotonous. Meaningless and ultimately futile? Sure. But there's actually a lot of cool, fun, and enjoyable shit one can do in life. Though difficult, it's possible to escape the "rat race" and eventually retire. You don't have to do hard physical labor all your life, you could use your mind to be successful (either in a white collar job like computers or engineering or accounting or whatever, or by inventing something/starting your own business).

Life is basically like Sisyphus except if you imagine Sisyphus earned some amount of currency each time he got to the top of the hill, and maybe he would get a bonus if he got it up to the top exceptionally fast. After he saved up a certain amount, he could maybe buy some days off, or maybe even pay someone else to roll the boulder for him while he hung out at the bottom drinking a cold beer in the shade and playing xbox. Maybe even get a girlfriend he could fuck or do some drugs.

I guess my main point is: life really isn't as bad as some of these philosophers make it out to be. The real "Meaning of Life" is the Pursuit of Happiness. The problem you realistically want to solve is how you can be the most consistently comfortable and happy while feeling the greatest amount of pleasure vs. the least amount of pain/suffering (in all of their respective forms), within the confines of your given circumstances in life. That's all there is to it, it's pretty simple, and I think most people overthink it.

I've always liked the old Socrates saying, "The unobserved life i…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
25 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Pablingville - Thu, 22 May 2014 01:44:26 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193869

>i am saying that laborous work is to be respected, if it isn't nonsensical.

I never meant to imply that it shouldn't be respected. Merely that I wouldn't want to break my back pushing a boulder up a mountain every day forever. At least if you did data entry forever you could have a chair to sit in, no? :)

In the realistic sense though, yeah I get what you mean with having that appreciation. I appreciate it while at the same time recognizing I'd never want to do it, though. Like American Settlers, like people on the Oregon Trail, not a fun life imo though I appreciate their work. I'd never ever want to live that life though, lol. I could also get into how our society views certain professions in terms of respect, but I feel like that's outside of the scope of this discussion.

>the analogy hardly proves that, it's merely a good opener for the question

It's not so much that it proves anything. It's a metaphor. Life already is this way: the Myth of Sisyphus is merely a literary device used to illustrate this truth, to explain it in a way most people can understand.

"Meaning" and "Value" are often used interchangeably here. Point too, as in "what's the point in doing anything?" The trick is to differentiate between objective and subjective value (which is sort of a misnomer since value and meaning can only be subjective, which is what I was getting at earlier. Objective meaning of life is really just used to mean God's meaning of life for you, which is really just the subjective meaning of your life from God's perspective).

The story has meaning to me, but that's my subjective meaning. You can read it for example, and have an entirely different meaning, and still be correct. It's not like the laws of physics, like gravity, that apply to everyone regardless of anyone's thoughts, feelings, or opinions. That's objectivity.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Emma Fembleman - Thu, 22 May 2014 11:24:18 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193878 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193859
starting over after ending, is not the same as falling back to the middle after almost reaching the end.

Camus doesn't touch on the end being death, and his metaphor derived from the actual myth is about mankind in general. So yes an individual leaves the ride but is replaced by another who makes up sisyphus, still locked(and that's key he is stuck) in the same eternal recurrence of the same.

A football player changes his position regardless if it seems to be in a cycle which does not change, where it seems the effect of sisyphus as a metaphor is he is stuck in the same one for all eternity.

If your making a point against that image than fine, i don't think real life has to be dismal or a drag. And i disagree that the key is to abandon hope for anything much less something better, i don't even agree that backward mometum for something equates to it being futile, or that something being uncomplete up to this point and the staggering weight of that means it cannot be completed either.

yes camus believed in happiness but he seemed to be saying happiness is when you abadon the need for the fufillment of goals or the advancement of dreams and accept or resign yourself. this is the exact opposite of satisfaction through struggle or overcoming.

No camus is saying its tortorous until, you change your outlook, the struggle and trying to overcome it, is tortorous in camus's reading of things, because in his view the salmon does not make it up stream to lay its eggs.

if it gives up the idea of doing so then it can remain happy in limbo, and can be happy in its struggle. To be honest that quotation you posted seems to be off to me because not every interpretation of camus has involved giving up the absurdity or giving up the hope. But to find happiness within it it, this wouldn't imply its a struggle or that its not tortourous but that you have endurance or stamina to find happiness within that.

If we were to go with the reading you cited, giving up the struggle while somehow reamaining in it, would not lead to it being a cakewalk before hand. He describes a situation where he says life is like x, and its always gonna be like x, and until you change your d…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ian Blonningbanks - Thu, 22 May 2014 14:52:32 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.193880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193839
i don't need the sparknotes, i've read the book. i'll dig it out of my car trunk and scan through it tomorrow. there's several points in the myth that he speaks at length about the proletariat
>>
Cyril Gecklewell - Mon, 26 May 2014 16:21:13 EST ID:mWHXw+5G No.193958 Ignore Report Quick Reply
sad to see no ones pointed out age... as age increases the point differentiates. Sisyphus was doing it to death. no playing as a kid. and if he was forced to do it, there was a meaning of it. I mean it was a punishment right? the rock would always roll in a different way. a lot to do. a lot to be keen on. you're right when you say he has no satisfaction, but hes learning the hard way. as for the red sun analogy that's the point isn't it. to advance to be happy. consumer merits.
>>
Eugene Fundlemud - Thu, 29 May 2014 03:35:01 EST ID:fVuXTvfB No.193990 Ignore Report Quick Reply
a metaphor has to combine meaning on two levels, the literal and the symbolic. in that sense, the sisyphus myth as i know it from popular culture really can be seen to mean both interpretations discussed here, the personal and the superior.

>>193870
>not a fun life imo though I appreciate their work
I am still confused, because camus says you could achieve happiness either way. you say, in contrast to my hedonistic instinct, happiness isn't key. then what is the importance, does it show punishment works in some way?

>To be fair, it truly is a good euthanasia method
you seem to miss my point. perhaps a nail gun is a precise way to put a nail in your balls, but nailing your balls is never good, so there can't be a good way to do it. it's like saying the south of the Arctic is a warm arctic place. yes, that's quite absurd.

>life is hell
>hell is an enjoyable place
what?
>
>If we don't hope, we can fully appreciate life
this is a clear contradiction, if you are aware that Appreciate = to estimate sth. as valuable. ofc. reductio ad absurdum only works when absurdity is seen as invalid, but why it shouldn't be is not explained.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Social Science = Pseudo Science by Cedric Bremmertidge - Fri, 09 May 2014 20:56:36 EST ID:RC2teSQj No.193402 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399683396423.jpg -(56736 B, 590x494) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56736
Feynman on social sciences
http://youtu.be/IaO69CF5mbY
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Shakewill - Tue, 13 May 2014 17:50:19 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193497
>All economists operate from a point of bias, that has been the case from the beginning. Most of the prominent economists in academia make their real money by writing favorable analyses for investment firms. Those firms in turn are able to take those reports to their clients as a way to show how "sound" said firm's investments are. Economists create think tanks because it's the most effective way for them to affect policy.
Well, that's what I was talking about. The community actively embraces bias, which more often than not results in eschewing evidence, falsifiability or outright denying surrounding reality to further some kind of a cause, instead of examining what can be known and at least trying to predict the best course of action.
To me, it shows how the academic community is prone to dishonesty, which is in itself a grave issue, but does not bear relevance when it comes to judging the field itself.
>That's a funny comparison but I don't know if I'd go that far.
Praxeology is so disjointed from reality it's not even funny anymore. Its axioms are so, hm, "bold" they were invalidated by natural sciences a long time ago (free will and dualism, seriously). Oh, and claims of "irrefutability".
To quote Ludwig von Mises: "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."
So yeah, flat earth theory.
>But you can't divorce economics from politics.
You can't divorce politics from anything, really, but the form of its influence does differ from case to case.
>How well they did or didn't work and subsequently proposing policies based on those findings
That's the key point. If a model is based on what worked and what did not and produces results that can be checked, it's gravy. Bias, in itself, is unavoidable, but should not be the *base* of the proposed policy, as it is often the case (did I mention Austrian school?)
>You either favor free-markets or you don't
First, you have to agree on what *is* a free market.
Jokes aside; I have my opinion, but there's absolutely nothin…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Jarvis Perrywore - Wed, 14 May 2014 03:11:56 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193449
>if it gives a consistent model, the predictions of which can be tested, it's science.
Social "sciences" don't do this though.
>>
Nigel Brookfield - Mon, 26 May 2014 17:30:09 EST ID:cBh6c9LE No.193963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I never understand why people argue about what things are or aren't science. It's very clear that science is its method, nothing more and nothing less, and there's only one scientific method.

The part most overlooked though is that an area of study doesn't have to be a science to be worth studying. We need laws on our societies, but Law studies are not a science. Are they not worth studying? Of course they are. History serves a lot of purposes, and knowledge can be derived from historical records, but History is not a science. It's still worth studying.

It's the same for everything, really. It's just that science is a very specific, very particular thing that is not found on every field, but not being science doesn't mean your field is useless. The real problem is that science happens to produce the most rigorous and accurate knowledge out of every field that produces knowledge, and for this reason everyone wants to take the label for themselves. If you are seen as "science" by the masses, you are given more legitimacy, even if you are not a science, so it becomes a political thing where everything is a "science" of some sort because the term implies some kind of authority on claims (even if real science has no authorities).
>>
Phyllis Clayworth - Mon, 26 May 2014 20:36:46 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193964 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193963

well, its not that simple

the social sciences do not claim merely to be worth studying, but that they are science, lol, and specifically, that their theories and claims are empirically verifiable and experimentally supported, thats the key. the historian has eschewed empirically verifiable theories (due to the fact that history cannot be experimented upon), and instead seeks truth from the next best source: surveying what people who WERE there have said about the matter.

so when people criticize social science as "not science", they aren't saying "nothing that isnt science is worth learning" but rather, they criticize it for claiming to have established empirical truths about society that they have not in fact, rationally established.
>>
Nell Nungerville - Wed, 28 May 2014 19:57:19 EST ID:hPWAVfIE No.193986 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I find it odd that he talks about social sciences and then brings up an example of biology.


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