Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
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
[*]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


How do you read stuff you don't understand? by Doris Fucklestune - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:26:58 EST ID:cS9mqAho No.197785 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1421285218354.jpg -(61403 B, 600x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 61403
So this question isn't about philosophy per se, but it's about a problem that I only have with philosophy. When I watch lectures or read excerts from certain people like Nietzche or Zizek, I can instantly tell that they're brilliant in their own way and I really wanna know more. But when I pick up a book by someone like that I don't understand much of it. I picked up 'Violence' by Zizek recently because I just happened upon it at the library, and it's the same thing. The parts I do understand I love, but the rest of it is basically gibberish to me.
So what I'm wondering is how do I actually understand what he's saying? Do I HAVE to take a course on the subject? I know plenty of people who were great at philosophy and taught themselves, so that doesn't seem necessary by any means. Do I just read it over and over until it eventually clicks? If I don't get what the fuck he means by 'he evoked the way this terror affect subjectivity" the first time I don't see how reading it over and over will suddenly make me understand what the hell he's trying to say. This is important to me because I've always loved philosophy, but I've never been able to understand a lot of these books in it's entirety past Dostoevsky. Like I got 'Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sarte' by Walter Kaufmann and it takes chapters from a lot of different existentialists works, but Dostoevsky's piece was the only section I felt like I really understood.
And if nothing else, just some general tips for a philosopher-wannabe to get started. I've taken a philo class before, it's sucks the subject dry and makes it excruciating.. so I think I'm gonna have to pretty much teach my self.

Pic related; what reading Nietzche make me feel like
Isabella Honeydock - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:20:43 EST ID:IgMu6FKC No.197787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Old philosophy books were written a long time ago, when English was different and the only people expected to read them were the ones educated to be able to read them.

Same deal for modern philosophers, you can't be the kind of guy who gets to write book after book without having gone through a specific education. I think this limits the field, so I never really bother.

Just teach yourself OP, start by taking on some big and common questions, try and argue for or against various positions. Paying more attention to specific arguments helps with this.
Caroline Sosslesedge - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:19:45 EST ID:ZhKDhRIo No.197788 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>sucks the subject dry and makes it excruciating

Learning hurts. I sometimes see the smartest people I know, totally obsessed and in love with their subject of study, in what looks like excruciating pain in getting over the next hurdle of understanding in their field. No pain no gain, Doris, get dat Brain-Swole.
Ian Blodgefet - Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:03:45 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197843 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP when that happens to me I get a metaphorical hard on and teach myself how to understand the book as much as possible
but not to brag I had this problem in Jr.high, just read with google next to you or take a basic philos class

I honestly never knew those books were hard to read for another person, theyre pretty straight forward
you didnt get an original transcript from hundreds of years ago did you buddy?
Samuel Gallytock - Fri, 16 Jan 2015 23:19:22 EST ID:gqVFybCs No.197856 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1421468362496.jpg -(166793 B, 500x315) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 166793
First off, read more Dostoevsky if you like him. I highly suggest "Notes from Underground." And read more Zizek if you like him.

I've never read Zizek (only seen his movies), but continental philosophers tend to be very esoteric. So maybe some of what you don't understand is because you didn't read that particular Hegel or Marx passage he's making a subtle reference to. Although I know he's also frequently referencing those psychologists like Freud and Jung. THat's probably very important to keep in mind with Zizek: Marx and Freud.

I don't know if that's the case with Zizek, but it's common in philosophy. I mean, I think it would be impossible to make heads or tails of Kan'ts Critique of Pure Reason without a knowledge of HUme. And most philosophers will assume you have knowledge of Plato.

>The parts I do understand I love, but the rest of it is basically gibberish to me.
If it makes you feel any better, Noam Chomsky also said he doesn't understand Zizek.

> Do I just read it over and over until it eventually clicks?
It really depends on the author. In general though, philosophical works need to be read multiple times. Different authors lend themselves to different reading techniques.

  • With someone like Kant, there will be a very clear, logical point that's spelled out for you, even if you don't understand every step of the deduction.
  • Dostoevsky or Sartre are a breeze to go through, and you can quickly grab the essence of what they're communicating through their stories.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Identity and self from an existentialist perspective; where to start by Hedda Gandleshit - Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:23:23 EST ID:OK4Q7yBl No.197322 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1419193403132.jpg -(65609 B, 624x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65609
Ok ok, we know that various different philosophers (who matter(like Descartes, Locke, Hume, Freud, Kant, etc.)) who came up with very similar (Descartes, Locke, Hume to an extent) or different (mainly Kant) ways in which they interpret the self and consciousness, and were aware of it and the relationship between them etc. but I'm more interested specifically in an existentialist perspective on what entails the self and personal identity. I think many existentialists of worthy importance talk insufficiently about this topic in particular (e.g. Nietzsche, Sartre, Rousseau, etc.), but maybe that's because I need to read more of their works where they make it a central topic of reflection. I can't really give much credence to the first set of philosophers because as an (atheistic) existentialist, while considering their mesmerizing display of intellectualism, aren’t really appealing once I put the book down and quite ignorable in this particular regard. Now, I know that existentialism is relatively a recent philosophy and one that comes much later than the philosophic ideas of the times when the first set of philosophers I listed were alive and trying to figure out matters most pressing, but nevertheless I would like to know what are the fruits of existentialism with respect to the self/identity/etc.

Here's a general idea of what Hume says about the self in that it's : “a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.” it’s “a kind of theater, where several perceptions successively make their appearance, pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.” which goes against most of the philosophies of the self before him (e.g. Plato, Plotinus, St. Augustine, Locke, etc.) who hold its constancy and transcendental/metaphysical nature separate from the physical but also in interaction with it (i.e. the body, senses, perception, etc.) (e.g. of belonging to a higher plane of existence with which this 'self' tries to connect or goes back to after the body's inevitable demise etc.).

It was Kant who saw the immense ramification of Hume's prefat…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shit Clinnerlock - Sat, 27 Dec 2014 15:17:32 EST ID:ZhdwVAmv No.197391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
can't be bothered to read all that but I think Heidegger is what you're looking for.
Hamilton Cullerwill - Sun, 28 Dec 2014 04:25:25 EST ID:1BCBlRfp No.197402 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I resonate that frequency.
Nell Bruvinghall - Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:52:58 EST ID:fxTkE7A6 No.197420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1419864778663.jpg -(49427 B, 419x550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 49427
Sartre is what you're looking for. Read 'Trascendence of the ego'. It treats exactly what you're asking about, it's just like 150 pages long, and not difficult at all (If you have a basic notion of Husserl's phenomenology). If you like it you can jump to Being and Nothingness, but that's like really really long and really really difficult. You should also read and article he wrote on Situations 1 called something like 'Intentionality: a fundamental concept in Husserl's phenomenology.' It's two pages long, it's about the most beautifull philosophy text I've ever read and it's only 2 pages long. I'm actually gonna read it again right now for like the 20th time.

You could read Heidegger as well as someone mentioned before me but I don't think he's quite what you're looking for, and it's a lot more complex than Sartre. He speaks from a purely ontological point of view in a conceptual network immanent to his own work, you need to really embed yourself in Sein und Zeit if you want to get anything at all out of it, and in end it doesn't even get to ask the question about the being that we are.

Mearleau-Ponty gives an alternate point of view to that of Sartre, also phenomenological, existentialist, and atheist, but with more emphasis on the body. There are some radioconferences by him that are really easy to read. If you like that you could read the introduction and chapter 4 (which is sort of a summary of the three previous chapters) of Phenomenology of Perception. He also had a lot of dialogue with scientists(mostly psychologists, but still), so if you're into psychology or cientificism you may enjoy reading him.

Ultimately if you want a good perspective at what the self is you should read Husserl, he is the man, and all 20th century existentialist were phenomenologists, so you actually need Husserl to understand them. 'The idea of phenomenology' is a good introductory text by Husserl, but if you really want a good look at what, to me, is Husserl's best stage read 'Cartesian Meditations'. He was not an existentialist, and he was not an ontologist, but he was a breaking point in philosophy,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Archie Niggerdock - Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:25:07 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.197463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1420017907359.jpg -(145595 B, 960x735) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 145595
David Abram's "The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than Human World" covers Phenomenology really well (I understood most of it with no grounding from other philosophers' works of the time,) and connects Merleau-Ponty's final work The Visible and the Invisible interrupted by his death he transitions from speaking about the human body "and begins to write instead of the collective "Flesh," which signifies both our flesh and 'the flesh of the world.' By 'the Flesh' Merleau-Ponty means to indicate an elemental power that has had no name in the entire history of the Western philosophy. The Flesh is the mysterious tissue or matrix that underlies and gives rise to both the perceive and the perceived as interdependent aspects of its own spontaneous activity. It is the reciprocal presence of the sentient in the sensible and of the sensible in the sentient, a mystery of which we have always, at least tacitly, been aware, since we have never been able to affirm one of these phenomena, the perceivable world or the perceiving self, without implicitly affirming the existence of the other. We are unable even to imagine a sensible landscape that would not a the same time be sensed (since in imagining any landscape we inevitably envisage it from a particular perspective, and thus implicate our own senses, and indeed our own sentience, in that landscape), and are similarly unable to fully imagine a sensing self, or sentience, that would not be situation in some field of sensed phenomena." That perception is a reciprocal relationship, what you see sees you, and connecting phenomoly with old indigenous knowledge preserved in their stories, their oral history serving as functional myths teaching and rooting their self to the world and vice versa. Their language is fundamentally connected and altered by the natural environment around them, for some tribes the names of birds replicating in rhythm and tone the sound that specific bird makes, easily recognizable by people who spoke a different language. Abram claims the alphabet allowed human concepts to be abstracted from nature, no longer reflecting or connected to a natur…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martha Cunnernere - Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:35:27 EST ID:OK4Q7yBl No.197738 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Very nice of you to be so informative and insightful like that. I'll start with all that you've said this week. Life's catchin' up man. Isn't Phenomenology dead? But yeah rest assured, I definitely did take your post into thoughtful consideration and will do as you suggested, thanks a lot!

You too mate, being productive would just be wasting time if no one were to appreciate your work. Thanks!

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

But always (except for the two examples above that i heard) pedophiles have multiple victims and even know that they will have more. Yet in the above example, it seemed like the harmful intentions and deeds were not driven by pedophilia but this urge to actually marry and live together forever.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phineas Gillersog - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:08:33 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.196995 Ignore Report Quick Reply

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

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

ha! luckily no, i have no links regarding that. But to tell you the truth, i would not be surprised if she is still molesting children. Anyway, i think this is a new or just a very rare type of pedophilia.
Doris Pittingcocke - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:09 EST ID:XtJ0XdT1 No.197659 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i think this not about ages of the subjects so much as gender. males typically go through many relationships and females stick to one partner.
Ernest Niggerfield - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 06:23:03 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.197680 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't see a reason to think of it as a new type of pedophilia. All pedophilia means is an attraction to the prepubescent form. The only one's to not have a gender preference are pedophiles because even bisexuals have a preference. Usually, pedophilia is used synonymously with molestation; It's important to note that they are not mutually inclusive terms. A pedophile is simply one attracted to children. Molestation is something else. There are two types of pedophiles; You have the dominant pedophile that has exclusive attraction to children and not adults or genders. And you have the regressive pedophile, they have an attraction for children but it isn't exclusive and they only have this attraction during stressful times. They regress to pedophile desires but still can have an attraction to adults.

It could be that she is a regressive pedophile that is the monogamous type.
Eugene Drullyson - Sun, 11 Jan 2015 02:02:46 EST ID:wLvMcyLV No.197710 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's good that you distinguish between pedophiles and molesters, but your typology is applied to the wrong side. The terms "fixated" and "regressive" are usually used to distinguish between offenders, and speaks to the motivation that caused them to offend - either a persistent obsession or short-term emotional weakness.

It's less useful to distinguish pedophiles, since it excludes a large segment - probably the majority - who are persistently and primarily but not exclusively attracted to children. Distinguishing between exclusive and inclusive pedophiles would be more useful, and orthogonal to whether it's persistent or temporary (which might or might not be stress-induced).

>subjective understanding by belvederecomeheeboi - Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:23:38 EST ID:dY2VuVeP No.197676 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420831418483.jpg -(11029 B, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11029
Not sure if this is the right board (which is sort of ironic to my post)

this intrigues me http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy
my personal way of thinking about this is remembering particular parts of acid trips where id get locked up on a single word or sentance, phrase, concept and dwell on it briefly finding meanings or uses for it that i hadnt made a connection with before. What do y'all think?
belvederecomeheeboi - Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:41:38 EST ID:4wZFjgMT No.197677 Ignore Report Quick Reply
thought about this after in a spiritual sense. Similar thing

belvederecomeheeboi - Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:31:13 EST ID:4wZFjgMT No.197678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1420835473279.jpg -(10732 B, 184x274) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 10732
Comment"a difficult search, wasnt for me. - this defomonstrates the flexibility of sentance creation using punctuation. It can also be done by combining two sentances <making it very complex
Caroline Mattingkag - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:49:00 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Correlating at best to any scientific or logical argument

What is your opinion by Phoebe Dandlefield - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:08:14 EST ID:j0p57M0O No.197697 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420945694005.jpg -(197450 B, 600x710) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 197450
What is it?
Esther Bennerville - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:36:51 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.197700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A combination of my experiences, emotional reaction to certain situations, and mental predisposition based on my neurological structure. Eventually leads to a personal dogma and moral compass, as well as interjection from my postulation on the topic.
Caroline Mattingkag - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:47:05 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If you acknowledge that your opinion is invalid in any scenario unless applied to yourself and your decisions, is it still an opinion?
Phoebe Dandlefield - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:47:23 EST ID:j0p57M0O No.197702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
how much of that did you read/hear from others? how much of the things you figured out yourself were influenced by things you read/heard from other people? Are those your thoughts, or did you gave to modify them to be able to put it in sentences?
mind = hungry
Henry Honningstock - Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:00:41 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.197793 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sometimes its okay to say I don't know. Or rather an opinion on a specific topic doesn't need to be defined without a sense of certainty from experience or exploring inquiry, even then recognizing bias and limited individual perspective. Giving greater value to other perspectives because of their difference.

Validation by Edward Sucklemag - Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:58:45 EST ID:XJq7J3Zi No.197425 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1419897525360.png -(189286 B, 444x212) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 189286
If we are not all eager for validation and fearful of shame, then insults can't hurt us, at all.

If someone insults you and it hurts you even slightly, that must be because you're upset about having your pride scuffed.

If you truly didn't care what others thought of you, an insult couldn't hurt at all.

Am I right?
11 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eliza Hisslesitch - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 18:26:06 EST ID:cS9mqAho No.197641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was like that in the very beginning,when I was a kid. But over time I've realized there are good reasons to act that way.
Honestly now it isn't even a religious explanation I use to ignore them, it's factual. I look at who the person is and why they're acting that way. It's pretty simple, once you realize most of the time people act out it's because they're deflecting from a bigger problem. Once you figure out that problem, I usually just feel bad for them. Like the kid the kid that bullys everyone, but meanwhile everyone knows his dad left and his mom is a total alcoholic that neglects him. I just can't get mad at that kid, I would act the same way too in his situation. It's not that I see an insult and then try to find a way to absorb it, instead I find out where it came from and in the course of that it almost always ends up being something that makes me take pity.

The thing is it isn't a reaction; sometimes I _want_ to get mad at people but I just can't. It's just, in the course of trying to understand these people, you realize that its an understandable response to being subjected to some problem in their own life. Sometimes the problem is bullshit and I'll get mad or have to try to hold my tongue, but usually it's not even in my control unless I know nothing about them.

I mean maybe that whole process has been internalized to the point of becoming an automatic defense, that's hard to tell. To my conscious knowledge that isn't the way it is, but then again it probably would be subconscious.

I don't think it's that insults hurt us, and that's why we respond. I mean it often is, but even when you get past being hurt by them the still elicit a response. That's probably biological; we're social creatures and it's only natural that if someone accuses you of something in society, you respond to protect your image. That impulse, I'd say, is more like a base instinct than a response to a negative emotions that were stirred up.
Eliza Hisslesitch - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 18:27:37 EST ID:cS9mqAho No.197643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
fuck, this post was supposed to be a reply to
Rebecca Snodforth - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:31:24 EST ID:fltNOnc1 No.197645 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fair enough

it's just meant to say not that its purely a defense mechanism nor to say that in being defensive we are automatically wrong.

I'm saying that you have a pratice that ends up protecting you or giving you a way through insults. And in some sense that gives you a defense.
Charles Worthingdock - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:43:49 EST ID:XkciHAH9 No.197681 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1420901029054.gif -(872184 B, 300x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 872184
Yeah. But it's much easier said than done. As social animals it goes against our very nature to just ignore rejection by the rest of your species or even the threat of looking bad in front of other people. Shame is instinctive.
Emma Worthingstone - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:00:05 EST ID:9aXgLIY3 No.197694 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, it's not so easy. For some people, insults are signals, they mean more than the words they contain.
Sometimes they're signals that something is about to happen, like maybe you know this guy that every time he wants to back out of something, he starts insulting you. You could feel irked not because of the insults but for what you're anticipating will happen. The same goes for compliments too, when some people start giving you compliments, it's just to sweeten a bitter pill, so it's not that you don't like compliments, but what's about to happen.

>Insults are feedback and one thing us individuals do within society is seek feedback, not necessarily validation, about ourselves

Insults are incomplete feedback at best, which is the worst kind of feedback. If anything, they hurt because they promise something but don't deliver. Having honest, thorough feedback is always something that, although it can hurt, it makes you grow, eventually.
Insults are just an abortion, something that focuses on one part of a more complex judgement, insists on it, and then walks away, leaving you with nothing but embarassment for the other person's poor communication skills, or, if you're actually really interested in their feedback, disappointment because it stopped.

Race in the US by Graham Worryham - Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:53:30 EST ID:Hv9TzIr8 No.197316 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1419170010316.jpg -(257183 B, 734x950) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 257183
I am interested in learning several things about race in the US before I take a trip to your land. You will be reward with a thank you.
1) What is the difference between hispanic and latino?
2) Are Latin Americans from non-Spanish speaking countries thought of as hispanic or latino?
3) When American talk abot hispanic or latino, are they talking only about people with Amerindian and European mixed ancestry?
4) Are Latin American people with pure African, Amerindian, European or East Asian ancestry thought of as hispanic or latino if they are from a Spanish-speaking country?
5) Are the same people from the question above thought of as hispanic or latino if they are from a non-Spanish speaking country?
6) Is it true you think of Iberians as hispanic or latino, even the Portuguese?
6) Is it true you believe non-European caucasians are NOT white? If it is true, why is that?
8) Is it true you believe only one black ancestor is enough to make a person black, no matter how light skinned they are?
37 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Clara Bluvingbanks - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:12:36 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.197661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Honestly, the US is pretty much post-racial. Like, the youngsters take note of race and background but none of us really care about it, and the ones that do just rant and rant about racism this and oppression that while the rest of us are literally like, dawg, get over it, you're American and Americans stop giving a fuck about racial backgrounds after like 3 generations. Period.
Sophie Drinnersock - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:13:23 EST ID:tP32NcKl No.197671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1420762403174.jpg -(22870 B, 284x177) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22870
20/10 I wrote this serious response when it dawned on me that this may just be someone yanking my chain. I won't delete my butthurt response but share with you the fruits of your labor as there is no shame in my game and I took like 2 minutes typing it.

>Honestly, the US is pretty much post-racial

Where do you live? I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you're white, but like Greek or Italian white that thinks they got the shit end of things in the US too even though they were pretty much white on arrival and assimilation just involved being here for an amount of time. This country seems like a race obsessed shithole to me. Did you ever get in big racial fights at school? I did, at every school. Errbudy is racist as fuck. Have you ever been incarcerated? Gangs only have actual names among themselves, to people outside of it they are the blacks, or the mexicans or the whites. School was like the same way. Work is the same way.
Cyril Turveybanks - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:50:21 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197672 Ignore Report Quick Reply
With the laws protecting against discrimination and reverse discri- I mean affirmative action running rampant, there isn't any room for racism anymore.
At least, not in a professional enviroment.

also, me as a white male have been refused 2 jobs, several housing plans, and SCHOLARSHIPS LOL because I'm white.

If anything, society is more anti-white now and its pretty hilarious while minorities can rake in all the handouts.
Sophie Drinnersock - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:27:55 EST ID:tP32NcKl No.197673 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you sure it was because your white and because you are less than mediocre and there were better qualified applicants?
Martin Chirringkitch - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:49:38 EST ID:gqVFybCs No.197674 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I just checked. the future's /pol/ is back up. You should go there.

Gnosticism by Graham Benderford - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:39:52 EST ID:1peJZS51 No.197604 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420486792040.jpg -(60798 B, 600x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 60798
How come this religion didn't get to be so popular?

I know it's not exactly just one religion but I mean the whole demiurge-satan-lucifer-real God thing.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fucking Nicklehet - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:17:50 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.197610 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Jack Hubberperk - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:33:05 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.197611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wasn't gnosticism surpressed early in the church's history?
Because I am pretty sure it was big back in the day, but the catholic church heirarchy saw it as a threat.

Weren't the Cathar's a gnostic sect?
Jenny Febberdone - Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:32:19 EST ID:9bQMyCn8 No.197654 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, I would agree with this. From what I understand, there is no gnostic thinking in the Bible, and the NT argues against gnosticism, but gnostic ideas have entered into mainstream Christian thought because of tradition. Ideas such as the immortal soul, and the body being evil, and treating God like he's Santa Claus, that don't appear in the Bible but are still regarded as Christian by some.

To answer OP's question, I suppose gnosticism never became that popular because it's fundamentally pretty exclusive, it's based on the idea that there is some secret knowledge that needs to be learnt to gain salvation. That's how I understand it at least.
Jenny Febberdone - Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:33:39 EST ID:9bQMyCn8 No.197655 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know if it was suppressed. It was never that popular to start with. Some ideas got absorbed by the early church though and continue on til today.
Clara Bluvingbanks - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:13:29 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.197662 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>inb4 atheists pull that shit where they say 'Theism is to Atheism as Gnosticism is to Agnosticism'.
Fucking retards.

what is social anxiety and where does it come from? by Edwin Gegglewell - Sat, 03 Jan 2015 02:34:55 EST ID:JEf33O9A No.197530 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420270495209.jpg -(71405 B, 500x324) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 71405
i'm thinking, if we know what it really is, it would be a step toward overcoming it. so what do you think?
19 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Beatrice Darringbury - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 05:17:03 EST ID:uBqC5EOo No.197617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Why would you try to divide understanding from action

Because they are different things? Aren't you dividing them yourself, by using 2 different words for them?

>There is no benefit to not reading, to not understanding

For some people, it can become just a huge waste of time, after the first thing they read. It can become another way to procrastinate. Knowledge is seemingly endless after all.


It'd help you address the problem if the problem was understanding. Sometimes the problem is that you just don't want to do what you have to do, and no amount of reading will fix that. It can, however, under the guise of "research", or "deep study", absorb you long enough so that you have no more time to do it.
By the logic that "understanding the problem is a step toward", by understanding it deeply, you should be making huge leaps, but that's not the case at all, if you don't do anything to actually solve it.
Sidney Claffingledging - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:25:29 EST ID:bb+Q0uLf No.197618 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>For some people, it can become just a huge waste of time, after the first thing they read. It can become another way to procrastinate. Knowledge is seemingly endless after all.

There is truth to this. If you say to yourself that you just need to read a bit more or learn a bit more about anxiety before you take that first step, you are procrastinating. You are effectively saying to yourself "I just need to be a little less anxious before I attempt this fear," but in reality you are not going to become less anxious and will forever stall yourself.

That said, it is important for anxiety sufferers to know that they anxiety they feel more often than not does not match the reality around them. This is one of the keys to completing exposure exercises. Understanding the nature of anxiety can allow sufferers to move forward with treatment.
Edward Bunkinson - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:42:59 EST ID:fltNOnc1 No.197624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
They're two things that are different that will depend on each other. Much like eating and shitting they can end up being related or working together as apart of the same process. Its not necessary to insist on the same beginning and ending for one or the other, when they do run into one another.
They can be separate but they do run together.

That sounds like something that they are interested in, that is at the same time helping them. Some may just do until they find the solution.

But in the case of anxiety and yes social anxiety, it may come to you years after being able to just do without knowing. Maybe you needed to be able to know something about what you've been doing. Maybe you did know, but you couldn't explain it. The anxiety can come at a crisis point in your life. A mid life crisis, a sophmore slump, puberty, a post breakup blues.

You may find yourself having trouble doing things that once came easy to you, that perhaps you're in need of being able to answer questions, that you didn't feel you had to before.

You need to attempt to figure it out, in a way that you did not before. While possibly recovering by understanding what happened to you or what is happening to you.

So its not necessarily procrastination, or never taking a step, but maybe turning your attention to something, not to get away from doing, or even to insist that you can't overcome your problem with the understanding you already had.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Samuel Pavingsitch - Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:49:47 EST ID:HAlhHi/j No.197651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's you, you're the source of the anxiety. any individual is the source of their own anxiety.
Nigger Fodgechire - Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:14:30 EST ID:y35IqzFk No.197663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you're triggering me

I smoke pot by Sidney Ballercocke - Sun, 04 Jan 2015 23:04:34 EST ID:HAlhHi/j No.197585 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420430674565.jpg -(301982 B, 1920x1277) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 301982
Watching the smoke come off a stick of burning incense I notice how the smoke starts out very uniform and precise.
It always follows itself, no matter how the air the moves it, it doesn’t break up.
However as the smoke rises to a higher position it starts to spiral out of control and break up.
The smoke does not stop existing, it just comes to point a point where it has spread out to occupy more space.
Death is not an end, but an expansion.
Samuel Gunderspear - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:06:47 EST ID:nhLsZOhD No.197586 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Death is not an end, but an expansion.

Only if you are cremated.
Priscilla Shakewater - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:23:06 EST ID:sD2gDyJI No.197587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Walking down the abandoned rails while smoking, I've become pretty good at keeping my balance on the rail. My balance is good enough to go long distances on a single rail, without stepping down and I don't have to think about how to do it, or how I learned to do it. All I need to focus on is the next five to seven steps or so, and take a step after step, slowly but surely I'm staying on the rail and can go however far I need to.

However everytime I try to look back and see how far I've become I fall over or just simply step down. Every time. And once I've stepped down for a moment, it takes a while to get back the focus and ease of mind to keep the balance.

Your future is what you want to focus on to move ahead without disturbance. The more you look back the more you trip on it.
Beatrice Gobblebanks - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 02:22:53 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.197588 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That's not that profound, it's just physics. Laminar fluid flow that's subjected to chaotic interference becomes chaotic flow.
Clara Pengerville - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 03:06:18 EST ID:LolL7bY5 No.197589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah yeah were supposed to be uptight cause we cant seem dumb or whatever.
What I think could be profound is that you both came to the same thing in different ways.
Anyway, its not concrete op. You make a leap, conciousness and smoke might be you know, unrelated.Metaphors are nice and all, but they just help me sleep for a few nights. A man gets to a point when he needs to go to bed with warm fact.

I said fact.
Sidney Ballercocke - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:41:52 EST ID:HAlhHi/j No.197595 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you will die, be okay with it.

Religious fundamentalism by Nicholas Shakeshit - Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:11:12 EST ID:vJKc3YFi No.197470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420060272731.jpg -(22910 B, 350x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22910
Why is America the only non-Muslim country that has a powerful religious fundamentalistic political wing and popular support?
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Brookcocke - Sun, 04 Jan 2015 20:03:02 EST ID:tm2JLi5q No.197581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ireland doesnt have a "powerful religious fundamentalistic political wing and popular support". None of the political parties have religion at the core of their policies. Only older people care about religion. Religion and is a dying trend in Ireland. I dont where youre pulling this from.
Fanny Cheppersodging - Sun, 04 Jan 2015 20:12:30 EST ID:06jLxQoE No.197582 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ireland did outlaw blasphemy recently though
Walter Snodstock - Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:37:25 EST ID:gqVFybCs No.197584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> None of the political parties have religion at the core of their policies
>Religion and is a dying trend in Ireland.
>Only older people care about religion.
I could say all of this for America as well. I don't mean to paint Ireland in a negative light, but if America is the standard for religious influence, then there's a lot of non-muslim countries that fit the bill.

>Ireland doesnt have a "powerful religious fundamentalistic political wing and popular support".
Then why is abortion illegal? Why did abortion play a central role in whether or not you'd ratify the Lisbon treaty? Why is there a blasphemy law (even if unenforced) on the books? Why does your constitution mention the trinity? Why can't gays marry? Or adopt? Why aren't transgender people legally recognized?

I'm not saying Ireland is a theocracy. Neither is America. But you do have a "powerful religious politcal wing." I think "Fundamentalist" is a a very debatable term, and it's best to leave it out.
Doris Blythehood - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 04:26:20 EST ID:Gx6NRz5k No.197590 Ignore Report Quick Reply

damn nigga beat me to bhutan

yea sorry op your premise is too edgysuburbancantwakeupinside and not relevant to the real world at all.
Nigel Brookcocke - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:01:03 EST ID:tm2JLi5q No.197591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I dont deny religion is enshrined in parts of Irish politics, but this is a leftover from the powerful grip of the Catholic Church which started to decline in the 90s. What I meant was that there is no political party or movement which is religiously fundamental. Times are changing. LGBT marriage will soon be recognized (referendum very soon with the Taoiseach fully endorsing Yes), blasphemy has been outlawed, laws on abortion will ease up (the public are not standing for this anymore and neither are many in government) and as for trans people not being recognized - I dont know, it does suck, and Ireland is a bit behind in the times with regards to social issues.

Im obviously not attacking you. But I dont think Ireland is anywhere near as religious as America. Im Irish and have spent my whole life here and I have family in America and so have traveled quite a lot there and to me the differences are huge. I mean, I still meet young pretty 21 year old American women who are really intelligent and nice and then they shock me out of nowhere by talking about Jesus and God and stuff and its just like wtf. You would never get anyone under the age of 35 talk about God here. And like I said, there is no political party with a religious agenda or even politicians or hell public figures. When it comes to issues like abortion and such, the Catholic Church no longer has a political say in it anymore - really. These issues are becoming uh... de-Catholicized. Religion exists in our constitution but its a relic of the past and is slowly being stamped out.

The Catholic Church, as ya might know, has gone through some SERIOUS scandal the past decade in Ireland and literally every year there is a new uproar over some scandal. Its popularity is at its lowest, as is mass attendance and numbers of people signing up to priesthood. It's great to see to be honest, because the Catholic Church has poisoned and corrupted this country for far far too long.

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

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

How do you make your way in a world which, by all available evidence, appears to be absurd (in the Camus sense of the word)? That is, how do you figure out what to do with your limited time in this life?
23 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Shittingridge - Sat, 20 Dec 2014 22:06:57 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.197309 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That was actually a pretty good read bruh
Fuck Sillerwen - Sat, 03 Jan 2015 01:56:23 EST ID:e3tj9jnJ No.197528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
well nobody owns time we are al in the present I always hear this shit like "oh I've got 60 years left to live what will I do with it?" do with what faggot? you don't own jack shit you're here in the present navigating the world like the rest of us, do you know how I figure out what to do with 'my time'? I act in the present like everybody else do whatever the fuck I want I aint gonna live my life so when I'm dead some freshman prat can jizz over my 'life-story', as told by, not me but someone else. arrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh son you're wasting your life you have so much potential we might hear this shit from our mothers, but it's potential for what bitch? to make you proud? so you can brag to the other she-whores about how well your son is doing? so you can feel like you've contributed to society by letting some fuckwit cum in you 9 months later I fall out a gaping cunt spreading joy and love admiration on fucking me is that what you want mom? gotta do you bit and pay your part for the society you live in gotta increase your standard get a good mariiage have 2 and a half white pickets respectable career lectures and dissertations.

guess what bitch this life is fucking insanity and we aint nothing but the walking dead trying to continue our miserable existence with scraps of shit we find on the street huddling round poystyrene fires and empty ammo shells triple jackets keep the cold out all perpetuate this wanton misery so it can go on for the next generation, the next litter of fucking scumskin cumskin shitskin mudskin scumfucks ready to suckle on that wrinkled tit grow big and 'make a mark' on the world while you work the same dead end job like everyone fucking else just so you can heat your pad and keep up with insurance getting blackout drunk every friday and sat another meaningless time wasted gifted buried burrowed begged traded stolen and spent, spent what bitch? is what I say with two fingers raised in a big fuck you I aint into debt don't tick me dubs when I can rob your black ass I can't use what I don't have I can't do something with time that don't even fucking exist. where the future hun? ayy bb where is it? ahead of you? …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Henry Ciblingchack - Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:13:15 EST ID:A1zx0Kh1 No.197545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
some bertrand russell for you.

"I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous"

"I hope that, after reading the following pages, the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain." http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/praiseidleness.htm

"The time you enjoyed wasting is not wasted time"

"Owing to the absence of any central control over production, we produce hosts of things that are not wanted. We keep a large percentage of the working population idle, because we can dispense with their labor by making the others overwork. When all these methods prove inadequate, we have a war: we cause a number of people to manufacture high explosives, and a number of others to explode them, as if we were children who had just discovered fireworks. By a combination of all these devices we manage, though with difficulty, to keep alive the notion that a great deal of severe manual work must be the lot of the average man."

"The fact is that moving matter about, while a certain amount of it is necessary to our existence, is emphatically not one of the ends of human life. If it were, we should have to consider every navvy superior to Shakespeare. We have been misled in this matter by two causes. One is the necessity of keeping the poor contented, which has led the rich, for thousands of years, to preach the dignity of labor, while taking care themselves to remain undignified in this respect. The other is the new pleasure in mechanism, which makes us delight in the astonishingly clever changes that we can produce on the earth's surface."

"There was formerly a capacity for light-heartedness and play which has been to some extent inhibited by the cult of efficiency. The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake."

"The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy. The butcher who provides you with meat and the baker who provides you with bread are praiseworthy, because they …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Henry Ciblingchack - Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:40:11 EST ID:A1zx0Kh1 No.197547 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It's not selfish to ask "from each's ability too each's need." The reality is we aren't all equipped with the stuff to be engineers, visionaries, and scientists.

What would Kant say? Granted many of the greats don't act out of a selfless benevolence and saintly empathy for the plight of mankind but out of necessity (passion, curiosity, etc.)

There is nothing wrong with a hedonistic philosophy or low ambition, but if everyone had these then wed still be hunter gatherer nomads. Humanity's endless quest for 'better' is both the most noble and most destructive aspect of existence I can think of.
Hedda Pocklechit - Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:09:30 EST ID:FYiIe0T6 No.197580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1420412970642.jpg -(37900 B, 480x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37900
was gonna post, but this guy saved me 10minutes. fuck this world. the only rational solution is to nuke this planet.

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