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


Who are the funniest Christians to you? by Molly Fuckinghall - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:07:31 EST ID:mE5kLanz No.199710 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428444451938.jpg -(107974 B, 976x818) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 107974
My personal favorites are: xXJesusIsLordXx (even though he's probably just a troll), Reverend X, Father McGruder (even though he's a fictional Xtian), Haruhi Suzumiya (I saw this on some Christian websites and they kinda make some good points on how this anime has christian elements to it, though I still add this one with great lulz), and Charles Manson. What Christians brighten up your day?
>>
Caroline Crobblebanks - Sun, 19 Apr 2015 05:30:18 EST ID:1sW8bsyp No.199824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't really know who the fuck you're talking about, but imo Catholics have the best sense of humor. A sense of humor about religion or the sacred that others lack or at least don't have on equal measure
>>
Rebecca Bonningdale - Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:38:19 EST ID:LOP/462t No.199829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199710
I'm a Christian, and I think you're the bestest.

Do I win?
>>
Edward Bizzlecocke - Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:29:22 EST ID:+aRjOtGK No.199964 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199710
i love those guys


Basic Income by Walter Fuffingford - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:32:36 EST ID:+7KDi76N No.199734 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428517956976.jpg -(1149390 B, 1500x3415) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1149390
tl;dr a newish way to fund basic income: price-fixing

I'll admit this is a pretty communist idea but the government already restricts the market so much it's actually not that much of a stretch. The government already places restrictions on monetary gifts. People still can't legally exchange currency for a natural plant in some states!

1) Make it illegal for any business or individual to raise it's prices from 2015 levels. Lowering is okay. Any citizen just needs some sort of proof that prices have increased to report a violation into the police. All more expensive trade occurs on the black market or in small enough communities that people don't rat each other for breaking the law (even at the expense of paying more). This simultaneously spurns consumer spending and migrates people away from dangerous black markets. It even benefits big corporations because any domestic resource the corporation buys won't go up in price AND there is no law against having record profits. The penalty to raising prices would never exceed a simple fine. If you introduce a new product or start a new business you only get one chance to set your price. We are told job creation is good for the economy and this makes it easier/simpler.

2) Print out 5 trillion dollars and give $15,000 to each of the 320 million citizens in America. Landlords and supermarkets would be afraid to raise their prices, no one's taxes would be raised, the economy would have healthier financial circulation, society as a whole would be healthier, the spending power of the dollar in America would not change, and the petrodollar would still be backed by the fully-funded US military so all the countries not directly tied to our currency would still have to submit to us. Other countries might try to charge us more for certain goods, but international trade at the level that it really matters is just a megacorp war that doesn't affect 99% of us anyway. There would not be inflation domestically or with regards to international trade and every single citizen would be guaranteed to have enough to live, so long as all prices are only allowed to get lower and enough money to give every citizen (maybe just those who are over 18) $15,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Clirrynock - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:21:14 EST ID:Vb5D49hZ No.199762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The whole 'transaction' thing is the deal man. Markets but not shitty ones.
>>
Albert Bungercocke - Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:20:12 EST ID:YrshqVp9 No.199774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199754
>Paul Krugman
>why_can't_YOU_hold_all_this_debt_stupid.goy
>predicted by theory AND emperically shown
That still doesn't mean the theory is accurate in any way. I can hypothesize that angels make computers, and it's falsifiable if you can show me in person not-angels making computers, but that is still a dumb theory.
>>
Nell Bunshaw - Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:25:04 EST ID:xg5gddvm No.199775 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The whole 'transaction' thing is the deal man. Markets but not shitty ones.
>>
Angus Feckledeg - Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:58:05 EST ID:7IhAQFOh No.199777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199774
>Paul Krugman
>why_can't_YOU_hold_all_this_debt_stupid.goy
What?

>That still doesn't mean the theory is accurate in any way. I can hypothesize that angels make computers, and it's falsifiable if you can show me in person not-angels making computers, but that is still a dumb theory.
Scientific statements are falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific.

In the case of rent controls, the empirical evidence supports the prediction made by models taught in econ 101. There are other cases where that simplified model fails (like minimum wage). But there's more examples for which is holds.
>>
Simon Hezzleworth - Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:25:43 EST ID:n3P3GU+j No.199814 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199777
Paul Krugman was the Nobel Prize winner who won it because he said that debt is good for nations, and that nations need to get into more debt if they want to make wealth. Yes he is a Jew, advocating that people get into debt forever in larger and larger amounts.

The rent control thing is literally wrong. By definition if an economic agent is "intelligent" in spite of restrictions they will find a way to minimize things to a profitable level. For rent-controlled apartments, it's not that the agents can't turn a profit. There is no question, they can build more apartments to increase supply and decrease price for a fixed demand, edging out competitors. They could offer smaller or more efficient apartments.

Instead what you get, as is pretty much the same in every other market, is they refuse to engage in a market which is not making them "enough" money, which is some psychotically high amount. By even suggesting landlords should have some restriction on their greed, they immediately started accusing tenants of not being good enough. It's the same fiasco when one gets into the job market: if you don't have a piece of paper, you clearly can't be qualified to do anything. When renting, even if someone can pay, if they can't prove they're enough of an obedient drone they won't be allowed in. It's clear with rent control the bar is set so high they don't allow anyone and then say "oy vey woe is me". In the job market, you have companies, literally in the same geographic regions, that say there is a talent shortage for tech jobs then hire 95%+ H1-B Visa Holders, despite their being a clear gluttony of workers they just don't want to hire because they won't make enough profit.


What would this be called by Lydia Crizzleshit - Thu, 02 Apr 2015 16:09:21 EST ID:UDmID3LV No.199654 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428005361611.jpg -(31954 B, 428x573) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31954
Aight, I know how "edgy" this might sound, but I'm not making this post to advocate such a philosophy, I'm honestly just trying to figure out what the name for such a belief system would be and if it's been discussed by any notable philosophers in history.

What would you call the belief that there is a god, but rather than a loving god it is a god that hates every sentient being, and only allows some beings to be happy so as to remind the remaining population what they lack in their lives?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Doris Grimfuck - Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:31:24 EST ID:7IhAQFOh No.199687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199673
That's bullshit. The most active christians are actually the poorest. You just think it's the richest, since they're the most visible (and they're busy exploiting the poorer church members).
>>
Phineas Futtingtitch - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 03:45:26 EST ID:AF2LAvqE No.199695 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199654
>What would you call the belief that there is a god, but rather than a loving god it is a god that hates every sentient being, and only allows some beings to be happy so as to remind the remaining population what they lack in their lives?

Reading too much icycalm.
>>
Eliza Horrybury - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:32:31 EST ID:+RX25zj3 No.199748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428535951394.gif -(1871506 B, 200x150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1871506
>>199695
SSSH
DON'T SAY IT'S NAME
>>
Basil Puffinghood - Thu, 16 Apr 2015 03:05:30 EST ID:+xOPBRtT No.199808 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199673
because nontraditional faiths market to marginalized groups since the marginalized are more likely to latch onto systems that are seen as being apart from the society that made them marginalized.

a key example is laveys satanism. the religion itself is suited to bourgeoisie folk, but since the religion has an underhanded "christian morality is why you suck" vibe to it, people who indeed suck and formerly were Christians tend to get drawn to it.
>>
Shit Chamblehire - Sat, 18 Apr 2015 02:06:45 EST ID:6a3TJfIl No.199811 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199695

What does OP's post have to do with spicyclam?


"Ideological people can't help it." by Edwin Gisslestig - Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:49:21 EST ID:WSYzk8Na No.199667 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428281361879.jpg -(34373 B, 500x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 34373
So I had this train of thought recently and I thought I'd share it. I've never been to this board before and I'm not familiar with philosophy so I apologize if this is a fairly common conclusion to come to, or if this already has a name etc.

Basically, I feel that people who subscribe to a certain ideology (political, economic, religious or philosophical) 'can't help it'. What I mean by that is that your worldview is shaped by your inherent personality, which you cannot change, and your experiences, which you also have little to no control over.

So when a person says "I am a devout Christian" or "I am a fervent libertarian", or alternatively if they are a militant atheist, arguing with them is simply pointless. No immense volume of facts could ever change a person's mind, because their opinion is already formed by things outside of their control (personality and experience).

You might say "well people convert religion during their life, and can change their minds about politics or philosophy." This is true, but hear me out. Let's say a person was raised in a particular religion, worldview, philosophy. They grow up uninterested or lukewarm to it because it does not conform to their already-decided-on views which they have little control over. They later discover a different ideology, which more closely conforms to how they feel, and adopt it instead. It's not that their mind was ever changed, just that the label changed - they weren't able to conform to a particular label very well, and instead found one which they were able to closely conform to. When someone says "I used to a be a Christian but I'm now a Buddhist" nothing internally ever changed, their feelings remained the same throughout.

People do of course change their mind over time, but this comes with the experience of aging, not because of a well-written book, lecture, or internet post. It happens because of things outside their control (events in their life).

Is this what you call determinism? Do you understand what I'm saying, have I articulated it well enough? Do you disagree, if so why? Again, first post on the board.
12 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Bimmerlock - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 06:58:08 EST ID:ylG/VFOm No.199759 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I disagree with the use of the word ideology to describe particular systems of thought rather than an the actual material force of the narrative of the political economy

Its not ideologies, its Ideology. Whether or not you're a Liberal, pro-revolutionary, fascist, or cynical doesn't actually matter, what matters is Ideology itself
>>
Nicholas Lightdock - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:44:08 EST ID:4D4mE4Dj No.199760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A bunch of lectures have changed my mind. I hope this changes your mind. These are the experiences that shape us. I agree that people jump onto labels but their minds do change through conversation. Arguments wouldn't exist if there wasn't a purpose to them.
>>
Beatrice Grimford - Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:24:08 EST ID:Xx5xWZwg No.199792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>People do of course change their mind over time, but this comes with the experience of aging, not because of a well-written book, lecture, or internet post. It happens because of things outside their control (events in their life).

This isn't 100% accurate. I'm certain /some/ people have changed their minds about /something/ through those mediums. Don't confuse suburban Americans with the entire world here. Some people seek these answers from books, or lectures, or perhaps some pals on the internet. It's what this board is for, after all.

I get what you're saying and it got me thinking that each person is born a certain "shape". Genes are responsible for your most basic being, and one could argue that genes could be the most basic "filter" through which you see the world, being that they constitute the most basic you. Someone taking up an absolute belief in something is like them finally settling into a area shaped like they are.

But then I think there would be a difference between "Finding one's self" and "Shaping one's self". Everyone make countless sacrifices and compromises throughout their life, contributing as much to their personal ideology as what they worship and pursue. Perhaps people who are too set in their beliefs to admit they might be wrong have primarily "shaped themselves" rather than "finding themselves".

People have goals, dreams, and aspirations. There's no satisfaction to be had other than "finding one's self". However global circumstances keep the majority of people doing more shaping than finding, forcing them to adopt the ideologies required and correct for where they are trying to fit. It is extraordinarily easy for a person to lie to themselves.

In my narrative I have (probably by no random chance) avoided people who seem to do more self-shaping than self-finding, specifically because they tend to like echo chambers and affirmation AKA non-conversation - not that I don't /like/ these people, we just don't connect.
>>
Faggy Pittstock - Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:24:18 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.199799 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199727
>but for example the entire cultural understanding of how "working is virtuous" exists in great part due to Christian ideology

I'm pretty sure if we didn't have scarcity, need for jobs, manufacturing, etc, the "working hard is for animals" creed would become incredibly popular.

>I'm not sure how you can isolate people's situation from ideology

They're not separated. An ideology is a mnemonic device to know what unfounded assumptions you're entertaining, and they change depending the situation we're in. Mnemonic devices are part of life, they're not isolated from it.
>>
Graham Dobberfield - Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:26:40 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.199803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199799

But so much of what people do as a "job" isn't really necessary for human survival. I think we'd be OK without telemarketers.


Philosophy of well-rounded decent individual by Graham Bamblestedge - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 05:59:46 EST ID:2lrPDJq4 No.199698 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428400786756.jpg -(18891 B, 345x141) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 18891
>Philip Sandifer declared that the nominations had "been successfully hijacked by neofascists", spelling the end of legitimate online sci-fi fandom.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/gamergatestyle-furore-after-scifi-awards-hijacked-20150407-1mfpk2.html

Do these guys if their team loses declare "it's the end of sport"? Since when did being a little bitch who loses their shit when someone disagrees with them become a valid philosophy?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Doris Grimfuck - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 09:11:42 EST ID:7IhAQFOh No.199702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199698
> it turns out the result had been strongly influenced by co-ordinated politcal campaigns.
Duh. It's incredibly naive to not know that's how award ceremonies work. Think the academy awards are based on merit alone? Ha.

That said, it's pretty said there's sci-fi 'fans' actively campaigning against being inclusive... if true. The reporting here sucks, and I didn't find anything better, so I'm filing this under "who knows?"
>>
Hugh Drublingleck - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:20:04 EST ID:MVF3yPdl No.199708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The reason why conflicts such as this one and Gamergate arise, and the reason why they will not go away in the near future, is that everything one side says or does supports/conforms to the other side's perspective. Left and right alike subscribe to self-perpetuating ideologies, and until they come to and realize that things are never black-and-white this petty bickering will never stop.

What's concerning is that 10, 20, 30 years later some of the ringleaders pushing these debates will end up in actual politics, and may very well drag their petulance and dogmatic stubbornness with them into more important fields.
>>
Graham Clattingdock - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 19:46:59 EST ID:+RX25zj3 No.199711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428450419513.jpg -(143933 B, 900x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 143933
>>199708
>What's concerning is that 10, 20, 30 years later some of the ringleaders pushing these debates will end up in actual politics
This is what I'm worried about. Depending on where you are they already hold significant academic influence.

And if a few dozen relentless antivaxers or creationists can damage a nation over just ten years, what are internet warriors gonna do?
>>
Phyllis Duckcocke - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:41:58 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199763 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199698
hahaha affirmative action, how do people not see it as racism?
It's discrimination based on race, which have nothing to do with the award or the genre they encompass.
>>
Fuck Drollertack - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:06:42 EST ID:7IhAQFOh No.199764 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199708
>What's concerning is that 10, 20, 30 years later some of the ringleaders pushing these debates will end up in actual politics
Reading this is like a punch to the gut.

>>199763
Historically, sci-fi authors have greatly valued diversity. It's not affirmative action, it's just appreciating a variety of viewpoints and being inclusive.

Do you think it was racist that the original Star Trek intentionally made main characters a variety of ethnicities? DO you think it's racist that Asimov wrote about future humans all being dark skinned?

ALthough I doubt anyone is actually being nominated on the basis on gender/race. Sci-fi has a worldwide audience, so it's not surprising nominations would be diverse.


Spiritual guidance needed by Hedda Dummerhare - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 02:56:48 EST ID:YEGe0Axl No.199713 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428476208756.jpg -(185920 B, 675x559) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 185920
185920
When I was little, I grew up in a catholic home. I remember seeing angels one night in my sleep. I wanted to be a priest. As I got older and went through puberty, I became spiritual but not religious because I disliked authoritarianism and dogma and sex negativity and hell. I began lucid dreaming and astral projecting. As I came to college age I became interested in ancient religions and psychedelics. I did them all and have seen the most mystical visions. Now that I no longer do drugs, however, I feel myself drawn to a path of higher spirituality and contemplation. Perhaps yoga or tantra or buddhism. Does anyone here have any experiences with meditation? I've been practicing for a couple months now with no results. Also, what do you think of doctrinal differences between Buddhism and Hinduism: Is there an atman or anatman? Is samadhi union with the Brahman or the void? Halp pls.
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nathaniel Genningkadging - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:07:35 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.199746 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199745

What makes you say that?
>>
Nathaniel Genningkadging - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:29:23 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.199747 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe you're trying too hard, OP. You shouldn't be worried about results. Meditation is an enjoyable experience in itself. I will say that after a session shortly after I began meditating I "got" what I believe was a form of Jhana, or Dhyana, or Samadhi, or whatever you want to call it.

How long do you do it for?
>>
Shit Clavingforth - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:48:52 EST ID:afAn/l+G No.199749 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199729
>Visual snow or visual static is transitory or persisting visual symptom where people see snow or television-like static in parts or the whole of their visual fields

>Little is known about this rare condition,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

>Tinnitus =It is common, affecting about 10-15% of people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus

Watch as I guess more things about OP:

OP, do you ever get spiritual insights as the clock says 11:11?

OP do you ever have noises play in your head as your go to sleep, or music which wakes you up from your dreams?
>>
Samuel Dubblestot - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 20:53:53 EST ID:+RX25zj3 No.199751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428540833952.gif -(360355 B, 209x209) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 360355
>>199749
>moving goalposts
You mentioned white noise, then pretend you were talking about VISUAL snow

Just fuck off to /tinfoil/
>>
Wesley Dirrykurk - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:53:57 EST ID:Nqbt9kev No.199752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199751
white noise = visual snow


An idea to control women by Sophie Bissledock - Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:36:39 EST ID:OD7FzOQO No.199618 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1427056599787.png -(247765 B, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 247765
Suppose evolutionarily, women evolved to respond to particular vocalizations/minute gestures/expressions in men, and it triggered menstrual cramping, crippling and sudden pain in their nether regions. This would be useful to say, stop a woman from doing something foolish, like running into a river or into the path of a rhinoceros. She would double over in pain the moment she sensed the male's disapproval. It would also serve as punishment, but mostly it would be used like a wireless "taser"
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jack Fingerwater - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:10:58 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.199627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You mean the super ego?
>>
Jack Dirryshit - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:58:48 EST ID:zOfhxauO No.199628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199618
>Suppose evolutionarily....
>like if we did live in a completely different universe
>wanting to have an organic taser hardwired into people to control them
>implying you can't control women otherwise
nb.
>>
Matilda Chepperridge - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:23:45 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.199630 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199618
This is why you shouldn't let circlejerkors do drugs.
>>
John Grandstone - Sun, 29 Mar 2015 03:47:28 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199618
If this was a metaphor or satire I love it
>>
Jack Huffingway - Fri, 03 Apr 2015 00:32:34 EST ID:PoS6Tp54 No.199657 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199618
Just suppose, eh, just suppose.


Why can't average people argue? by Esther Beblingfatch - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 02:17:43 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199385 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426400263634.jpg -(176110 B, 1053x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 176110
Why don't average people put one thought into their beliefs?
Why dont people question their beliefs and desires?
Why are most people butthurt whenever receiving criticism to claims that they make?
Why is every dissenting opinion labeled as a troll?

inb4 socrates quote about kids
38 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Syllogism - Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:50:54 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199611

A moral order isn't necessarily a doctrine or allegience, it's more of a purely mental faculty. Which may or may not be a necessary clarification, but I figured I'd just reinforce that it. It's rather relevant to the points you're making in the latter half of the post.

>All it takes is the conflicting agendas of each individual, it doesn't matter if there following a set of ideals that are known to be conscripted objectively in the form of a doctrine, two individuals following the same one, will still be exerting that as a form of control on one another just as much as it works as a control on them.

>So despite being governed by something individuals do govern the order themselves and find conflict with each other, otherwise if the governing order was in full control the members guided by it wouldn't have conflicting goals.

This plays out, not only in inter-idealogy dialogues, but between entirely conflicting idealogies. The moral order of wealth is a particularly well written phenomena, and can be observed on both the economic left and right. Both a hard-lined GOP miser and a woolly, limp wristed liberal philanthropist can be acting out of the perception that morality is stratified based on wealth and that their condemnation and charity, respectively, toward the poor, is a manifestation of their moral high ground.

>Meaning people aren't really "not questioning" their beliefs, there used to them having been questioned.

This is an interesting concept. Is this to say, someone can be too effective for his or her own good, at shutting down opposing viewpoints?

>>199619
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:57:51 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.199624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1427075871433.png -(444564 B, 588x492) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 444564
>>199608
Hey! It's derailing guy! I wonder what life is like for this man, he replies to my posts within minutes everytime and only uses his first-rate responding time to play sticks and stones. He even follows me to /spooky/!

Responding to this post isn't recommended, or encouraged. I just wish he had a cool nickname I could "misspell". Good times, goood times...
>>
Edwin Ciddlekidging - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:44:41 EST ID:5WdH5XhW No.199629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199624
>there's only one person on 420chan who ever made fun of me
I find it hard to comprehend how anybody could maintain this belief in the face of all evidence
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:32:06 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.199633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1427153526233.jpg -(69445 B, 574x580) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 69445
>>199629
>having a callsign so I can stand by my past posts and so it doesn't seem like my posts/ideas come from many agreeing sources over the course of many threads
>posting anonymously so you can trollandrun, never have to stand by what you said from thread to thread, and samefag all over

I'll stick to having, lol, materialist cowards be jerks any day about something I said in a metaphysics thread they disagree'd with over caving into peer pressure to assimilate into anonymity in a place where it's not required past the collective having their feelings hurt.

I've also been backed up by a pretty equal amount of posters who see it fit to speak up when you guys are doing your thang and turning my posts into a hootinanny.

Funnily enough, when I stopped using this name on /sci/ on the future, the same posts I used to make (Bulk space, DMT, quantum animism, etc) were much easilier accepted, when before they would always disagree with what I said an turn the thread into a shitshow, seemingly based on there being a name attached. This is interesting and I'll continue to look at the disparities between using a name and not.

But obviously I said not to reply because it's just bait to say I'm derailing ("how could a tripfag not be trying to derail a thread into a discussion about how cool they are??") So I'll reply to the OP post to make sure this post is keeping the discussion railroaded.

>Where are you getting this idea? What are these "average" people like?
>I'm pretty sure most people question themselves and their actions, as well as beliefs, all the time.
>Because they HAVE thought long and hard about whatever they are defending, otherwise they wouldn't defend it
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Genkinshit - Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:13:35 EST ID:xw810OK7 No.199648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199386
I like you.


Qualia General by Jenny Chunningpotch - Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:37:15 EST ID:Ixcyq3wj No.198994 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1425008235617.jpg -(105709 B, 636x967) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 105709
>haha fuck subjectivity
>colors are colors

So which is it, white and gold or black and blue?
67 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Alice Goodfield - Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:35:35 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.199449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you guys still arguing over why light and cheap cameras pick up on colors differently?
>>
Sidney Drummerspear - Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:37:16 EST ID:b+IFugUE No.199631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199449
i want to debate the issues of modern day photographic values in the sense of digital aesthetic convergence
>>
Nell Gellerwodge - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:09:56 EST ID:FRqQnpPR No.199637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Personally, I'm interested in the cognitive psychology of scenario reconstruction and the consequent feedback of mental models into perceptual evaluation.
>>
Henry Pangerchot - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:38:01 EST ID:S/LHk8pn No.199638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199631
>>199637
Make a thread; this thread is about the subjectivity of visually augmented aesthetics in the context of dress's structural resonance (optically) and how it plays into this specific scintilla of philosophical modification.
>>
John Summerson - Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:33:29 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.199639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199631
>>199637
>>199638

A+ comments


Question about reading The World as Will and Representation by Alice Sibberdock - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:21:34 EST ID:Vb08fFGd No.199595 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426969294836.jpg -(115973 B, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 115973
Opened it today, in the introduction Schopenhauer writes that before reading the book it's necessary to read some other works which he details in a list.
Will I be able to understand his work without reading the preliminary texts he mentions?
>>
Syllogism - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:12:19 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't have a copy of it on me, so could you list which works he's talking about.

I know a cursory understanding of Kant is probably necessary, because he basically has a love hate relationship with Kantian philosophy and spends a lot of time on it.
>>
Barnaby Bizzlewud - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:50:38 EST ID:juGu0lJ6 No.199635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199597
How old are you and what did you study in college?
>>
Simon Soshhood - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:21:57 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.199636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199595

he's talking about The Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is a series of essays.

You probably could understand much of what he is saying in the World as Will and Representation without reading The Principle of Sufficient Reason, but you will likely have to go slow and read things many times over to grasp what he means.

Whereas if you read the Principle of Sufficient Reason, you will have a solid understanding of Schope's overarching post-Kantian philosophy before you even begin, and you will understand the World as Will and Representation in more depth than you could without it.

I recommend you do read the Principle of Sufficient Reason, because it is shorter than the World as Will and Representation. You could read it after, like oh I liked the WWR, so ill like his other stuff. But you can't really be sure whether or not you understand and like the WWR without reading the PSR.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is basically Schope creating a synthesis of Humean Empiricism and Spinozist Rationalism. Hume is right, that we do not in fact observe causation, we observe constant conjunction of phenomena in time and space. But Schope also thinks that Spinoza (and other rationalists) are right, the world does behave according to causation, the principle of sufficient reason, which is classically formulated as "nothing occurs without a sufficient cause preceding it, and an effect always follows from a sufficient cause".

How he reconciles these two, is to say that our understanding of causation is in fact nothing more or less than the constant conjunction of phenomena in time and space. He says that Hume is right, we do not observe anything MORE than constant conjunction in time and space, but what Hume did not adequately express or understand is that humans have an innate and inescapable habit of connecting phenomena in such a way. There is no other way that causation could be understood, because if phenomena are causally connected in some other way (that is to say not according to spatio-temporal contiguity), then the universe would be epistemically chaotic, and beyond our understanding completely. Humans MUST assume that spatio-temporal contiguity IS causation, we have no choice, that is our mind has evolved.

When we are wrong about spatio-temporally contiguous phenomena (as in the classic case of "correlation does not equal causation"), we know we are wrong when we observe a LACK of constant spatio-temporal conjunction between the events in question, and we accept a replacement theory when a more constant conjunction is observed.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Schopenhauer's Aesthetics questions by Priscilla Greenford - Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:52:38 EST ID:0YcPRRVJ No.199565 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426816358113.jpg -(791146 B, 1280x1876) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 791146
If aesthetics offer a way for people to temporarily escape the suffering from willing, then what type of art (music, literature, paintings) would offer 'the best escape'? Going with this doctrine, wouldn't video games be a superb way to alienate yourself from the willing and be a spectator of "the world as representation"?

What about enjoying the aesthetics of beautiful women? (pic related)
Wouldn't love be an extension of this escape from suffering as well?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:50:16 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's sort of ironic to propose such a question through the lens of the Schopenhauer interpretation. Prioritizing one media over another treats them as worldly subjects to his Principles of Sufficient Grounds, which, by his interpretation, constrain us to our worldly suffering. It ceases to be aesthetics.

So his particular interpretation allows us to qualify the relationship between art, and artist or observer, but is insufficient for qualifying relationships in between distinct pieces of art, as doing so is entails a contradiction. We need something else. We need a metric, not a philosophy which looks to suspend ourselves from worldly metrics.

Depending on your interest in more mathy things, you might take like the works of Jurgen Schmidhuber. He proposes that objects of similar complexity can be ranked in terms of beauty, based on the length of the description necessary to encode it. In this manner, beauty is not necessarily just simplicity, but the ability for simplicity to manifest itself in inherently complex things.

We can compare F-A♭-D♭ to, say, D-F-G♭ in terms of beauty. By most subjective standards, the first is reducible to a neopolitan chord while the second is just three notes chosen at random. Here, the neopolitan chord unites three units of data with a single description, whereas D-F-G♭ is irreducible.

Go to: http://www.buttonbass.com/PlayerPiano.html and input: [!K$] [h#k], if you'd like to hear the difference.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:53:47 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199580

Also, either put a bunch of spaces in between the first set of brackets and the second, or increase the interval to like, 800. Otherwise they play too quickly to be heard.

I had like 10 spaces in between, but the board ate them up.
>>
Shit Govingderk - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:24:45 EST ID:0YcPRRVJ No.199598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199580
can you elaborate on how ordering the various forms of art constrains us to our worldly suffering? He has himself stated that music (Wagner) is the highest form of art.

Are we suppose to try to escape the suffering according to him? If so wouldn't alcoholics and drug users (which are deemed as one of the lowest forms of human beings) follow his doctrine very well? They completely cease to care about their suffering (bodily and emotional) when high.

I feel that if this is what he is advocating then it's not very noble. Why not embrace the suffering and try to be the most fit of the herd and eliminate the weak ones (Nietzsche's doctrine) ?
>>
Syllogism - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 22:13:54 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199599 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199598

Basically, I could believe that weighing them against one another treats them as worldly objects, and therefore, subjects of the Will. The Will is the heart of man's suffering by his interpretation, and therefore, allow art to become the subject of the Will prevents it from fulfilling its proper role.

>Are we suppose to try to escape the suffering according to him?

Basically, simply giving in to aesthetics would be an escape from the will. But escape from the Will is finite. We always come back. Critiquing the art, in that manner, is the bait that brings us back to suffering.

>He has himself stated that music (Wagner) is the highest form of art.

There's definitely some inconsistently in his work, yeah, but I don't think holding a personal opinion on that manner should count against him. Sussing out which form of art suits us would just be a manifestation of the Will, but once we finally indulge in it, we escape from it.

He made the case that music was unworldly, in a manner unlike any other. Understand that Schopenhauer lived before the era of abstract art, and so painters were essentially painting worldly objects (people, landscapes, etc.), and worldly objects, as was always his case, are subject to the Will.

From a contemporary perspective, I wouldn't agree that music is wholly unworldly myself, since acoustics is an entirely physical phenomena, but his works also predate what could be considered the first "modern" breakthrough in acoustics, a la Helmholtz, by about 30 years.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:49:17 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.199607 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A psychedelic trip of course! You can fill i with the viewing of many types of arts, and appying art to a trip (making something or practising some sort of esoterics) is even better.


Why i think feminism should be destroyed. by James Pannermare - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 05:49:29 EST ID:eh5ANwxk No.199206 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1425808169008.gif -(178369 B, 351x799) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 178369
Typically a feminist utopia is imagined in such a way that in society both genders inhabit all positions 50/50. Or maybe some kind of a world where gender doesn't matter and has no place inside personal identities, a world with equal rights between the sexes etc.....

I argue that this vision of utopia is terribly tragic. I think of early feminism as simply a demand for females to be respected more. You can consider it as changing attitudes where the roles of women became disrespected yet violently sustained. So i think what finally
set the time bomb to explode was the rising ''respect'' for the increasingly amazing ''male jobs'' that lead to a cocky male attitude to females and where roles of women was no longer confined in the name of respect but disrespect. So the feminists go marching for respect which
also involves the necessary fairness of the sharing of roles and jobs.

What i think happened eventually is that they were strong and they got the jobs/roles but they kept the old mentality of being the disrespected. I don't blame them, it still is so. But here we reach a crucial turning point, taking the disrespect serious the females start to draw
a very stupid plan to tackle the disrespect. The plan is the above utopia that i mentioned.

Its a very stupid vision of a utopia because you cannot destroy personal identities like that of being a fe/male. So we can be 100% equal but they will still have the disrespected mentality and men will still have the respected mentality. If i generalize what all women and men feel that is.


So you see feminism is in a trap where they are in a very FUCKING strange position of being the source of the male superiority myth. They point to all the things that they say makes men more respected and demand it to
be torn down (but yet do not act like its the end game of their mission for respect) and the demands continues to involve more and more of human engineering. It doesn't take much thought to recognize that their vision of utopia is pathological. At the same time they
say we should not take gender seriously in our own identities yet they obsess about those very same genders being in a perfect equilibrium.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
183 posts and 11 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Mubblewuck - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:04:48 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.199578 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1426885488252.png -(79233 B, 225x173) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79233
>>199572
Turns out there is a Pc-Man Jr, so I guess Ms Pac-Man IS a milf, but only if you get turned on by gluttonous yellow circles.
>>
Emma Bardhall - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 04:51:11 EST ID:zOfhxauO No.199588 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199572
obviously it was a reference to bayonetta
>>
Frederick Pockman - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:22:18 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.199589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199588
No, I think you're some kind of sick freak with a yellow circle fetish. Otherwise I can't see what you sperging out with your "milfs herp derp" shit has to do with anything.
>>
Emma Bardhall - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:39:34 EST ID:zOfhxauO No.199593 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1426948774091.jpg -(75141 B, 888x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 75141
>>199589
nah mang. I just got a healthy interest in women. This happens to be a mom hence
>milf
>>
Phineas Bliddleridge - Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:27:46 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.199612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>199593
What, are you saying Pac-Man Jr was adopted?


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