AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Ethics by George Huttingdale - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:09:03 EST ID:WVhH6ay5 No.195332 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407204543324.jpg -(97812 B, 840x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 97812
How does one justify killing when (I think) the most basic principle of ethics is "The golden rule". Can there only be ethics when justice is involved? Can someone school me on this?
20 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Matilda Trotford - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:21:34 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195569
> actually do it because they expect something in return, not because they're saints. They're too greedy.
Is the pious man good because he is pious, or is he pious because he is good?

I do kind acts out of empathy and expect nothing in return. Nevermind my religious views, because Kharma and anything good happening as a result seems less likely than something bad.
Is the joy of helping another person by giving him joy in the form of my assistance selfish?
In that case I would be joyfully selfish all of my days.
>>
Archie Grimcocke - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:42:06 EST ID:73OIA5cU No.195810 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If it came to be that somehow (e.g. through mental illness) I raped and continued to rape children I would hope that I would be killed by the community.
Same as if I were to start murdering people.

I believe that everybody else in the community should be held to the same standard.
>>
Doris Buzzville - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:19:09 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195807
>In that case I would be joyfully selfish all of my days

Good for you!
My points was not really a moral one though.. It's just, every act we do expends energy. This energy has to come back to us in some beneficial way, or we become sad, angry, etc. Even the best-intentioned act is a waste of energy unless it gives us something, anything (even recognition from another person that what you did was good).
Look at the people who always give and never get anything for themselves, if good acts were enough this wouldn't happen, and yet these people are often depressed or discouraged, because they forget the "taking" part, which most people do automatically and often even fail to acknowledge (thus the baffling when meeting these kind of people, it'd be like meeting someone who has to breathe manually)
>>
Doris Buzzville - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:21:07 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195807

Also about this:
>Is the pious man good because he is pious, or is he pious because he is good?

If only obedience meant "goodness" then he might as well worship cthulhu. If the good of the Gods doesn't correspond with the good of men, what's their fucking point?
>>
Priscilla Dunningseg - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:47:25 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195827
Just so you know, the poster you're responding to misapplied the quote (and misquoted it in the process). The uncorrupted one would be "The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. "
And so, the Euthyphro Dilemma isn't about altruism, it's about the *source* of morality in religion-based absolutist systems.

Now, if God (or Gods) commands acts because they are good, then there is a moral set higher than God, one that God has to abide by. If that is true, then who created that law? Another supreme being? Does this mean it's supreme lawmakers all the way down? Doesn't make sense.
If acts are good because they are commanded by God, then it raises two issues: firstly, we're left with a case of divine moral relativism (basically divine command theory; consistently following it quickly devolves into justifying heinous crimes because it being the will of a God or a set of Gods somehow makes it all right in the end), and second, it isn't really possible to consistently detect the will of a God.
Third way out is to claim that goodness is somehow inherent in the being of the deity in question - hence "God commands Good because God is Good". In addition to it being a tautology, it exposes the Problem of Evil ("then whence cometh Evil?")


Persuasion ethics by Oliver Bonkindock - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:33:34 EST ID:HCMXWO6z No.195773 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410215614117.jpg -(78339 B, 450x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 78339
I have been a long time studier of human behaviour and language. This is not limited to humans. When I was younger I used to study how my dogs interacted with each other and how they interacted with other dogs on walks. Then it sort of grew from there.

My first semblance of thought was how can I use this information to my advantage.
I noticed that as the dogs met me the morning they would bow (I'm cool, I may be bit mental but I'm just being playful) then they would go crazy, tails wagging, eyes wide open, ears up and pointed at me or each other and road running on the laminate floor. This was an obvious sign that they where happy to see me.

However with other dogs, There was a completely different approach, They would drop there head (lesser form of bow) slow down (Not a threat) keep there tails down (lessen sudden movements) and often lay down (Not a threat,Also border collies). But yet as the other dogs would approach closer, They would start acting as if I had just met them in the morning.
This was obviously what they wanted to do in the first place but yet they knew that such an approach with a stranger wouldn't work out all too well.
So they temporally changed there personality to fit the situation so that they had the freedom to act the way they wanted to act.

This strikes true for almost all people that I have met as well.
There is even a homage in phrase, To put ones "best foot forward".

So, my issue is whether or not such behaviour is ethical, Because you are essentially lying to get what you want. whether concious of such behaviour or not, it is still a form a of lying and persuasion. It is obviously evolutionary/biological.

But does it make it right ?
As humans we have the ability to view our own behaviours subjectively, Is it wrong to ignore such ability ? Or is that just okay / natural behaviour ?
>>
Barnaby Seggleworth - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:02:35 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195814 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How are you lying to get what you want, it seems to be more about what is gonna work and what is gonna not, and keeping the peace. I think all of these stages of behaviour are apart of what is before your mind. that dog as well as humans are doing what they are used to doing in unknown situations, and working off of that as they go.

As you said you were actually okay to play with as noted by the other dogs playing with you. He was doing something from his instincts based on the situations appearance to him. When he noticed the situation wasn't like that he basically said okay this now.

it's adjusting to the situation, and it's not deciet. Athough i think there's something within human culture that has a problem with it, and apart that embraces it.

It depends on how the human is looking at it, if it resembles a fear of changing who you are they would avoid that. But in reality you might have various parts of your self that actually are in conflict with each other, that your only concious of at the times that you are going through them. You may make a concious effort to have your self together. But there could still be more of yourself outside of that, or inside of that, that you have missed, that doesn't completely agree.

this makes you interesting, and the thing is personality grows, so it will have to come in to contact with new parts, or reconnect with old parts.

You have alot to go through in your mind before any one person can say, i have completed myself.

you have the ability to view your own behaviour subjectively, but also the power to call into question, and perhaps the self doubt for it to involuntarily happen anyway your objective view on things as well.

i believe you(people in general at a given point) should when faced with the possibility of being rigid, and thinking something that happens isn't real. Should realize that in itself is a contradiction, and if you have that philosophers quest of erasing contradictions or needing things to make logical sense or perhaps just wanting them to, or liking it. Whatever your persuasion. That just because things to do, it doesn't necessarily mean you can write it off or cancel it out as invalid. You know jimmy to be x but in another situation he has proven to be not x. This can hurt a human being if he sees jimmy acting differently especially now if he thinks he doesn't know which jimmy to trust.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Frederick Bickledet - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:23:57 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195815 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This was obviously what they wanted to do in the first place

Your problem lies here, in believing there's a "true" thing they want to do.. They simply adapted to circumstances, why do you think one behavior is "real" and the other is "fake"?
During the winter, do you see yourself wearing short sleeves in the summer as lying because you really wanted to wear sweaters in the first place?
>>
Faggy Soffingketch - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:42:47 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195817 Ignore Report Quick Reply
After reading many sociology books and human body language and psychology of languages books, it's hard to turn off the scanner of seeing people's tells and fakes.

It's actually really interesting to watch, especially at college parties because alcohol and drugs really take us back to the neanderthal level of human interaction.

Is OP attacking the idea of "fake it to make it"?
OP can you summarize and simplify your argument?
>>
Nathaniel Chigglelock - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 02:04:06 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195825 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195817

>Is OP attacking the idea of "fake it to make it"?

i think rather that he's questioning molding your behavior according to what you think will people around you will be most receptive based on your first impressions of them

basically we all act a little bit different around different people, around a close jovial friend of a friend you might be more sarcastic even on first meeting them than you would be around meeting your new corporate manager, now that's a little different because its like, different situations call for different behavior regardless of the people involved, but i think it's the same idea, being a bit of a different person to facilitate being around other people

i tink OP is wondering whether that is fundamentally manipulative, whether its wrong or right, i guess in one sense it is manipulative


Desperation over meaninglessness. by David Chizzlehall - Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:38:08 EST ID:SDbGlSLI No.194310 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402558688814.jpg -(95179 B, 1079x878) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 95179
This keeps me up at night a lot.

I'm just 18, and I've been reading about all sort of different philosophies and religions there are. Zen Buddhism, "Existentialism", Christianity...etc

I can't sleep at night, because there are no absolutes, and I'm too weak to live without the guidance of a higher being. It's soul crushing, and personally defined meaning is still not fulfilling enough for me. Even after all the LSD I've done and all the meditation that made me aware of the "mind-at-large" concept and the concept of oneness, I can't still be certain.

Since there are no absolutes, and I can't believe in free will or in determinism, I want to "subscribe" to a philosophy or religion of love and caring, that will give me peace of mind.

I consider this, however, as giving up or throwing the towel, as swallowing the entire oxycontin stash, you get me? I have no idea what to do, and my life hasn't been able to continue due to this. I do not want to rush, I've got all the time in the world, as long as I can finally find what is that I'm looking for.

Empathy and love. Empathy and love are my main drives. I can find meaning in it, even if it's a brain soup of serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. I just want give up and subscribe to a philosophy based on empathy and a higher being, and be able to delude myself into believing it.


Sounds edgy as fuck, I know, but I'm truly desperate. The only thing that as been able to drive me lately is knowledge.

I'm sure many of you here are philosophers and theologists. I'm asking for your advice.
18 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Isabella Suckledure - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:37:01 EST ID:DLt8+eaY No.194472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194471
This is indeed a great book.
Check it out OP.
>>
Eliza Hudgestud - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:14:54 EST ID:YHQ90Hzg No.195785 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194315
and keep going around in circles!
>>
Molly Niggerlock - Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:13:36 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195799 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Keep questioning and thinking OP, youll come to love it.
>>
Hannah Hubbersturk - Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:42:07 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1410374527903.jpg -(191575 B, 510x792) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 191575
>OP HERE
>TL;DR EXISTENTIAL DEPRESSION

OP, just stop. Not knowing your place in the universe, not knowing what you are, not knowing what comes after death, not knowing whether or not there's things greater than humans; it's all insignificant, and from a completely logical point of view it is suffice to say that these questions have no answer worth calling 'definite'. You're stuck in the exact same position as every other being. Shut up, do your thing, and smoke some more herbs if you feel so depressed.

Stop trying to be something you're not. You know exactly what you are and what you're here to do, you just can't recognize it. It's one of those things that are just too large for the human mind, and now you're spazzin cus you can't simplify it and put it in a box. Humans have limits.
>>
David Pickbury - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:50:51 EST ID:FnLSIj6V No.195803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1410429051921.jpg -(76399 B, 725x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76399
>>194311
>Certainty is worse than death.
Omedeto

to actually reply to OP, i don't think you can make that love and empathy thing certain in any way, except if you use them axiomatically and try to explain everything with them (good luck smoking that much), or just not questioning love and empathy, thus
>be certain about something is to end all discussion, halt all research, give no room for improvement or imagination

the hard thing is usually throwing away the 'good' stuff. you can see all sorts of people sticking to the things that always worked for them, be it army knives or observations or scientific methods or axioms or religions or schools of philosophy or ways to organize their banana collection, whatever.
you cannot just go out and find lasting and good pillars to place love&empathy on, because that's what biased looks like. either you forget about them and sooner or later you find that they are everything/cool/worthless/irrelevant/whatever, or you stick to them and never become absolutely sure, but you just don't question it so you can sleep.


What happens when the original axioms are bad? by Albert Greenspear - Sun, 03 Aug 2014 14:47:07 EST ID:1ZrGQpKH No.195315 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407091627841.jpg -(37045 B, 526x669) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37045
If A is proven wrong or rather proven to be false and if B follows from A, does that make B equally bad?

I ask because Schopenhauer here believe that Hegel was an "illiterate charlatan", and let us say that he in fact was one, does that mean that Marx and all the other things that followed from Hegalian thought were equally bad and unfruitful?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fuck Buckletodging - Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:30:41 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195337

thanks for reading my whole post, nb
>>
William Fishson - Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:06:24 EST ID:mHYR4NYL No.195339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Marx first and foremost was an economist. His observations about capitalism hold true to this day. If you're going to criticize Marx (or anyone for that matter) actually state what you're in disagreement with.
>>
Eliza Hudgestud - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:24:04 EST ID:YHQ90Hzg No.195787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195315
were Adolf Hitlers soldiers bad men?
>>
Edwin Greenbanks - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:49:00 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195796 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195787

some of them
>>
Molly Niggerlock - Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:06:02 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195798 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>and let us say that he in fact was one,
Attacking person, not his argument or substance of his claims
ad-hominem


Time is an illusion by Fuck Drossleforth - Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:45:06 EST ID:HWOLvodq No.195650 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409355906791.jpg -(703288 B, 1200x797) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 703288
Anyone have a decent argument against this proposition? Here's one for time being an illusion by Mr Borges himself for anyone interested:

http://heavysideindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/borges-a-new-refutation-of-time.pdf
17 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Thomas Ponderbock - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 05:23:46 EST ID:0l1qVRpg No.195769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195768
I have to think it through.

Usually, I take a four-dimensionalist stance on time, so bear in mind I'm trying to present a novel (for me) POV I usually don't present, which is why it might sound awkward.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:05:27 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.195770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, time is just change or motion of objects, and yes it's not objective. A year to a child is much longer than a year to a 99 year old, a watched pot will never boil, and bees have a faster "flicker vision" and therefore see us humans go in slow motion. Time is completely subjective. How exactly this works, I've no idea. Brian Green (e?) has a good documentary on time I tried to watch once but was too distracted by other homework at the time to fully pay attention.


One thing that's especially weird about time as a temporal dimension, is that it pushes us forward at a variable, non fixed rate. Perhaps in higher Bulk spaces time isn't a one directional dimension, but moveable along both directions? Who knows.
>>
Cornelius Fodgestone - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:42:36 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195771 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195770
>Well, time is just change or motion of objects
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa
>>
Thomas Ponderbock - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:40:49 EST ID:0l1qVRpg No.195774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195770
Hey, you actually make some semblance of sense.
>Time is completely subjective.
Yes, but the question is whether it's only the perception of time that is subjective, or whether time *itself* is. That the perception of time is subjective is undeniably true, but the latter isn't as obvious.

Let's talk physics now. General relativity is the preferred way of describing large-scale phenomena, while quantum mechanics (let's say the copenhagen interpretation) is the way to go for learning how the building blocks of reality behave. But the two can't be reconciled, and one of the things that stand in the way of reconciliation is time (the problem of time, as it is called). The problem here being that in general relativity, there is no "time" as it is usually talked about in mechanics; rather, it is married to space to form spacetime, which then changes, stretches, and so forth (which is one of the dimensions of the issue I was talking about before, only I hadn't finished thinking about it back then). Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, need time for the equations to make sense. This makes it difficult to merge the two. For instance, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation needs to drop time altogether to work.

Reading about all of that led me to ask: what *is* time? If it is inherently tied to space and gravity, then can we really say that it exists independently in the way we are used to assuming it does? If it is relative, then how come we cannot make quantum mechanics work without removing that from the equation?

Now, if we assume that time is the way of ordering based on causality (so, the order of any given chain of events), then maybe cross-reference between events is enough to infer the "duration" of the events - since physical time is already established to be relative (at least for the macroscopic world), then that wouldn't be this much of a leap of faith.
>>
Molly Sevingpire - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:14:15 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195774
I like your initial description of time. I think its the most coherent I've ever read, if I'm reading it right. I think your right in attributing time to a measure of causally linked events. If I were assuming right, then you're not against calling into question the universality of causality. Causality, after all, might be an illusion itself. In that, not all events might necessarily be linked causally. Or, in other words, all phenomena might not be all linked causally. The paradoxes of general relativity, I would say, are enough to warrant the skepticism. The paper linked in the OP I think gives the most complete explanation of what is meant by "time is itself a perception". When we take it within the contexts provided, it doesn't reduce to "time is non-existence", since we're using the language of Hume and especially Berkeley, where the terms non-existent don't differ much from the existent, since they both refer to similar phenomena depending on the speaker.


Birth by Isabella Gubberman - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:29:13 EST ID:lEK2RtpJ No.195610 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1408915753226.png -(205637 B, 233x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 205637
How do I become born?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shitting Pundlemut - Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:56:46 EST ID:lEK2RtpJ No.195613 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195612

but how, I mean really, birthed into life?
>>
Wesley Dellerfuck - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:01:14 EST ID:gFe9zdD6 No.195614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
FIRST YOU DIE
>>
Emma Nallystock - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:28:59 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195613
First, there's impregnation of an egg cell. Then it divides until it becomes an embryo, and then, the embryo develops until it enters fetal stage. The fetus then develops and grows until it is ready to survive outside the womb, and when that happens, bam, birth.

But really, the moment one comes into existence depends on what people understand as defining their existence. If by "you" you mean "your self-awareness", then that arguably doesn't happen until much later in your development; if a cocktail of feelings is enough to define your humble person, then the moment the fetus' nervous system is advanced enough to feel is the mark. If it's mere existence, then conception. This is actually pretty hotly contested in areas where abortion debates rage on.
>>
Cyril Binnerdun - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:43:53 EST ID:O8E01Zb7 No.195734 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195610
"Life is like a nodal point born in an overwhelming sea of information" - The Puppet Master (Code name: Project 2501)
{when being asked to prove it's existence}
"Proving it is impossible because modern science cannot explain what 'life' is...I am not an AI. am a living, thinking entity who was created in the sea of information." - The Puppet Master (Code name: Project 2501)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF9kw1-FH94
>>
Oliver Bonkindock - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:43:32 EST ID:HCMXWO6z No.195775 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To become born, You must first make an apple pie from scratch.
and also a sandwich, oh whilst you're at it, a beer as well.


ZIMMERMAN OR TRAYVON = CHRIST? by Phoebe Sorrykitch - Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:05:39 EST ID:xl9cpeO3 No.195635 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409177139508.jpg -(42203 B, 449x599) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 42203
what if we are meant to look at Trayvon and Zimmerman with the same philosophical distance as is viewed on christs divinity? was Christ and judas divine intervention or not? was Zimmerman judas or Christ? was Trayvon judas or Christ>?

who Is the guilty? the forlorn Zimmerman, now homeless, or was tray tray an emblem of something bigger?

Is it better that society believes that Trayvon martin was just a poor kid much like it is better for society to believe that Christ existed?
11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
John Blandlelock - Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:47:38 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195745 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195732
those four can't have the same job, the same property, the same relations, the same anything material and possessive that people come to desire and attempt to acquire by mimesis
>>
Frederick Pablingdale - Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:09:22 EST ID:r3npQJG7 No.195746 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195745
You have a flaw in there though, people may or may not want it because of others but certainly something that is mimetically attractive others will want they then may in turn have conflict when they realize others want it because they each individually think that is them. The problem with thinking that they can't is that in reality there are four falcos because mimesis led to copies of the object as well as the desire. That withstanding it will be a copy as well as a change. That's reproduction.
>>
Ernest Tillingham - Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:41:30 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195746
Virtually speaking in your example there are four falcos because theyre virtual falcos

But beyond this there are only four controllers on a single console, im assuming?
And only a limited number of people who can afford the console, game, electricity, television, and the wealth and conditions of procuring this wealth, such as being born into a high income working class or bourgeois family

All of these are the real scarce material objects which people desire through mimesis. Whether or not that scarcity is artificial is unimportant, even if we commonly owned and controlled production mimetic rivalry would continue simply because we desire things and people outside the limited realm of capital
>>
Walter Pizzledutch - Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:38:07 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195751
uh huh, but none of the commplace examples you listed, or even the philosophy of mimesis listed in the thread had scandal arise because of there being not enough of the desired thing, it was all under the imposition of the threat of scarcity. The principle that because they are limited we must act as if there will never be another reproduced, which is false.

you've narrowed your argument to include objects of material wealth. But originally it included relationships, positions, ideas, statuses.

It was broader, and to be more central at its core scandal being the driving force for a scapegoat, it has to be about the want to be or have something in general. There is a plato thread at the top of the page so this is why i am probably thinking it but think of the force of this desire of mimetic rivalry the nice car with which one covets another being able to have, is the example of a situation that is its form. It's a situation playing out that is a manifestation of something broader.

Indeed it has to be if your claiming its at the root of all problems dating back to martyrdom and the basis behind the anti coveting doctrine of our neighbor.

This whole thing is about territory and how we occupy it. The thing is two nerds walk up to each other, in each of their ego they are the best nerds of an field of interest. They have lived there life in an intentional and also fateful way with a special bond to a given thing.

When they meet each other they feel threatened by that, because even though by virtue of existence, they have already lived their lives before the knowledge of one another even presented itself with the attachment and indentication and love of this material already existant. But when they meet they act as if they are highlanders.

They believe their can be only one.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Walter Pizzledutch - Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:48:38 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195759 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195751
Also people desire the the metaphysical status or value that happens to be a physical object. The new movie is cool, many people want to see it, because its cool. That's the real process of mimemis. If many people are copying or replicating a certain thing because of mimemis, it's not because of the object. I'm sure there are people who want specifically electricity not because electricity is the thing a family has, or it represents a normal life of a family, but because they want the electricity.

But if people want certain things because it will give them the family life, or it will help make up or composite, an image and status that they percieve that works kind of like a ticket to a certain life "or the good life." It's not always the material or phycical things that they are chasing or experiencing upon retrieval.

Some people are pursuing a family and kids, because that's what you do, that's their goal. That certainly isn't physically easier, or materially or financially easier. It's harder. But yet that's more satisfying.

And that would be something mimetic to all cultures. Sometimes the objects of mimesis are meaning. And in that token the objects will be like a copy in that they are absorbed and reproduced, they are not invented or unique to the indivdual or a first time. But yet they are altered, because even though the individual was observing something entrenched in culture by the time they finish playing along with that tune, that they heard on the cultural radio. It will be altered, upon it's next generation reproduction like anybody singing a song at kareoke, or recording a show of the television on a vhs, ripped onto youtube, and then downloaded again by firefox.


love as a physical, psychic force that kils enemies by John Finkinridge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 03:02:56 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195706 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409727776381.jpg -(117911 B, 460x1370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117911
love can be so concentrated and pure that it can blast forth from the heart of the channeling host and literally tear apart a grown man or woman who is attacking a christian baby?
>>
Beatrice Bibblemudge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:38:52 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/spooky/
>>
Nigel Buttinghall - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:55:52 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.195709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195708

/meds/
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:28:34 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.195742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Repost this thread in /spooky/ and I can give you an answer that /pss/ posters willnot understand.
>>
Faggy Worthingwater - Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:08:08 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195742
You can tell me here
it is safe to talk here
>>
Henry Figgleman - Sat, 06 Sep 2014 09:15:55 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195748
No go away nobody wants this shit on this board


Philosophags & Stupid Sciences by Emma Greenham - Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:13:02 EST ID:qRHsQbQA No.195279 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406826782815.jpg -(152509 B, 780x369) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152509
Does anyone else look at this board and think that all of it is pseudo-philosophical armchair bullshit? Why is all of the discussion about New Age "theories," ancient (read: outdated) religions, consciousness (read: New Age talk for the outdated concept of the soul), and leftist circlejerking/self-fellatio? Judging by this board I get the impression that all of the intelligent people really DON'T do drugs.
18 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Oliver Gellermitch - Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:32:48 EST ID:1tiw482i No.195643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195642
Right, so it's the genetic fallacy duct taped to the appeal to nature
>>
Charles Pommersudge - Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:14:44 EST ID:uHerTrm2 No.195648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195643
Yeah, I wish I could post something as straightforward like that but I engage in philosophical discussion simply because it's fun and mildly enthusing for me to do when the moment's right, not because I want to try to make a superficial conscious effort to look smart.

I mean, I'm not at all saying you're pretensing yourself to just look smart but I'm just describing why I don't express my thoughts as concisely as you do.
>>
Molly Firrytot - Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:15:31 EST ID:1tiw482i No.195649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195648
sorry I don't even remember this conversation. I'm one of those inebriated faggots lol.

You know I was watching Ed, Edd, n Eddy the other day and I realized something. It's a Capitalist, a Socialist, and a Fool. One day they each eat three lard-burgers
The Fool (Ed) eats his contentedly. The Capitalist (Edd) vomits up a gear to symbolize wasted production to make extra room for the fatty burger. The Socialist (Eddy) nibbles daintily at his burger when he's disturbed by the fact that the three troll girls (feminists) want something in return for their burgers.

The entire show is a political cartoon. I just never knew it. Start with season 1. (only past season 2 is available on Netflix. Go figure government funded everything not wanting to accidentally publish propaganda decrying the state.)
>>
Shit Claywater - Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:17:07 EST ID:DwIX8PJp No.195653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195649

When I was younger I always wanted the Kanker sisters to keep me as their sex slave.
>>
Lydia Guddletatch - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:04:12 EST ID:1cAbu+OX No.195730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195653
Well unless you're particularly sexy....


Consciousness by William Honderbidge - Sat, 24 May 2014 03:47:51 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.193919 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400917671962.jpg -(444790 B, 1024x683) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 444790
Let's say that the universe is consciously creating itself.

The observer and thing being observed are essentially the same thing, or made from the same cloth; consciousness.
Separation is an illusion.

How was anything created before anything was around to observe it?
93 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shitting Sucklenit - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:01:27 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195698
We're cycling towards becoming bona fide Gods. Creators of the next universe. We must advance ourselves to the point where we can harness all the power of the universe to create another big bang.
>>
John Finkinridge - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:36:03 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195701
and I am also cycling toward this, and I have some kind of soul/structure that can defy these realities and keep me on this psychedelic train of life? there's nothing to be afraid of?
>>
Shitting Sucklenit - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:20:40 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195703
You have a finite amount of time to exist. Your soul is a floor joist in the timeless structure called human experience. Your floor joist isn't complete until you die. Whether you're a good floor joist or not, future structures will be built on top anyway, long after your last nail has been hammered. Whether you want to embrace that or be afraid of it is your choice.
>>
John Finkinridge - Wed, 03 Sep 2014 02:59:36 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195704
does it matter what I do in this life, except grow old and die and complete my cycle?
>>
Phineas Snodfoot - Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:15:01 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.195720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195705
What do you think? Does it matter what your parents did?


SRS PSS by Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:09:46 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195685 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409620186126.png -(278 B, 31x30) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 278
Name of the game is serious piss, or rather, a thread for more serious discussions.

A more rational forum, that indulges in rational and useful thought. Opposite to /jenkem/ and all of the like threads on this board, this single thread will be the shining light, like a nugget of gold that has been discovered within a newly birthed shit.

This will be a formal thread, degenerate language like the above is frowned upon; It can be used, but to a limit.

Rational as in unemotional thought, only made impure, or rather enriched, by ones experiences.

Useful as in something that can be practiced is gained. Something that can be used to augment or change our lives for the better.

Philosophy & Social sciences isn't a fitting title, analysis and discussion of the human mind is more fitting.

Does anyone have a topic they would like to begin with? Maybe questions?
>>
Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:11:44 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>human mind
Human State
Human Culture
Human

All good titles, I can't chose one.
>>
Hannah Lighthall - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:55:31 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195686
I like Human State, the state of humanity and all it entails
>>
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:12:10 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195697
Then that's what it will be called.
>>
Nell Fegglefoot - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:57:04 EST ID:MMz3wHbG No.195700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The speculative realists might object to that naming.
>>
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:17:55 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195700
Useful is part of the game.

They will be gladly accepted if they and their thoughts are rational, and of physical use.


Social economics by Caroline Wumblestone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:50:54 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195559 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1408117854507.jpg -(52202 B, 320x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 52202
I consider social interaction as completely economic in nature. I think the way the economy functions and the way people function with each other, socially, are absolutely the same in process, only what's put in and what's taken out are different. We invest in others the same way we invest our money; in a way that's easiest for us and that generates the most personal gain. The gain isn't in dollars, though. The gain could be happiness, comfort, safety; essentially any good feeling/state. I cannot think of a single social interaction that does not parallel economics or trading, as it seems everyone interacts only with the hope of gaining the most/losing the least.
>>
Hannah Socklefudge - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:33:58 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mostly agree, though I rarely share this view, as it's often seen as "cynical" or "calculating" or "cold".
I don't know what's cynical in engineering your own happiness and fulfillment though, or what's cold about this vision. I find that considering "the good life" something mystical that can only be achieved by not thinking about it too much a much more despairing view, that leaves you completely stranded and vulnerable to others, when you're lost.

I'd also add that something else you gain from others is learning a new and useful skill, which is incredibly valuable and often gets unrecognized as such.
>>
John Dollerstone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:05:41 EST ID:pLTeIYuw No.195562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not all trades between people are the same...each has a certain level or selfishness/selflessness attached. Can either extreme actually exist? Who knows?
>>
Archie Punninghall - Sat, 16 Aug 2014 07:38:39 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195562
The thing is, depending on a person and the situation, altruism or egoism can be the preferrable attitude.
It depends on whether in a given situation one feels that the effort, expenditures, and possibly sacrifices one needs to commit are outweighted by the projection of the benefits of other people on oneself or not. If they are, then one chooses the option that is self-centered, if they are not, then one choses to focus on others.

Reciprocity and reputation also factor in. One finds it easier to focus on others if those other people's view of them is going to become more favorable thanks to that (with all the benefits that brings), and if the people who are treated well are expected to return the favor in one way or another.

Of course, we're not factoring in the dimension of deceit here (it'd crash the party, because the whole world runs on bullshit).

I wanted to rebuke OP's post by mentioning that in social interactions, people very often base their decisions and actions on sentiments with little consideration of gains and losses, but then I thought: Don't they do that the same on the market?
>>
John Murdworth - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:51:03 EST ID:miGT5B+J No.195619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………

Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag."

Taken from Whatever by Houellebecq, you should read his stuff.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.