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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thats retarded

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

>kind of


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well, its not that simple

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

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

Nihilistic hedonism is a contradiction in terms by Hedda Hangerfudge - Mon, 19 May 2014 14:32:35 EST ID:C2g2IsPf No.193708 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400524355236.png -(368963 B, 720x521) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 368963
There's no such thing.

If you a hedonist, you are not a nihilist.
37 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Frederick Druzzlestock - Wed, 21 May 2014 17:50:29 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i'm not excusing them i'm just being caught in explanation, of something that exists within experience. Which is nihilism its psychology and philosophy and it came from a time when they were very closely linked.

For example having pleasure seeking personality can lead you to never understand the absence in the absence makes the heart go fonder, and your psychological wearing of pleasure in general CAN make pleasure become exausted. You may experience the crumbling of that pleasure, but at the same time that is still what you crave but it just keeps getting less and less, but you keep seeking it more and more. Not accepting your ruining it from your abuse and use of it, and you continue to take it more and more. so while living your life for that pleasure and seeking it, your in incress despair that the nature of is less and less.

and this is a common view amongst many addictions. So an addiction would be a good example of a nihilist hedonist. You chasing the dragon with the doubt and the memory of it both.
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 17:55:22 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193856 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You know, I read over these posts 3 times now, and even went back and read your older posts in the thread, and I still have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make. You go off on tangents a lot and write in a pretty convoluted way, several times with poor grammar, randomly throwing in some psychoanalysis of anonymous people to top it all off.

So let's try get back to basics, shall we? Is your basic point that there are different versions of Nihilism, and that some would allow hedonism and some wouldn't?

Because I thought the whole point this thread was discussing was that Nihilistic hedonism is in fact NOT a contradiction of terms? What are you discussing?
Emma Fembleman - Thu, 22 May 2014 11:09:32 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No let's not because you weren't on the ball to begin with. You didn't understand the point because you were oblivious to the context. Their was no point other than to explain why a nihilist licking a spoon for all eternity rather and having no preference to do anything else is a fitting image of a nihilist. Then you got the idea that nihilism had nothing to do with external entities having no meaning(which it often does) from a post that suggested that a nihilist was like somebody who even if they detected valuable sensory stimuli in the environment was not responsive to it, despite their knowledge of it.
Hamilton Pablingville - Thu, 22 May 2014 17:05:15 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193885 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You're stuck talking about theory while I'm talking about reality, but okay man. Let's just agree to disagree, if you're gonna be a pompous ass about it.
Samuel Harrydale - Thu, 22 May 2014 18:19:28 EST ID:vR99jt35 No.193886 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You've been talking about definitions of words and the notions of why this would necessarily be you're talking about skeptical reasons to hold out that's keeping you away from what's bodily experienced as nihilistic. If your looking for reasons to keep something out of a model you are not in reality sir.

What's constructivist epistemology? by Ian Blackbanks - Fri, 23 May 2014 17:37:51 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193911 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400881071281.jpg -(219756 B, 807x458) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 219756
What's constructivist epistemology? What's the opposite of it? And what is constructivism?
Ian Doshchin - Fri, 23 May 2014 18:29:04 EST ID:nwe6fNr5 No.193914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's constructivist epistemology?
At its most basic, that scienctific knowledge is a mental construct which aims to explain the sensory input. Create a model of it, if you will.
>What's the opposite of it?
In my opinion, that'd be empiricism (because of the "mental construct part" being required to form knowledge) and rationalism (because of the "sensory input" being required to form knowledge part). They also happen to antagonize each other.
>And what is constructivism?
A larger body of philosophical statements, mainly regarding the theory of education, the integral part of which is constructivist epistemology.

What is this called? by Ian Blackbanks - Fri, 23 May 2014 17:35:01 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193910 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400880901281.jpg -(86366 B, 544x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86366
What do you call the notion that language creates concepts, and that the way we see the world and reason about it is influenced by these concepts?

Also, what's the same notion but without the language part called? That concepts make us view and reason about the world one way or another,.
Ian Doshchin - Fri, 23 May 2014 18:08:20 EST ID:nwe6fNr5 No.193913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What do you call the notion that language creates concepts, and that the way we see the world and reason about it is influenced by these concepts?
Linguistic relativity (sapir-whorf hypothesis), strong or weak, depending on whether language defines reasoning (linguistic determinism) or not.

I got some freeze-dried noodles for the cookpot of the netmind by Nell Choblingfut - Wed, 21 May 2014 18:12:48 EST ID:p2ZftlCN No.193858 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400710368099.jpg -(489745 B, 1047x785) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 489745
When is a "Synchronism" moreso; what criteria would have to be filled for coincidences in time to instead represent an engineered construct? How would one indeed tell the two apart?
Doris Domblebeg - Wed, 21 May 2014 23:49:01 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193864 Ignore Report Quick Reply

syncronism /= an "engineered construct", its just a coincidence that happened to deal with something exciting effects and you just keep pretending it's important and see what happens, usually butterflies in your tummy and visions of the future/past

"an engineered construct" is like a conspiracy, when a coincidence is not just a coincidence, but two connected events, is when there is some causal explanation, linking them to a single source, or one from the other, etc. causal explanations are always a bit vague. but, they are still falsfiable'

>How would one indeed tell the two apart?

i dont understand how it came to this question, you would make a terrible detective/scientist/journalist.... objectivity is the same across disciplines, what are the evidences of murder- a motive, something the suspect has to gain, scientific evidence that the suspect's fluids, fingerprints, hairs, DNA of all kinds are at the murder location or on the weapon, something to connect the suspect *in time and space* to the murder.

say you start noticing an inordinate amount of 8:47 pm, like some abberant statistical proportion of times you check the clock, its 8:47 pm. this is something that has come up in my friend's life

there are many theoretical causal explanations ranging from biological clock type shit, like this is your most active and inquisitive hour on this sleep schedule, or you could say its related to your work,etc schedule some are better than others, Ill leave it up to the scientists.

some people see that as a message that 8:47 pm is important, a time that will hold some important event in the future or some great plan should be embarked upon at 8:47pm, it could be lots of things.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fucking Murdforth - Fri, 23 May 2014 10:01:44 EST ID:VyU7CZId No.193906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
nowhere did I state that a synchronism equalled an engineered construct. motive and causal explanation sound agreeably logical, thank you. As to my second question, that is more of an "can a dreamer tell that he is dreaming" type conundrum.

imagine if you will an entity that lived in a world where all things (literally, everything) have a soundly reasoned logical explanation. how would that entity know if a coincidence were to occur, being that all things could be explained away?
Cyril Godgeson - Fri, 23 May 2014 12:21:13 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193908 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>nowhere did I state that a synchronism equalled an engineered construct.
no but you said
>what criteria would have to be filled for coincidences in time to instead represent an engineered construct?
and my answer is still
>syncronism /= an "engineered construct"

see now?

>imagine if you will an entity that lived in a world where all things (literally, everything) have a soundly reasoned logical explanation. how would that entity know if a coincidence were to occur, being that all things could be explained away?

whether something is a syncronicity or not doesn't have to do with whether it can be explained away, you can know exactly why/how some interesting turn of events occurred and still find extra interest in some non-causal connection between events
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

On the importance of ettiquete by Cobblestone !HaAFNzom.Q - Tue, 20 May 2014 11:40:50 EST ID:1zQicKWc No.193802 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400600450649.jpg -(79193 B, 676x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79193
Glossary: Language - to include all social conventions, rituals, speech, and other forms of communication.

The rules of a "polite society" develop to satisfy a single human desire that is common to all complex societies. That of having a conduit - a universal language - to reduce misunderstanding and conflict that may occur in inter-group conflicts.

As social groups age, they progress, expand, and solidify. Certain niche terms evolve and entirely change their internal language. The older the group, the farther their language will be from its parent geographic/racial/political language. Yet, each "new" word, or turn of phrase, may still have an equivalent amongst other derivatives of the parent. Even those parent languages, split from previous conventions of communication, share similarities*.

As we all should know by now, it is the failure of members of two or more cultures to express, or understand, the intentions and desires of members of the other groups that causes conflict. Either that, or, the desire for one group to force its conventions upon another. This is where etiquette - being polite - steps in. It identifies the commonalities, and translates those concepts which "do not translate". It does so by providing a simplified version of all languages; which makes it easier to both learn, and understand.

Civility does, however, suffer from the same flaws as the forms of communication it tries to unite. Given enough time, a society with a ruling element that pursues High Etiquette will eventually wish to dominate all other social groups. It, too, will grow old, rigid, and complex, and fail to be understood by all.

And so: The first principles of etiquette must be:

1) Guidelines may not be enforced, only encouraged.
2) All rules are suspect, and must be questioned at all times.
3) Any guidelines found to be unnecessary must be removed.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Frederick Duckson - Tue, 20 May 2014 12:01:54 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd say it stems from instincts. Monkeys have ground rules of conduct in their groups (nitpicking, etc), adherence to (perhaps even "the mastery of") which defines a specimen's position in certain aspects. I remember a study where the proliferation of changes in rituals of monkeys was studied, and though my memory is fuzzy, it did mirror the way it happens in humans to some degree (apparently, chimpanzees have something akin to a concept of prestige, emulate each other in order to conform, etc.)
Perhaps this reaches even beyond primates and can be derived from mating rituals of many other animals.

Of course, the dawn of abstract thinking changes things a lot - I'm not meaning to reduce the social conventions to mere instincts. Those are just random musings on the issue of origins, invoked by OP's post.
Priscilla Fuzzlefield - Tue, 20 May 2014 13:34:01 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The rules of a "polite society" develop to satisfy a single human desire that is common to all complex societies. That of having a conduit - a universal language
This is a pretty big claim to make, and I can't see any supporting evidence for it. This makes the rest of the post hard to follow.

>The first principles of etiquette must be:
Since these rules contradict every system of etiquette, I think I can safely say this isn't true. Maybe it would be nice if etiquette DID follow those rules though.
Cobblestone !HaAFNzom.Q - Tue, 20 May 2014 14:05:03 EST ID:Dp0LAmXj No.193812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I'm not meaning to reduce the social conventions to mere instincts.

I tend to think of morals (the directing of individual instinct toward the benefit of the whole) as being its own distinct subject; but you're right; it's not.

I'll have to mull this over...


I'll see what I can find. I don't know where I'll find them, but I'll look.

>This makes the rest of the post hard to follow.

It may help if you temporarily treat the factual claims as axioms.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martin Mellyfotch - Tue, 20 May 2014 21:32:22 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It may help if you temporarily treat the factual claims as axioms.
It would, but why would I do that? If the core of your argument is flawed, I have little to gain from pretending it's not.
Emma Fembleman - Thu, 22 May 2014 19:24:32 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193887 Ignore Report Quick Reply
he's stating something that keeps etiquette working, so a check's and balances of etiquitte or an observed point in which etiquette keeps itself from defeating its own purpose. I would say of course some systems of etiquette never do this. And he even references that most form of etiquette will eventually become the opposiite of the thing that seeks to keep people getting along, by insisting this is the way we have to get along.

That would sound alot like the etiquette that you would find in a finishing school or taught anywhere, its become its own source of conflict that demands to be adhered to. Another beast to be fed to keep things going smoothly rather than anything that makes things easier itself.

Oddly enough somebody may end up performing these social etiquettes out of the desire to keep away from conflict, therefore keeping that order going, because any impulse to get along might recognize having to "loose" to the imposition even if its causing conflicts as the way to end the conflict.

Sort of like how you have to "just nod your head and agree when so and so is around in order to keep the peace"

Diogenes the Cynic by Augustus Dallychidging - Tue, 13 May 2014 03:33:59 EST ID:0s1jixrA No.193472 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399966439969.jpg -(119382 B, 800x588) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 119382
"Diogenes of Sinope was a controversial figure. His father minted coins for a living, and when Diogenes took to debasement of currency, he was banished from Sinope.[1] After being exiled, he moved to Athens to debunk cultural conventions. Diogenes modelled himself on the example of Heracles. He believed that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory. He used his simple lifestyle and behaviour to criticise the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. He declared himself a cosmopolitan. There are many tales about him dogging Antisthenes' footsteps and becoming his "faithful hound".[3] Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and slept in a large ceramic jar[4] in the marketplace. He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He embarrassed Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates and sabotaged his lectures. Diogenes was also responsible for publicly mocking Alexander the Great."

The ancient Greeks valued their philosophers enough for this man to be venerated and respected in a certain sense. Alexander the Great was a great admirer. The embodiment of the philosopher's own ideals is an essential part of what it means to be a philosopher. Today, this man would probably be seen as a common homeless man, schizophrenic and unwell and not a great philosopher by any means. The life of the philosopher has nothing to do with bourgeois academia--it has everything to do with action and the direct application and influence upon a system of values or ideas that directly inform the individual's life. Diogenes is a prime example of this. We would all do well to learn from it.
17 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 15:16:27 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193840 Ignore Report Quick Reply

This is /pss/, not /mu/...
Archie Suvingridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 16:39:52 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.193849 Ignore Report Quick Reply

What is "refined taste?"
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 16:56:58 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193850 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You have to wear a fedora, be euphoric, and generally act like your better than everyone even though you're a fat loser.
Lillian Hupperfag - Wed, 21 May 2014 19:48:00 EST ID:z+d9UZyr No.193860 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Like how I can tell english essays were written with black magic formulas but a guy with a BA in english can't. I'm like Sherlock Holmes.
Hugh Drorryshaw - Wed, 21 May 2014 23:24:21 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.193862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Diogenes was the shit.

Depression by George Lightbury - Wed, 14 May 2014 05:55:11 EST ID:yFO0yqIP No.193532 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400061311484.jpg -(60863 B, 800x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 60863
What would happen if a person gets depressed if his passion in life is studying feeling by using himself as his test subject? If he had loss of interest from depression and really dulled feeling would he be stuck in depression?
James Cheshbidging - Wed, 14 May 2014 06:12:57 EST ID:kyPjaFuA No.193533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's all just states of mind.
And using yourself as a test subject is about as biased as you can get. Science, You're doing it wrong.
Augustus Duckbanks - Wed, 14 May 2014 11:09:45 EST ID:EUlUALAS No.193537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400080185495.jpg -(20709 B, 720x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20709
I'm not so sure "science" is what it's all about..

To answer your question OP, I think you are referring to the search for altered experience & the damage certain chemicals / lifestyles do to those "explorers of the mind." Unfortunately terms like neurotoxicity are not altogether unheard of in such endeavors. Studying from experience / emotion / meaning in life relates to depression differently than you think, though. Mostly in that it's possible causation stems more from the fact substance abuse isn't always done right. By "right," I mean doing fair research on what you consume, learning from addicts & addiction that surround us, studying up on harm reduction while respecting [the drug]. Even if that's accepting when you've gone too far. Some alcoholics I know can probably never touch anything but weed again in their lives. When dealing with chemicals it's almost completely trial & error, as we live an entirely subjective experience. Addiction is real, permanent psychosis is real. All things to keep in mind when toying with reality.

>wrote a short essay on drugs & how they relate to a search for meaning within subjective experience; in case anyone else is on drugs
Yeahp, not sure that anybody will read this. Every so often you find out more about yourself thinking about this stuff so whateva

I do believe existence within our strain of consciousness is parallel to finding "meaning" in every day life. Of course it's incredibly vague to say only that, so I'll elaborate by pointing out "meaning" is perhaps similar to happiness in that there are two forms (if it's possible to generalize such things, which, for the purpose of this wall of text I will). One form is akin to chemical reaction that is "necessary" & physical. Regarding happiness this refers to sunlight, tylenol, or coffee. Things that alter your state of mind via dopamine, oxytocin, etc. Conversely, certain things also have meaning by necessity of the physical world, as is the case with symbols that make up systems of language or mathematics.

The other form of happiness is reportedly less tangible, in that it is quantified only subjectively as we traverse the physical world.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Cyril Dindlewine - Sat, 17 May 2014 07:58:49 EST ID:dDnfuO1m No.193635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dip into phenomenology
Phoebe Fanshit - Mon, 19 May 2014 16:57:09 EST ID:Z9WsoXV3 No.193717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fuck, this is me without even realising it.
Thanks for putting it into words.
Martin Bebberson - Wed, 21 May 2014 15:54:12 EST ID:VAm6mdbo No.193845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400702052728.gif -(4774 B, 344x404) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 4774
This sort of reminds me of the healthy and unhealthy loops for enneatype 5. Only tangentially related but possibly helpful for some.

Synchronisity by Phyllis Pundleford - Tue, 13 May 2014 12:01:47 EST ID:rErzp3tD No.193493 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399996907599.jpg -(197690 B, 855x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 197690
What the fuck is this? This happens way too often to me to just be coincidence and sure as shit isn't just me paying attention to things I wouldn't normally pay attention to.

Today I listened to some of Chopin's classical music by accident through clicking on related youtube videos from learning about starting up music production, which included the track Nocturne In E Flat Major, Op.9 No.2. I remembered it from the movie bad santa which i saw over a year ago and havent heard since, but anyway I shit you not I had a feeling and said outloud "I bet today i'm going to hear something to do with chopin", even though I haven't heard anything to do with him over a year. If I had heard the track since the movie I would have noticed and downloaded it (like I just have) because its brilliant and this past year i've been expanding my musical taste.

Just an hour ago I was playing bioshock infinite that I just got, and what do you know the same fucking song was being played on a projector in game. Nocturne In E Flat Major, Op.9 No.2. I haven't heard that song in over a year and suddenly it pops up twice within a few hours and i pretty much PREDICTED it would happen.

Can anyone explain this phenomenon?
32 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Smallforth - Sun, 18 May 2014 05:44:46 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this would imply anything the self does is making the universe about itself.

Besides trying to have yourself sync up with reality, wouldn't be somebody trying to make things about themselves, it would be trying to adjust to it.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 18 May 2014 07:42:48 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.193683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Besides trying to have yourself sync up with reality, wouldn't be somebody trying to make things about themselves, it would be trying to adjust to it.

Exactly. Basically always rolling with it, or going with the flow.
Esther Chackledat - Sun, 18 May 2014 08:30:02 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>this would imply anything the self does is making the universe about itself.
You mean referring the universe to the self.

Being self-centered (even justifiably so) is very different from claiming the universe is you-centred.
Clara Bundledale - Sun, 18 May 2014 16:21:37 EST ID:5QaJ98Xf No.193687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Few people ITT realize that the world and our perception of it are related but autonomous.
Jarvis Ginkinbanks - Wed, 21 May 2014 09:42:46 EST ID:c7VbQtyy No.193831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I would agree that you can feel that way but thinking something is referenced around the self, which would mean its oriented around you, which means it adjusts to you(which was the earlier claim) which means it revolves around you(which was an even earlier claim) which in turn means its about you.

By the way an explanation of the self does not explain why synchronicity would be emphatically self referential unless your claiming something inherent in the self. There is nothing about the idea of being in sync that suggests it revolves around you.

<<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.