420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Self and neo-evolution by brotank - Sat, 09 Jul 2016 14:43:00 EST ID:36eM0bWF No.206296 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1468089780157.jpg -(13524B / 13.21KB, 228x221) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13524
So /pss/, I've been thinking about evolution in the context of the "self". We're all taught in high school biology that evolution via natural selection happens on a population wide scale over the course of a large amount of time, but when looking at the evolution of human society this doesn't seem to be the case.
For about 80% of evolutionary time the earth was only inhabited by single celled organisms, but around 640 million years ago evolution skyrocketed making a large leap forward in a relatively short amount of evolutionary time. We see this happen again at the formation of mammals as the dominate organism on the planet, all happening within 20 million years or so of the extinction of the dinosaurs. And in the last 100,000 years (a blink of an eye to evolutionary time) we humans have managed to create more in the ways of advanced life than all 4.5 billions years prior. My theory is that existence will always give rise to evolution, and evolution will act on the population until its give rise to consciousness . When consciousness is created, evolution via natural selection becomes obsolete (in the context of the individual, evoluton via natural selection still acts on lesser organisms) and evolution instead acts upon the consciousness of the individual. The end goal of this action is to elevate the consciousness to such a level that existence is unnecessary, and upon reaching that state the consciousness has achieved "ascension" and ceases to exist on the physical realm that it existed on before.
Tl;DR: Evolution is acting on humans in a newer, quicker, way that is aimed at achieving personal ascension.
Thoughts on this theory would be nice, and cheers mates
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Emma Nerryfield - Sat, 16 Jul 2016 07:04:50 EST ID:hQHbxael No.206354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
E.Pn ???
Esther Hottingway - Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:11:24 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> Evolution can best be described as a cascading relationship between genetics and environment, constantly are affecting each other.

Yeah, that's true but really ignorable in this discussion. I mean, how bacteria started creating oxygen in prehistoric times has little value in this discussion, unless I'm missing something.
Ian Shakeson - Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:57:41 EST ID:j46/6F10 No.206371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Phoebe Hengerchodge - Mon, 25 Jul 2016 06:57:48 EST ID:DCeBW/tY No.206395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Seemed like a worthwhile refutation to the "evolution is all genes" assertion.
Ebenezer Goodford - Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:34:21 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's irrelevant within the context of people seeing evolution as some kind of mental process.

Evolution only deals with genes. It might occasionally cause geological processes, but those events (while incredibly important) have nothing to do with this discussion.

Is cuckoldry the ultimate form of white male supremacy? by Nathaniel Hacklehere - Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:02:28 EST ID:SnOSbUkw No.206366 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1468972948900.jpg -(262368B / 256.22KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 262368
Isn't it taking sex between a man of color and presumably a white woman, but warping it to be for a white man's pleasure?
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jarvis Sazzlefud - Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:03:35 EST ID:Oolz71Ae No.206376 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was way better when it was /ph/.
Fucking Sovingford - Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:37:00 EST ID:X2oEaWUu No.206381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1469115420437.gif -(217080B / 211.99KB, 255x197) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
eyyyy, glad to see you reached that logical conclusion, buddy. How about a congratulatory link to a Gilles Deleuze essay http://epicbaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nomadology_read1.pdf
Matilda Pillershit - Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:03:27 EST ID:SnOSbUkw No.206382 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My bad, didn't mean to post a thought experiment on a board of people who don't want to think.
Samuel Greenfuck - Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:57:31 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To be honest, your question is more like /b/hilosophy than philosophy.
Matilda Shakespear - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 06:23:24 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206385 Ignore Report Quick Reply

A lot of boards have imploded the past year tbh.

Don't get it, why do people follow a belief-system of pedophiles? by Ruffle Panties - Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:10:02 EST ID:EIOekLev No.204841 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453662602390.jpg -(54603B / 53.32KB, 550x366) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 54603
Church is still molesting children,
tries to cover up cases of child-abuse,
priests involved in these scandals keep their job.

still have millions of followers.

what shocks me the most:
People are still surprised by this?!
Is the fact, that these authoritarian structures with creepy dudes who condemn pleasure, and far fetched from reality produce ill-minded and sexual disturbed individuals?

it's all about the money, isn't it?

31 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tablet Tabletten - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 03:16:22 EST ID:rJejfjb/ No.206108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1465024582027.jpg -(95648B / 93.41KB, 467x479) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I would be really unhappy to be deluded by an organized mass mindrape movement.
99% of christians are apologists for mass murder, rape and genocide.
A LOT of christians are hypocrites.
They protect corporations., WAR, GENOCIDEin the name of "FREEDOM" or "DEMOCRACY" while delivering BOMBS and DEATH to OTHERS.

As for homeless shelters: If the PATHETIC fascist society was anywhere near good, there WOULD NOT BE homeless people to begin with.

It wasnt so long ago in WW2 when german werhmacht soldiers had the words "God with us" in their uniforms.
Hannah Buzzshaw - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 23:48:47 EST ID:nmyfly2H No.206134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
More like it does not matter where that money goes, its Mexico.
In the end it all goes to drug lords.

As for the topic at hand. I am seeing a lot of people who might want to take a sociology class or some kind of humanities before weighing in on this subject. Might make you look less like a fedora tipping edge fish.
Cedric Fuckingfuck - Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:42:52 EST ID:K8NH1++G No.206286 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If this "pathetic, fascist society" was as "great" as you imagine it to be, every single home would be a homeless shelter of sorts as it would be administrated by the state. You are deluded if you think that this society is pathetic, or fascist. Your idea for a 'perfect system' would be a pathetic, fascist society. Learn to think.
Emma Clecklesot - Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:31:18 EST ID:4MCc5ZU6 No.206349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>rabbis and imams dindu nuffin
I know you're a bunch of contrarian prisses and fedoras with gripes about christianity but it is a cross-cultural happening.
Lola Brennt - Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:43:37 EST ID:XP08eFZZ No.206365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
wtf are you even talking about?

Nobody denies the insanity of the other nutjobs who mutilate and suck babies dicks!

Intellectual Rigidity by FacelessHeretic !!U4AmLIlT - Sat, 09 Jul 2016 20:11:06 EST ID:yGGaIsJ7 No.206298 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 7.jpg -(80085B / 78.21KB, 666x69) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 80085
My friend of four years has always exhibited an inability to change his mind. He holds his own opinions in very high esteem but is easily manipulated by misrepresentations of data and misled by pundits on his side of the political fence (leftists) because he cannot critically think about the language presented.

He does not read books and hasn't read one in all the time I've known him yet fancies himself more intelligent and informed than most people he encounters. He cannot hold a deep conversation about anything except within a very narrow frame of knowledge, history and politics. Admittedly he knows many details of ancient wars, dates and places, names of belligerents, etc.

When he's under stress he will go into a conversational mode where he will disagree about trivial things and do it to the death, even when evidence is provided to the contrary.

He has OCD and social anxiety. He has in the past six months began to have delusions but he won't tell me what they are. He's now almost 25 and suspects he's in the early stages of schizophrenia. (His brother is a schizophrenic with primarily negative symptoms.)

His vocabulary is very limited and the concepts he does know he thinks of in very black and white terms and with out much richness or depth.

I've watched as he has stagnated and it makes it difficult to talk to him because of how little he knows in proportion to how much he thinks he knows.

His primary concern as he has admitted is his ideology, identical to what he believed four years ago and does not value truth in and of itself unless it is linked to a political goal.

He attaches strong emotions to his ideology and refuses to read sources from the opposing side. He will not hesitate to use pejorative terms to describe the opposition because it is an effective rhetorical technique. Even after I've pointed this out as dishonest over and over he continues to do it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
16 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Toothood - Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:59:29 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And many other things as well. IQ can tell you a lot about a person, especially if you break it down into individual intelligences. For instance, I can tell you that, thanks to my high IQ, I'm post-ethical and irreligious, which is a norm in my IQ grouping.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:42:59 EST ID:2fcbIenj No.206333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've seen those things, too. I wonder how Kant would do on those. Or would a 21st century person with Kant's intellect just spend his time on /qq/ and /opi/. A few of my ego deaths on psychedelics, I had believed that I had seen into the hearts of a rice farmer in India or China that was not given the ability to grow simply because she was not given the opportunity. How would a person like that score on that ueber IQ test?
On that note, 54PBc, let me as you a question: would you trade your clever orating skills for abilities to solve those abstract, high-level thinking problems?

Tel him to think less with emotions. Or to numb his emotions with benzos.
Roofie him!
Hannah Crobblegold - Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:13:00 EST ID:jLRPt4X3 No.206334 Ignore Report Quick Reply
people are physically part fantasia (surreal to multiple afterlives) and can see through the transparency of human indiscretions/if not subliminally and are of closed minded most of the time, it suits them. Basically because all political jibber jabber really has already had its day.
Phineas Surringway - Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:58:32 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I've alcohol free for two months straight, the longest in my adult life, I'm medicated for my mood disorder and I'm doing the best I can really.

That's good. But be careful to look at yourself with the same critical light you observe your friends with.

Now that I threw a live grenade down the hatch, we can start working through your questions.

>Is this an early warning sign of schizophrenia?
I doubt it. It could however relate to his schizophrenia. Schizophrenia won't be helpful in being a normal social human being. You won't be able to connect properly to people, and you'll run into problems getting laid.

>Why are the overwhelming majority of people arrogant and overconfident in their personal evaluation of reality?
IIRC, that has to do with evolutionary processes. Being extremely insecure and aware of the inherent failures of your model of reality means you'll probably be less effective at evading various predatorial animals, and hunting down various prey animals. All that extra mental baggage will slow you down in the native human habitat of Africa a 200,000 years ago. Hence why we inflate our value of our models of reality. Surely we are right!

>Is there anything I can do to help him out of this?
I don't know. Keep discussing shit with him. I used to be a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, but my religion class teacher kept asking me why I believed, and I started looking at why I believed these things which radically changed everything.
Polly Harringkock - Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:32:23 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, I wouldn't trade what I've got for what the rare, blessed few have, Bomb. I love me. I'm an extremely well-rounded human being. I love my brain and it's abilities. I accept my mental shortcomings, and I accept my many physical ailments, yet I still consider my mind and body stellar compared to the ordinary human being. I've been through a lot, but I foresee a bright and shining future for myself. And one day, I will overcome all of my mental and physical shortcomings through science and technology. I live on so many pills and have had so many surgeries, I've given up on this notion of being a 'natural' human being. In my opinion, that's just a stupid, idealistic notion, anyway. If a crab can simply re-grow an arm through evolution, what is wrong with us humans 're-growing' our body parts through our evolution, through our wisdom and our science and our technology? Is a sky-scraper any different from a bird's nest? We are evolving so fast, philosophically and scientifically, that we've almost out-grown our Earth-given bodies and minds. But then again, I see us as nothing but a stepping stone. The Earth made humans, humans made machines, and soon both the Earth and the Humans will be insignificant, and the superior life form we created together, machines, will become the future.

I love Kant, just as I love many heroes of philosophy, but the truth is that everything is about luck. Kant was born in the right place at the right time. Same with Gandhi, same with Confucius, same with Socrates. Any of them born elsewhere, such as where I am, today, would not be nearly as significant, probably. Like, what if Kant was born later, and someone else had already philosophized about Metaphysics, but under a different name? Kant probably wouldn't have passionately spent his life working on metaphysics, then.

trolly problem by Priscilla Bommleweck - Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:11:29 EST ID:0p7U580/ No.204825 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453518689270.jpg -(33424B / 32.64KB, 600x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 33424
Why is the moral blame considered to be on the person who flips the switch and not the person who tied all these people to the tracks?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eugene Fendlebury - Tue, 21 Jun 2016 02:42:12 EST ID:cl4v6xkU No.206248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jack Gummlefene - Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:52:16 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't see human life as inherently valuable, so I really don't care which decision the guy makes. If I were him, I'd just let the trains run into the 5 people tied up and I'd assume that the trains will collide. Self-defense is more important to humans than the defense of completely random strangers.
Sophie Nengertog - Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:15:34 EST ID:rtkE+1+E No.206251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I disagree that the rigger is a bad guy. He's done more for philosophy of ethics than anyone else.
Basil Pockfield - Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:35:54 EST ID:QNr/gDFP No.206252 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What a dumb question
Priscilla Dammerbire - Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:18:51 EST ID:oS8EJv15 No.206335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd jump on the division track. An hero

CONTINENTAL THREAD by Edwin Shittingfuck - Sun, 08 May 2016 18:34:16 EST ID:Ia1kuS46 No.205911 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462746856216.gif -(63354B / 61.87KB, 356x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 63354
Whatcha reading /pss/?

Currently reading Being and Time and enjoying Heidegger's take on death. Particularly anxiety as revealing "the possibility of impossibility." Nice fat phrase to chew on and mull over.

Anyone reading Levinas or Blanchot at the moment?
17 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Priscilla Blackgold - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:05:34 EST ID:T3yGXKTP No.206263 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How is the term being or object flaccid in Heidegger man?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? He rigorously chats on about what each is and is not throughout the whole of Being and Time and many other essays????
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:32:33 EST ID:3jYxvTKU No.206269 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1466955153725.jpg -(17840B / 17.42KB, 450x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If it were not flaccid, why would he have to write multiple essays, etc. on the nature of being and then make up different words for the existence of "being"?
Perhaps we just have a different definition of "flaccid".
James Dunderlock - Thu, 07 Jul 2016 14:36:45 EST ID:MEvmVPSK No.206290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
thanks fam
Martin Mevinglerk - Fri, 08 Jul 2016 11:12:19 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206293 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's kind of like why plato writes so much about the republic in the republic
Jarvis Brookbury - Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:39:05 EST ID:h82HgvHl No.206295 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not philosophy, but I'm reading a bibliography on Franz J. Haydn. He was a cool guy.

Chatting with desired girls via Whatsapp while High by Chilli - Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:42:16 EST ID:7ecNYdXE No.206287 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1467744136769.png -(52621B / 51.39KB, 313x205) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 52621
how is it do you have good/bad experiences

i have some girl in my whatsapp list i kinda grief hard for,
i am just enjoying life staying under the radar right now uk
is it a good/bad idea to connect / chat to the girls u value while beeing high
not on chilling stuff but speed, coke, etc
stuff eliminating your emphatic side doping others

i mean it would be just mad to not recognize your bad upturn while keep on chatting

sounds weird so keeping it simple whats your experience
i'll share some but most of the time i am in a set like at home i just feel like fucking up with everyone in standard...
Henry Crollyfield - Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:13:09 EST ID:GNPCcPc0 No.206288 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's good because i have generally good people around me
Emma Sellystock - Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:08:41 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This isn't /b/ or /qq/, Chilli.

Can the media abuse the feelings of the public? by Betsy Naddlewill - Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:44:37 EST ID:3a4OBfhC No.206270 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1467053077837.jpg -(71282B / 69.61KB, 580x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 71282
If the media is trusted to not do certain things then a breach of that trust is something I would call abuse. The problem is, I can't put into words what we trust the media to not do, I can only think of vague things that are weak in principle.
Phoebe Pemmerforth - Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:51:17 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I spend a shit load of time examining the media as a whole, and yes, it is rich with abuse. Time Warner abuses the shit out of liberals, for instance, by constantly hiring 3rd party news teams to churn out agenda-based propaganda every few hours on all formats of social media. It's quite disgusting to watch, but it's legal to lie and call it news, as of 2004.
Frederick Chucklesit - Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:11:07 EST ID:l6TgzVv5 No.206276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1467123067779.jpg -(67532B / 65.95KB, 1280x702) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Believe half of what you see and nothing you hear.

The sole purpose of the (traditional) media is to shape public opinion. Everybody is in somebody's pocket, whether they know it or not. It's them, or their boss, or his boss, or their boss' boss' boss. Somewhere along the chain of command somebody decided to prioritize money over truth.
Ian Fendledane - Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:46:26 EST ID:Iu15Is6p No.206277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Trust is earned between family and friends. Anyone else - especially for-profit corporations and governments - need to be regulated via constitutions and laws and other feedback mechanisms.

Misanthrope tendencies by John Pendertock - Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:21:28 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206245 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1466450488852.jpg -(26778B / 26.15KB, 331x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 26778
/PSS/, what are your thoughts on balancing pain and pleasure? On the significance of happiness and sadness?

I've recently been enjoying reading about peoples' suffering and pain. It always amazes me how little of a problem can cause such a drastic reactions from people, and the mental gymnastics people do to feel innocent and victimized. I'm a hard-core believer in balance; I consider pain just as important as happiness. I also believe that these days, in the USA, civilians are indulging in dopamine overdoses that eventually manifest as depression, anxiety and misery. Sure, I'd love a world without pain, but this world needs pain, and I guess I think some groups of people really need more pain in their life or else they'll end up as useless boobs, the kind of useless boobs you see in a college safespace or in the morgue after they die of things like suicide over trivial matters or starvation from ceaseless video-game playing.
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Martin Fanbanks - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:51:00 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206261 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I spent an entire year in bed, bleeding from my guts. My life fell apart and my health completely faded away until I was practically lifeless. I was a walking skeleton people would look at and assume was a drug addict of some kind. It was the most horrible suffering I've ever faced, but it was such a blessing in disguise. I was so miserable until I had nothing. Then, everything seemed like a blessing. It was the single greatest dose of reality and humility I've ever faced, and it's profoundly changed me, making me a much better, happier person. Sheltered is the opposite of what I am, and it pains me to watch so many of my fellow human beings walk around with their near-perfect lives they feel so miserable about constantly, humans feeling depressed and useless even though they've never actually suffered anything greater than a trivial irritation. It astounds me that kids kill themselves over such trivial things as losing their smart phone, or they die bingeing on MMORPGs. Maybe if they had real problems to teach them the basics of pain they'd all be stronger, happier individuals.

That being said, a life of pain alone is not a life worth living, in my book. Life needs to be balanced, is my philosophy. I want to see more balance in life, which can require more suffering; I don't want to see people spend their entire life suffering, though.
Ian Parrylere - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:16:24 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206262 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Christ, I'm not saying pain is wonderful. Pain hurts. And through that it teaches us what to avoid, what we care for and most importantly it teaches us hope.

My father died of cancer and my mother is an alcoholic. None of that would have any significant meaning to me if it didn't cause me pain, and that's what I mean when I say that pain has intrinsic value.
Martin Fanbanks - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:53:47 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pain is a lesson, but too much pain is suicide.
Molly Trotwell - Sat, 25 Jun 2016 08:00:41 EST ID:FWgQKrV0 No.206265 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I totally agree with you OP. Being a junkie scumbag piece of shit actually did help me realize that a balance of pleasure and pain is important. Even something as pleasant and blissful as heroin gets really boring if you dose it everyday for months and months, after a while all the euphoria went away and I was just depressed AND now drug addicted. If you try to overload yourself with pleasure it just won't work, you need a balance, without pain you can't realize how great the pleasure is. If you just choose to overindulge in whatever your favorite pleasures are, you can quickly get bored of them and just end up more depressed than you were before, this doesn't only apply to drug addiction, as you said people nowadays are indulging in "dopamine overdoses".
Molly Trotwell - Sat, 25 Jun 2016 08:03:33 EST ID:FWgQKrV0 No.206266 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And drug-wise this is obviously why people addicted to heroin start using other drugs like stims or benzos or alcohol on top of it. It's not because they want to ruin their life further, it's just because ANY drug gets boring after a while, and you're just dependent on it, it's like drinking water, not that fun.

conservative and liberal by Shitting Brookfield - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 03:12:30 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.206194 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1465801950354.png -(408371B / 398.80KB, 820x1018) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 408371
people talk about being conservative and liberal, like labels they use on themselves. What does this mean anyway? I have seen so many political discussions with people being left or right wing, lib or con, or whatever.

What do these labels even mean? I saw one definition; a conservative likes society to stay the way it is while the liberal desires change from the present. So I could be a liberal leftie, but if society changes tomorrow, I could become a conservative righty. What is wrong with this political language and why is it used so vaguely?
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hedda Peckledodging - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:12:29 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1466100749809.jpg -(91999B / 89.84KB, 900x455) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>well if left wing is defined as being progressive and conservative is defined as keeping things traditional, that sort of label only makes sense in this time. People who want tradition become right wing and people wanting change become left wing. So far it makes sense.

It's interesting to note that the left/right divide in other countries usually means something completely different.

Where I live it's mostly about state vs market. The most socially conservative party is made up of Christian centrists. Also, while Americans might put environmental concerns on the left side, a market-liberal party in my country fronts that cause along with the democratic socialists.

So this diversity in political entities is something America lacks, which might be why American political terms (which I assume are the terms OP wants to talk about) are so vague to begin with. Your two parties are so big they encompass a great deal more views than any European party, yet they always get presented as two defined entities. On the surface, your politics appear to be rather simplified. And a surface understanding of politics is what's usually held by laymen voters.
Hedda Peckledodging - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:14:36 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206222 Ignore Report Quick Reply

And by simplified I mean vague by extension.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:02:16 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It's interesting to note that the left/right divide in other countries usually means something completely different.
This is the notion of the "progressive" liberals and the "conservative" conservatives in the USA. In Europe and most other places in the world, these terms have little meaning to their roots.

The definitions that OP sets out to define only work in the theater of US (and maybe Canadian and Ausfag) politics. That being said, they have varying degrees of definition and need to be set in stone before we confuse the conversation further.
Jenny Blamblefuck - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:25:06 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.206241 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your two parties are so big they encompass a great deal more views than any European party, yet they always get presented as two defined entities

Yes. I find it difficult to align myself to one of these entities, because my views can be found scattered in both parties, yet i also see many party beliefs on both sides that go against my personal views, so i cannot resolve myself as left wing or right wing.

In Europe and most other places in the world, these terms have little meaning to their roots.

So are you saying that parties in Europe are mixed between left and right issues in their political position like I am? When you refer to their roots, are you saying that their 'left' or 'right' stance does not fit in with their party's position?
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:27:28 EST ID:gm9dPrV5 No.206242 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes. Socially conservative and economically liberal groups exist in Europe in decent droves. Whereas in America, if you support BLM, you're almost certainly a full fledged communist.

determinism by Wesley Hugglewit - Sat, 05 Dec 2015 20:25:55 EST ID:0p7U580/ No.204374 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1449365155339.jpg -(157904B / 154.20KB, 625x538) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157904
how does quantum mechanics invalidate casual determinism?
71 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shitting Dubblepire - Wed, 25 May 2016 17:59:52 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206069 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I don't know, that sounds a bit too intuitive. As far as I understand, relativity makes itself noticeable to the naked eye on massive scales but it still counts on our scale. Keep in mind though that we can see galaxies, but not particles. Perhaps that shift between quantum scales and normal scales is mostly due to perspective, but what would I know being a simple biology student.
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:00:27 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That seems to me the most reasonable answer. Seeing as we can see through our endeavors in quantum mechanics as compared to classical materialism/physics, the "laws of the universe" are really just guidelines that are relevant at certain scales or levels of experience/perception.

At our level, classical physics is the main set of guidelines but when it comes down to subatomic space, the game changes. Going further and deeper past leptons, quarks, gluons, bosons, whathaveyou, it might change even more and become so alien that quantum mechanics can't even support it. Going out to scale of super-clusters and beyond, we will probably find that not all of relativity or classical materialistic physics applies all the time

A fundamental flaw in my opinion of Western science is assuming that if someone in the past twenty years has written a mathematically verifiable theory on it, that is it and that's how it works, more or less. With that mind set, you abstract that theory to cover every scale of reality, which as we see with quantum mechanics, doesn't groove. I'm sure most physicists are aware of that but the common man's understanding of physics seems to be that the classical laws are absolute and until Hawking or Tyson or CNN announce this or that, they view anything weird as being horse shit.
Ernest Sushstock - Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:49:01 EST ID:ox39W3p3 No.206237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This notion of shifting physical laws that depend on scale is what most quantum physicists have become to believe in (source: Dick, my. 2016). Something about free will being the result of interactions between scales of size and thus interacting laws of physics and quantum physics.
Samuel Hirringshaw - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 05:50:27 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206239 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>A fundamental flaw in my opinion of Western science is assuming that if someone in the past twenty years has written a mathematically verifiable theory on it, that is it and that's how it works, more or less.

Well that flaw is thankfully only present among laymen and not really in science itself. I remember a lot of physicists were stoked on actually not finding the Higgs boson, for example, because that would mean proof that they are wrong and would be forced to rewrite the standard model and physics in general.

Any physicist worth his weight knows the theories are abstractions that only explain events under certain conditions; Newtonian physics for example explains events on our scale remarkably well, but you need relativity to properly explain the orbits of planets and the shape of galaxies. This is why there's been so much work in unifying relativity and quantum physics.

My bet would be that both models are essentially wrong. Like Newtonian physics both explains event well under their predisposed conditions, but fails to take into account the underlying forces responsible for both scales. So for us there appears to be a break where the laws of nature change dependent on scale because the theories themselves are wrong, like how Newton's laws break down when you apply them at celestial scales because they fail to account for gravitational space-time distortions.
Thomas Climblenet - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:54:22 EST ID:vCtuTH8+ No.206240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
QM doesn't invalidate determinism, it invalidates reductionism / local realism. Systems evolve deterministically via Schrödinger's equation, but that evolution can pass through states that aren't possible or reachable for a system composed of fundamentally discrete parts. Rather than attributing inherent state, structure or parts to systems, it makes more sense if we attribute state and structure to the interactions among systems.

Rand by Martha Funningchodge - Mon, 23 May 2016 14:52:31 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206050 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464029551258.jpg -(62345B / 60.88KB, 402x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62345
Does anyone else here love Ayn Rand?
She's a little edgy, but undoubtedly a modern Aristotle.
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Barnaby Fuckingfuck - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:11:24 EST ID:PpZMPMvh No.206126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So do you Rand fanboys actually buy into the idea that all humans are rational through and through who, when left to decide for themselves, will always make the best decision through selfishness for the good of society?
What happens if a considerable part of the population is retarded?
Shit Binningnudge - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:52:33 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You don't quite get it. Nobody is going to do what's good for society, only good for themselves. The point is that doing what's best for themselves is often times what's best for society, since uplifting every individual is how you uplift society. And to counter-balance this, we have set laws stopping humans from being a detriment to each other, and instead everyone is left as a competitor, and the more they compete, the better everything becomes as survival of the brightest constantly occurs in this process.

For all the retarded people in the population, well, that's what prisons/self-defense laws are for. You just protect yourself from the retards by competing against them and winning, and then if they try to fuck with you you can call 9/11 or kill them yourself, depending on the extremeness of the circumstance.

This is all based on Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. I'd advise you to check it out; Aristotle was a hell of a guy.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:53:59 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
She is remembered in her failures where other people can galvanize and build upon their thoughts. Radical notions are always controversial and it is in those controversies that they are propagated and remembered. The intelligent observations are just that - observations. But the web of connections they make to create opinions and to-do lists are what I am talking about.
It's not meant to be controversial, it's just that there are these avenues of approaching famous figures in the world.

If you want examples, I'll provide you with one from each of the people you have named:
Marx detached his theory of politics from his social commentary which allowed Lenin to fill that void and write an "instruction manual" for how to apply communism in revolutionary life. His social critique was based on observations but his communism was lacking relative and relevant substance.
Aristotle's general metaphysics was all over the place and a reason why people no longer discussed the ether and classical elements after the enlightenment. He demonstrated how not to conduct science.
Confucius' theory of timocracy that was separate from the Western traditions.
Einstein is a result of everything that was built up leading up to his accomplishments. Science is a tricky one especially since it hinders on the fact that nothing can be proven but only so much to uncorrelated - that perhaps outlines the essence of what I am trying to say in terms of philosophers being wrong.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:58:46 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I actually give people on /opi/ Nichomachean Ethics whenever the question "how can I use opiates in moderation" comes up. 10/10 on that.

However, 0/10 for "nobody's going to do what's good for society". The point of a democracy in the classical sense is that people vote for the best interest of the people - not for themselves. Of course that doesn't work in reality which is why democracy is becoming more and more of a failed state if not implemented like a confederate or an aristocratic fashion.

In fact, the reason why people like Ayn Rand and other classical US conservatives despise communism and socialism is because they naturally ignore the fact that many humans strive towards a greater good.
This shows up more in educated societies and smaller societies, of course.
Martin Gorrybanks - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:21:14 EST ID:6eB5rYI1 No.206235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Some people may think this but that's not the idea.

Up against the staggering doubt man doesn't succeed is her point.

Atlas shrugged means atlas dropped the world.

The ego needs to be fulfilled precisely because we still doubt our very existence in the self.

And we can never overcome the crushing wait of existence.

Hence the ego hence positivism postive form in a void because of the voids reality.

She just gave a philosophy saying most of the world will undo peace inner and outer.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

<<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.