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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A+ comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The limits of philosophy by Lydia Grandfoot - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:51:02 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.198085 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422647462132.gif -(770783 B, 500x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 770783
I feel as though I've hit all the boundaries of philosophy. I can't find anything new or interesting, and I think humanity has hit a wall. I think what we are has reached it's philosophical limits due to our innate imperfection.

If you have anything to say, maybe you think you've got something brilliant, I'd like to hear it.
46 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Betsy Blatherham - Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:01:57 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.199306 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wow, believe it or not I'm actually only familiar with only half of that list, so, you've brought me something new and I thank you for that. That being said, you said you're surprised by the topics I understand, to which I will state, you see, philosophy comes naturally to me without studying anything. I see philosophy in everything, and logic just makes sense to me. I've hardly been taught anything about philosophy other than vocabulary and how to formally write logic. Everything else, all of my philosophies that I find encompass almost all the work of the philosophers I've decided to read, I simply learned on my own. It's like math; it's a priori. The philosophy is already there, it's just identifying it that's the trick, but it's always come naturally to me, so naturally that I feel its natural errors and limits on my own. Not a day goes by that I don't study my surroundings and philosophize about them.
Cornelius Biblingback - Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:23:48 EST ID:j0p57M0O No.199312 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wish to be a theoros. A spectator with no goal or preference simply beholding whatever. My wish itself is a preference that shows I'm not a spectator. Goals and preferences are parts of the spectacle, and I realize I am a spectator no matter what I do. Still I'd like to be a spectator rather than whatever I am now.
Isabella Diggledere - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:00:41 EST ID:4BN2R/X9 No.199583 Ignore Report Quick Reply

This is the most pedantic, pretentious, pseudo intellectual wad of tripe I've read this week. This is worse than all of circlejerk.
Phoebe Clopperhall - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:17:47 EST ID:7IhAQFOh No.199584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So why would you bump it?
Nicholas Cluttingludge - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:48:00 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.199585 Ignore Report Quick Reply

This is now officially a troll thread. Or OP is narcissistic.

Objectivity by Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 01:55:11 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.199202 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1425797711445.jpg -(121835 B, 512x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 121835
Is the only true way to convey objectivity through the mathematics of physical processes?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Archie Worthingbury - Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:04:42 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.199527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>mathematics of physical processes
Best way that I know of. At least in a scientific sense.
There is also blinding. Sometimes when we do animal work there are certain things that cannot be quantified. And those things must be scored in the most unsubjective way possible. So blinding the researcher helps by making it so that a semi-subjective process at least isn't biased.
Fuck Donningspear - Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:07:47 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.199538 Ignore Report Quick Reply

i didnt say that it was the best practical option to say that nothing reaches the level of "truth", i only said that it was reasonable, as in, consistent with a common sense understanding of truth, to say that something with any degree of falsehood is untrue.

I agree with you that we can and should still talk about truth if we make clear that truths are relative to assumptions.

If i was forced to come up with a system that had no truth or falsehood and replaced them, i supposed i would say we could speak only of the consistency of sets of propositions, and rate propositions on a scale of higher or lower priority beliefs, higher being things like "gravity exists" and "I exist", lower being things like "newtonian physics are inviolable laws of the universe". priority would be like a subjective measure of the cogniitive dissonance involved in denying the proposition.

so as long as your theory or belief was consistent with all the high priority beliefs relating to the same topic, then you could be satisfied with your theory. and if it wasn't, you could rephrase and remake your conceptualization of the theory so that it was consistent with the high priority beliefs. and further still, you could also find ways to rephrase and remake your conceptualization of the high priority beliefs, possibly as a conjunction with a high priority side and a low priority side. For instance you could take the proposition about Newtonian physics and say that the high priority side is like "macrophenomena almost never, according to empirical research, violate the laws of newtonian physics" and the low priority side would be "no phenomena of any kind can ever violate the laws of newtonian physics", so by splitting up and clarifying the nature of these two beliefs about newtonian physics, we can say that our new theory (for instance quantum physics) is consistent with the high priority version, but not with the low priority version, meaning we can abandon the low priority part but not the high priority part
Jenny Dodgebury - Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:11:07 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.199553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> i supposed i would say we could speak only of the consistency of sets of propositions

That's pretty much what logic does.
Hannah Worthingspear - Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:24:54 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.199563 Ignore Report Quick Reply


i guess my "system" then would be to evaluate sets of propositions using logic, and then be totally open and clear about which propositions we were more inclined to assume without air-tight justification, if and when we must decide to abandon one or some propositions in an inconsistent set.

it would be like logic plus subjective evaluation, which is already basically what i think truth-falsehood dialogue boils down to, it would just be a little bit more clear what we are doing
Isabella Diggledere - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:43:31 EST ID:4BN2R/X9 No.199582 Ignore Report Quick Reply

In short, yes.

The concept of zero, the human faculty of individuation, self-evident axioms (i.e., "This sentence is true") and the law of non-contradiction are the only way to approach objectivity.

On an individual level you might say that your experiences are objective... That is to say, it is objectively true that you experience.

Socially constructing nature by Isabella Cerrywill - Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:47:01 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.199334 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426240021484.jpg -(257415 B, 667x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 257415
I think that nature is an idea that represents what we want it to represent. If you live in an apartment building for most of your life, then nature is this retreat that is visited to escape your city life. If you grew up next to a forest then there is more chance your relationship to nature is a harmony between man and animal. Underlying all this is your personal and cultural values you hold for nature. It therefore stands to reason that you can think about that relationship and change it.
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigger Brookman - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:43:35 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.199410 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A forest that is 100 or 1000 years old is a still a forest though. I can appreciate the history of the forest and agree that a forest in America is man-made. Even so, I would feel closer to nature if I lived near that forest simply because of the way it looks and feels to be around. It is just so different to live away from that nature-presence the forest produces, but even if history shows it was grown by people, it still looks and feels like a forest.
Caroline Gindledale - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:00:57 EST ID:+UpvDMsR No.199432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If you're actually in a crop-forest it feels dead. Literally there is only darkness on the forest floor and nothing lives there. Natural forests burst with life everywhere. It's not nature, it's organisms controlled like machines.
Edward Drendlemeck - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:51:28 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.199436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know and it PISSES me the fuck off.

Nature should be this magical thing that existed before these filthy fucking homonid man-apes got their hands on it.

We'll just grow our food in foodlabs in the cities.
Edward Dillerham - Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:57:24 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.199508 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I actually cannot tell if this is sarcasm
William Tillingcocke - Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:54:11 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.199516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's hyperbolic, but it's my honest opinion. It's time to get rid of the idiotic shitty traditional farm. It's a blight on the land. Give that land back to nature. We can just grow our food in fucking food-skyscrapers.

Arcologies now!

is true freedom terrifying? by namefag - Sat, 14 Mar 2015 02:50:25 EST ID:uliYWIaJ No.199357 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426315825741.jpg -(154734 B, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 154734
1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Whitey Chettingwater - Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:53:51 EST ID:/I5Sr3/3 No.199379 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But anon, what if it is only terrifying if we let it terrify us?
Esther Beblingfatch - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 02:15:30 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lets establish true freedom and how its terrifying, Im short on this subject
Isabella Combledock - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 07:00:17 EST ID:7Q7rnqmy No.199401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The thought of true freedom can be terrifying to those who are still in slavery, but it is beautiful to those who are free.
Charlotte Duckcocke - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 07:06:43 EST ID:4FqI4ed5 No.199403 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1426417603852.jpg -(74143 B, 1024x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74143
Freedom is fucking indefineable. It has 3 contradicting elements at least - free in one way makes you less free in the other.
I think there is such a thing as people being afraid of getting what they want.
Jarvis Crumbleson - Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:24:44 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.199457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
True freedom would be free will, as in having a will that is determined by nothing and limited by nothing. Tree freedom cannot exist, not for humans or anything humans know, at least. True freedom would require omnipotence and absolute reasonlessness.

Why doesn't society acknowledge genetic differences in humans? by Charlotte Horryton - Sat, 27 Dec 2014 03:15:31 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197384 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1419668131797.jpg -(105988 B, 720x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 105988
Why do we pretend we're all equal?
We're not. Some are superior to others in different regards.
Some are inferior.
Is this a moral quandary?
148 posts and 13 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Beblingfatch - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 02:53:38 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199387 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>anonymity superiority
If were talking about nothing but ideas, how does who someone is have to do with anything? It doesn't. It is a lower level of discussion

>Tossing insults tangential to an independent thesis is not an ad hom
how is a personal attack relevant to the point? You just said the thesis was independent, it just dragging everything down into the mud.

"Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually havin to engage with it"

Example: After that mod Zgi presents an eloquent and compelling case for X, syllogism asks the audience whether we should believe anything a racist, shit poster, troll, and that he and another person don't like"

Anything outside the objective argument is nothing worth reading.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Syllogism - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 07:06:17 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199402 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>If were talking about nothing but ideas, how does who someone is have to do with anything? It doesn't.


>Personal rapport is a valuable tool for synthesizing more progressive dialectics by creating a cohesive narrative between parties. Instead of wading through the same low-grade semantics before you can arrive at anything of any value every fucking time, you have a convenient place marker.

If we could move beyond this selective reading problem of yours at some time in our relationship, I would appreciate it. I really would. I've given you so much, bae. I need something in return.

>how is a personal attack relevant to the point? You just said the thesis was independent, it just dragging everything down into the mud.

This is the same nonsense you tried with >>197669 and I would have preferred to not have to tutor you in the same manner, but hey, since I'm here. Your shitty little site provides nothing more than a cursory reading of the fallacy without any elaboration on structure. At its heart, an ad hom fallacy requires that a proof of argument arise by virtue of the insult. Insult -> ~X, is an ad hom. A & B -> ~X, also insult; is not. Call it poisoning the well if you're absolutely desperate to find some luhjuhcul fawashy to chalk it up to, but please do understand, you've poisoned that well on your own far, far more than I could ever hope to match.

>Example: After that mod Zgi presents an eloquent and compelling case for X, syllogism asks the audience whether we should believe anything a racist, shit poster, troll, and that he and another person don't like"
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Samuel Nillerpedge - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:52:29 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.199427 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As an aside, I'd just like to say that I much preferred ZGi1tDkn as an ID over cnbl5oaw, since phonetically I read the former as Ziggity Dicken, whereas the latter is just Cunble Favow which doesn't sound as nice in my head.

Henry Nibbleket - Mon, 16 Mar 2015 02:55:52 EST ID:cnbl5oaw No.199452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>you have a convenient place marker.
what is a personal bias that is unrelated to the topic

Damn you have colorful writing but still haven't made one serious attempt at anything but shit flinging.

That's the nicest looking, prettiest shit fling Ive seen in all of my life.
Syllogism - Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:52:04 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.199476 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You try so hard to take the least you can away from anything. In a way, it's heartwarming.

I like my punching bags to be brightly neon colored.

Greek Cosmogony, Psychoanalysis & Our World Today by Molly Gizzledale - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:18:47 EST ID:wHmINjd1 No.198472 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423685927565.jpg -(132413 B, 1280x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 132413
Hello! I'm new to this board, and was hoping for some help and resources regarding the topic above. I'm looking for any serious psychological analysis of the Greek God Zeus, as if he were a real person whose life and actions were under the scrutiny of a professional therapist.

There are a number of connections I have made between U.S. generational history and basic Greek Cosmogony; the Greatest Generation as Uranus, the Baby Boomers as Cronus and the other Titans, and the Millennials as Zeus and the Greek Gods.

The connection between Uranus and Cronus is harder for myself, a proto-Millennial, to argue. As far as I can conjecture, the Castration of Uranus is equivalent to some dissent among the Boomers as to the "Greatness" of a generation of men who were still murderers (speaking purely from speculation, not from personal opinion).

The Boomer-Millennial connection to the story of Cronus consuming his soon-to-be Olympian children is a much easier connection to make, especially when one considers documentaries like "Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood".

Anyway, back to my original topic: what would a therapist see in Zeus? I mean, he was saved from being devoured by his father Cronus (corporate america) by his mother Rhea (eco-friendly, organic movement) and hid in a cave for 30 years. In that time he is educated and raised by nymphs, and goes on to slit open his father's belly and free his brothers and sisters who emerge fully grown from Cronus' innards.

And this last part is a lot of bias, as a man raised by condescending Boomers and feminist types, but honestly, does it make a lot of sense to anyone else that Zeus would have grown up to be such a womanizer?

Lastly, if you believe these correlations more or less seem to fit the mold, do you believe they are a natural occurrence, or are they the byproduct of coercion and manipulation? This last part may be a little too /tinfoil/ for this board, so ignore it if you must. My apologies in advance.

1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Thomas Tootstock - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:24:05 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198478 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this is selfish but i need more
Thomas Tootstock - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:39:17 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
wait my previous request still stands but

i think zeus doesn't react the same way he does or this generation might, because he's rebelling against feminism, and disrespecting it, its only ironic if you can still see out of the point of view of the cronus generation.

He's able to womanize, because a millenial, wasn't shown or taught, to see that point of view of a woman in the beginning. He went through that but he doesn't have any of the guilt because he's apart of an era that's associated with the future.

zeus doesn't have the baggage.

So all he's not disciplining himself or trying to make it right so to speak. He's just putting all that knowledge of what women think to good use, because he got in touch with his feminine side early. He however was indeed a man, but he wasn't the god that had to castrated that came in previous generations.

somehow unlike what carl jung would say was a personwith the male aspect and the female aspect balanced and would be adrogynous.

Zeus wasn't that because he didn't have to struggle to find his anima, he was essentialy never blocked from, and had it nurtured in him as a child. Then he grew and his masculinity flourished. but he never despite taking advantage of women constantly "got away with it"

and i mean that metaphyiscally he somehow represents that person in reality to who does different deeds but is percieved differently perhaps because of how he percieved it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Emma Farrytitch - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:02:01 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198480 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I got nothing.
CAn we talk about the psychology and life goal philosophy (and delusions) that the boomers have?
Ernest Cocklestack - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:55:27 EST ID:Xx5xWZwg No.198547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is it possible that Greek mythology is just riddled with fucked up, selfish, evil, blah blah etc shit, since, you know, it was made up by humans, who are just riddled with fucked up evil selfish shit, and the reason it "matches" well is because, well, we are still fucked?

I think if you lived in the 1700's you could have applied this mythology to any set of human circumstances back then, as well, because these stories are essentially a reflection of human nature.
namefag - Sat, 14 Mar 2015 03:21:49 EST ID:uliYWIaJ No.199359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What would Demogenes say in that situation?

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