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

Sandwich


Coherentism vs foundationalism by Lydia Ciddlestock - Sun, 11 May 2014 18:59:50 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193431 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399849190142.png -(332557 B, 637x358) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 332557
Could anyone please explain simply what coherentism and foundationalism are?
>>
Lydia Ciddlestock - Sun, 11 May 2014 19:14:08 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, what's constructive empiricism, and how is it different from scientific realism?
>>
Cedric Humblestire - Sun, 11 May 2014 19:40:18 EST ID:12z3VheC No.193434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
These are all explained simply on Wikipedia. I checked.
>>
Clara Tootham - Sun, 11 May 2014 22:20:50 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193431

wikipedia is really good in this department, no lie


simply put

knowledge generally requires justification. proposition A is justified by proposition B ("I believe in gravity because it has always worked")

So then does each justification require its own justifying premise? If so we have an infinite regress. Both coherentism and foundationalism are attempts to avoid the regress

Coherentism avoids it by saying that instead of a chain of justifications, we have a web of interdependent justifications where individual beliefs are not necessarily epistemically prior, or epistemically privileged, compared to other beliefs.

Foundationalism avoids the regress by saying some beliefs go without justification, for instance maybe the principle of noncontradiction, the meaning of qualia-terms, could go without justification, and then all knowledge then must be the eventual implication of certain basic unjustified truths.

Foundationalism is absolute garbage in my opinion. coherentism is better but still a little confused. I definitely think, psychologically speaking, or in practice, coherentism effectively describes what the process of justification is like. I think humans do not in fact have a chain of justifications that provides them with all their beliefs but rather they are constantly cycling through millions of unjustified ones and together, the ones which are coherent and useful together come to the forefront of your mind and you discard those which disagree with this overarching model. The difference for me, is that i dont think that this process results in actual justification, actual knowledge, I take the skeptic's line, which is that the regress does in fact undermine knowledge, and there is no solution to the regress, we are just making coherent models of the world for our satisfaction, we never reach models that "correspond exactly to reality", which I deny is a meaningful criteria
>>
Charlotte Bardspear - Mon, 12 May 2014 05:50:10 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193442
the problem is that these explanations in an actual argument require you to justify them to the other person

if your operating on foundationalism, you will attempt to be self evident and surely in life their are plenty of things that are, but you will run into someone every day who will just say why, even when its apparent that this person is asking why again and again to the point where it seems that nothing will ever be evident regardless of its self to him/her. Still if your in the pursuit of justifying your argument and your underlying operational philsophy is foundationlism is running up still against somebody demaning justifiaction, you'll only keep the argument going by being in the exact never ending story, of that infinite regress, then you will feel the burn of it making you sound crazy because there is no conclusion you can Logic too, without something going without justification.

Because it was always true justification required other things always, to work its mojo with.

I have used a kind of approach like coherentism and also felt that opposing arguments even/especially were interdependent in their jusitifications of their individual argument. But to me i ran into a problem with that because how can you jusitfy trying to argue that a belief isn't privileged, without saying your priviliging your argument. In other words it kept eating itself.
there is no escape

I feel strongly at somepoint that this is a problem with the idea that something is no longer known if you can't justify how it is so. And because its clear how imperative that idea is, and how it can be true, we just don't really no how to explain when its making a monkey out of us. And if you have conviction in it can lead you down a rough road.

I think it's not actually a problem with justification I realize, but the problem of a the way question and answer situation these events take place in. Both viewpoints work until you are in an argument, where you ask and answer as a dynamic.

Otherwise justification might demand somebody to justify why they don't understand, or how they can not understand what is being said, in fact that's a common occurence.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Molly Crinnerpen - Mon, 12 May 2014 13:43:25 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Am I correct?:
Coherentism is the notion that beliefs are justified between themselves. So that each belief is justified by some other belief. This means that circular reasoning would happen if we attempted to justify some belief on and on.

Foundationalism is the notion that beliefs are backed up by axioms, which are self-evident truths which are assumed to be true.


Love by Clara Pibbernig - Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:00:34 EST ID:12z3VheC No.192658 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1396785634631.jpg -(154504 B, 990x633) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 154504
Why is there so little philosophy on love? It's a huge part of our lives, you'd think there's a shit load of it. But no. At least I haven't come across that many texts dealing with it. I just read Arthur Schopenhauer's Metaphysics of love and I can definitely recommend it, even though I didn't agree with everything he said. Especially the stuff he said about marriages of passion vs. convenience was interesting and in light of modern research, true.

"For this interest that he takes in the special nature of the species, which is the source of all love, from the most fleeting emotion to the most serious passion, is in reality the most important affair in each man’s life, the successful or unsuccessful issue of which touches him more nearly than anything else."

>ITT
>recommend philosophical texts dealing with the subject of love
20 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Betsy Sasslewater - Fri, 09 May 2014 05:51:18 EST ID:qymHhID4 No.193397 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193396

>It's more than just measuring shit.

Not really. They measure shit, ie. map the physical world onto some number system

Then they create a mental model and try to get the outputs of it to match the measured shit.

>That's all? They're not allowed to do anything else?

What else can they do? There's not much, maybe survey measure their genes and then come up with hypothesis such as "people tend to marry people with similar genes"

>Now prove that drinking blood is actually health improving, as per your claim.

I don't have to.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Sidney Bunridge - Fri, 09 May 2014 06:12:21 EST ID:8mrIxlbB No.193399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193397
>Not really. They measure shit, ie. map the physical world onto some number system
Sigh..

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

>I don't have to.
I will take your refusal as an implicit admission that you made an error in this case.

>You weren't there, you're just repeating anti-catholic propaganda
You mean history?

>funnily enough a lot of Catholics are actually satanists
This fucking guy
>>
Basil Pickham - Sat, 10 May 2014 02:28:30 EST ID:t4M7C4xS No.193404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193399

You didn't say how my description of science contradicts that wikipedia article. Oh wait, because it doesn't, because I actually know what I'm talking about.

>I will take your refusal as an implicit admission that you made an error in this case.

No bro. Satanists drink blood. Rumours are it gives youth. Scientists link blood transfusion to youth. I generalise the result to be consistent with rumours and Satanic practice.

I don't have to prove in fact I can't without a bunch of rats and machines that measure shit about them.

Only little bitches demand everything be backed up by journal articles and shit.
>>
Eugene Trotbanks - Sat, 10 May 2014 14:06:27 EST ID:8mrIxlbB No.193408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193404
>Scientists link blood transfusion to youth.
Earlier you said it was the consumption of blood which conferred benefits, you can't even remember you own lies.
>>
Alice Pinderded - Sat, 10 May 2014 23:37:35 EST ID:vrzQYW4d No.193417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193408

Considering that he said the blood was being absorbed prior to digestion, that would have the same effect as transfusion. His argument didn't change, at all. Not even sure why you two are debating this here. nb.


Objects, properties and relations by Charlotte Mizzleville - Fri, 02 May 2014 11:12:10 EST ID:FSana4w8 No.193301 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399043530786.gif -(409485 B, 256x284) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 409485
Objects are relata, and the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties is that intrinsic properties relate 'real' objects with 'abstract' objects, whereas extrinsic properties relate 'real' objects with 'real' objects. So in the end, everything reduces to identity relations (which define object domains) and relations between domains. Is that right?

pic related
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hedda Goodstone - Wed, 07 May 2014 11:28:39 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193361
>I suppose it would be different when it comes to closed off relationships, such as in computer programs.
>closed off relationships
>When all phenomena are recognized to be interconnected and engaging in relationships with one another equally
>equally

Could you clarify what you mean by these terms?

>What I mean by the dissolution of identity is the dissolution of the necessary parameters that must be in place in order for identity to exist in the first place.

In that case, you can't really use logic if the identity relation is not an axiom. In order to state any kind of proposition about anything, you have to identify the thing you're talking about.

>What I propose is that, what gives way is rather a much more complex state of awareness in which relationships cannot be defined, because relationships are all-pervasive through all forms of matter and non-matter alike.

Yes, but it also makes it pointless to say anything since propositions would have no fixed meaning, so this is isn't a useful frame of mind. Mereological nihilism may be the closest thing we have to "The Truth" but it's not useful for anything that we're trying to accomplish by modelling these things linguistically in the first place.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nigel Dankingold - Wed, 07 May 2014 14:03:43 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.193370 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193369
I suppose it all depends on what you think is helpful or useful. Sure, that frame of mind doesn't necessarily lend itself to existing as a contributing member of the workforce, as it is traditionally seen, or even towards being a person who contributes to the general goals of your society. It doesn't lend itself to anything that can be called practical, such as: getting a wife, a career, and in general being what most would consider being a successful human being. But, of what use is it to be a "successful human being" as defined by a group of comparably thoughtless individuals? That is a question, I think, everyone must ask themselves, and any answer is acceptable, if that is the way you'd like to live your life. I agree that it certainly won't make you a practical person, but what do you find when you examine this era's general idea of a practical person? I'd say you find a generally thoughtless, and artificial individual who bases his life on the assumptions of others and also lives his life in a generally empty and misguided way.

The achievement of goals is meaningless unless it is clear to us what kind of progress we are making, and what kind of world we are contributing to. And in order to be able to do that, we must already have a fairly complex understanding of the way the world came to be the way it is and how those assumptions proliferated enough to be able to sustain the guise of truth and legitimacy, in order to truly understand our actions and also the nature of our progress.

>Could you clarify what you mean by these terms?
What I mean is that those computized relationships are not subject to most of the harbingers of influence that our "real world", comparably, is subject to. In that way, they are closed off. A hurricane affects our physical space, but it does not affect the way a program runs once it has been coded. In that way, the coded language of programming has a much higher degree of stability, and that is due to its relative simplicity.

And what I mean by the other phrase is that, once the dissolution of identity occurs, all phenomena that we are aware of seem to be in a sort of interplay where one does not have a …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ernest Chollyhood - Fri, 09 May 2014 00:20:01 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I suppose it all depends on what you think is helpful or useful.

In this case, "helpful" or "useful" refer to the act of reasoning about the world - deducing facts and evaluating claims about it. Nothing particularly grandiose. OP is (seems to be?) talking about logic.

>The achievement of goals is meaningless unless it is clear to us what kind of progress we are making, and what kind of world we are contributing to.

No, the achievement of goals can mean whatever we want them to mean. There is no objective standard by which the utility of a goal may be measured. You need axioms, assumptions of what "utility" means. The ones you seem to be using are not the only ones that are used.

>And what I mean by the other phrase is that, once the dissolution of identity occurs, all phenomena that we are aware of seem to be in a sort of interplay where one does not have a greater influence than any other.

This doesn't make sense to me. Once you dissolve identity, there are no "things." Just undifferentiated stuff about which you cannot even make any sort of claim (within the system) because you can't identify it. I suppose "everything affects everything to the same degree" is true of a human being if you don't distinguish between the component parts of a human, but that statement is fundamentally tautological in that case.

>Everything affects everything to the same degree, or in other words, equally.

But "equality" is a kind of identity. We say that two things are "equal" when, given a subset of their properties, they are identical. The statement I just quoted literally does not make any sense if you eliminate the identity relation as an axiom.
>>
Ernest Chollyhood - Fri, 09 May 2014 00:30:19 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What I mean is that those computized relationships are not subject to most of the harbingers of influence that our "real world", comparably, is subject to. In that way, they are closed off. A hurricane affects our physical space, but it does not affect the way a program runs once it has been coded. In that way, the coded language of programming has a much higher degree of stability, and that is due to its relative simplicity.

I think the term you're looking for is probably "causally disconnected." At least as I understand the paragraph you wrote.

>I suppose "everything affects everything to the same degree" is true of a human being if you don't distinguish between the component parts of a human, but that statement is fundamentally tautological in that case.

Come to think of it, I think that expresses something with a similar logical form to an identity relation to some extent, too. "A human being affects all of that human being" reduces to "for some x, x affects all x." But the "x" and "x" are the same thing. So, tautological. Unless you assume that individual things cannot affect themselves, in which case, this sentence is false.
>>
Ernest Chollyhood - Fri, 09 May 2014 01:30:37 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193392

Although, assuming or not assuming "x affects itself" and seeing what comes of it might be an interesting exercise.


How to make people dumb through education by Ernest Daddledadge - Mon, 05 May 2014 04:33:18 EST ID:KhEERxOa No.193339 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399278798575.jpg -(9277 B, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9277
How would you go about it? What would you teach them to make them stupid and servile?
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Doris Goodville - Wed, 07 May 2014 08:28:47 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193364
>blatant strawman
Yeah. "Idiot".
>>
David Fippergold - Wed, 07 May 2014 15:22:25 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193344
I would teach them that nationalism is evil without explaining why, that things like facts and reasoning that oppose equality is evil, rationality is a white man's social construct and only context matters and this justifies hypocrisy, and that society props the dominant group up unjustly and their place in society is unearned.
>>
David Fippergold - Wed, 07 May 2014 15:23:44 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193345
>create a wholly imagined but otherwise mildly believable model of reality with some universal good at the end
>school is there not to facilitate the search for knowledge but to teach what it has to teach
>absolutely block any incoming info that contradicts your POV AND/OR effectively label it as racism to take advantage of the cognitive dissonance; whichever is more viable
>bonus points for implanting so much hostility towards foreign ideas that students will be unlikely to associate with them even by choice
>make "if I can refute it, then it's racist" the default mode of reasoning
>make "if I don't like it, then it's racist" the default mode of priority-setting for academia
>label every bit of info that doesn't fit into the picture as bullshit and hand out failing grades for that. invoke teacher's authority as often as possible, often just to teach the subje...err, students servility
>>
Doris Goodville - Wed, 07 May 2014 16:32:54 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193373 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193372
This works, too.

Before anyone else misses the point, I drew a comparison between the way commies taught people and the Religious Right did, which apparently stung some of the egos around here (bonus points for that, I guess). I did that intentionally; my point was, when you look really closely, EVERY dumb-them-down-and-implant-the-bullshit tactic looks pretty much the same, with relatively minor differences (nevertheless, commies did it first on such an overarching scale, so the credit should go to them, methinks). Be it communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism or flippant pseudo-democracy.
>>
Jarvis Fobbledark - Thu, 08 May 2014 00:25:46 EST ID:iczj302x No.193378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193372

>make "if I can refute it, then it's racist" the default mode of reasoning
>make "if I don't like it, then it's racist" the default mode of priority-setting for academia
>label every bit of info that doesn't fit into the picture as bullshit and hand out failing grades for that. invoke teacher's authority as often as possible, often just to teach the subje...err, students servility

Fuck yeah!

You know the KGB invented political correctness in America.


Would Like a Review of Some Writing by Anonymous Coward - Tue, 06 May 2014 05:40:19 EST ID:x+LKkpFL No.193355 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399369219754.jpg -(357319 B, 1280x853) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 357319
I have been doing some philosophical writing lately and I was hoping someone would read it and tell me what they think. I'm a little embarrassed because I'm scared it may be sophomoric, but if so I'd really like someone to point me in a direction to do some reading and hopefully I'll learn something.

Here's a picture I took of Everest on my travels. Thank you -p
>>
Hamilton Clabbernan - Wed, 07 May 2014 07:01:49 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193355

post it bruh

unless you're worried somebody here is gonna plagiarize your sophomoric writing
>>
Cedric Humblestire - Sun, 11 May 2014 19:37:56 EST ID:12z3VheC No.193433 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm just going to borrow your thread, OP, and ask the fair /pss/ denizens how would one go about publishing a philosophical text or texts? I mean in print, of course, anyone can publish digital these days.


Control of people through text message/email messages by Fanny Bibbledale - Mon, 05 May 2014 19:53:44 EST ID:1rTkGYFj No.193349 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399334024204.jpg -(847219 B, 849x565) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 847219
Have you ever texted someone and they didn't respond at all? Do you ever text them again or wait for them to respond (they might but wait until a few days later to get back to you).

So I have always had trouble with women in regard to keeping them interested but I made a note to not always respond immediately after or if they do not respond to a text of mine I will wait doubly long to contact them back. Usually after a few days of radio silence I will get back to them and they stop doing the waiting game thing only to get back to me right away this time. That's it I'm not sure if it's a game, or if this person is legitimately busy. I do understand sometimes you can't exactly get back to someone right away and you forget to text them. I've rarely been in a position where I can't take a break away from what I'm doing and get back to someone like if I weren't at work or whatever. So it is only in my understanding that there is some sort of game to it as I have personally seen a change in how women are towards me after ignoring them for awhile. It really makes me despise this way of communication and I see why some people only say to text if you're trying to meet up. I only do this with women that I am interested in, not just anyone.

Anyone have any input or agree with what I'm trying to get at here?
>>
Betsy Punderspear - Mon, 05 May 2014 21:55:03 EST ID:eVA7lDVL No.193350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I do realize some people take it seriously but I can't. It's just short messages, if you wanted to have a conversation and I don't respond back within an hour or 2 or till the next day because I'm high well fuck, you should've just called then.
it's kind of over-the-corner way of communication, somehow meant to keep you safe or have control in a potentially fragile situation so you kind of go 'under' your insecurities.
scarcity brings value anyways, just call people
>>
Angus Buzzshit - Wed, 07 May 2014 04:54:05 EST ID:1+z1I/+g No.193362 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193349
I hate texting, but there is definitely a way to deal with your problem. Don't let it bother you and don't respond super quickly if it is a girl that you are interested in the you are trying to "talk" to, if you know what I mean. The longest I will let a text sit there, unless I forget, is an hour or two before responding. If the person is responding quickly or I'm not doing anything at the moment I will respond quickly and it usually is the same on their end.
If you are worried about them controlling you in the aspect of you're on their time and waiting on their responses. Stop responding or initiating the conversation. That way you can see where they're really at depending on how they react.

I totally know what you mean though. I hate texting and it allows people to deal with their problems or life or others easier. Makes people cowards in my opinion.

But if I need to get shit done or just do not wanna wait, I will still call people.


what the does that mean south african coloureds are white too? by Netjester - Mon, 05 May 2014 23:56:25 EST ID:J5UA724O No.193353 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399348585654.jpg -(4420 B, 200x145) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 4420
>what the does that mean south african coloureds are white too?
>>
Cedric Hublingwill - Tue, 06 May 2014 14:25:46 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.193359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i am become op, destroyer of semantics and prince of nerf
>>
George Fuzzlehood - Wed, 07 May 2014 02:05:36 EST ID:QlPy4/q5 No.193360 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193353
Cancer!
>>
Martin Grimfield - Wed, 07 May 2014 08:08:32 EST ID:KHq6GlIc No.193366 Ignore Report Quick Reply
whay dath it meen inderd


You are it by Lillian Giffingfuck - Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:44:50 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.192845 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1397360690281.jpg -(104034 B, 600x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 104034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcPWU59Luoc
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Clongerket - Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:10:35 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.192967 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>192947
>>192946
Argumentum ad populum.

Just because a lot of people are saying something, doesn't mean it's true.
>>
Edward Gummershit - Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:33:46 EST ID:fRaj+9qF No.192987 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Watts had an amazing intellect infused with a truly remarkable gift with language. His work is considered to be one of the most important factors of bridging the gap between eastern and western philosophy. His lectures and books are ripe with intuitive spiritual truths that are going to survive far into the future. Also, Bruce Lee was a massive fan of Alan Watts, which I think is pretty cool.

The notion of God as energy should not fall under 'unsupported claim'. We know that the entire universe is one intricate and possibly infinite web of interlocking energy. If we take the term 'God' to mean 'all that is, was and ever will be', then surely we can indeed say that God = energy.

You are all separate yet intrinsically united manifestations of this energy that is all that is, was and ever will be.
>>
Cornelius Wicklekudging - Sat, 03 May 2014 00:34:31 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.193318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>192845
this is what i made up when i was 16 (but i made less inconsistencies because i had no pleb audience); but now i'm cool, edgy, and chill
>>
Simon Dandletire - Mon, 05 May 2014 04:20:24 EST ID:KHq6GlIc No.193338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>192845

Be that as it may, the mental suffering never ends and that idea is only fooling the brain into thinking that you're somehow special and have the power to do things. Reality is far from that and that's why society is how it is today.
>>
James Sovinggold - Mon, 05 May 2014 16:17:03 EST ID:d1wkdiSv No.193347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>192946
I'm not going to deny any truth behind this statement as I can relate personal experiences to this sentiment. However this is still an opinion not qualitative evidence to support a claim we, as mere mortals cannot support with quantitative data and it also remains disputable. I have held conversations with several characters and also reflected with those who seek to overcome the insufferable power of de;ath and live forever in this reality; the reality that they perceive within the ether: This is a hardly a lesser spiritual concept to taking shit loads of psychs and feeling one with the world.


What will you yearn for at your last lucid moment of consciousness by Fanny Hummlewater - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:16:52 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.193131 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398647812896.jpg -(24581 B, 550x306) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24581
Share
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cyril Blackbanks - Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:54:42 EST ID:tfECjuoE No.193149 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe I'd yearn for more lucidity?
>>
Ian Clummlestutch - Thu, 01 May 2014 10:58:57 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193131

>I hope this last opiate dream is magical
>>
Cornelius Wicklekudging - Sat, 03 May 2014 00:04:50 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.193316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
a medkit
>>
Angus Blythewater - Sun, 04 May 2014 10:15:40 EST ID:yNISUXSh No.193335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In my last moment, I would calmly light up a blunt, softly arise to my feet, Lift my chin.

Then run around like a headless chicken. Cause fuck you jolly african-american I don't want to die.
>>
Thomas Clirryhatch - Mon, 05 May 2014 01:27:46 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.193337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I will yearn for the third Protomen album.


Just a thought I had... by Eugene Mappergold - Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:42:17 EST ID:0c0kgh2X No.193080 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398476537777.png -(18198 B, 264x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 18198
Not sure if this is the right board for this but here goes...

If somehow everyone in the US all believed that 9/11 was indeed orchestrated by the government, what would happen?
Quite a bit of people I know [Canadian] believe it.
But... What exactly would change? Anything?
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Syn !ryBONGJej. - Sat, 03 May 2014 14:06:23 EST ID:4c7c5FOC No.193327 Report Quick Reply
Well, contrary to popular belief, which is completely warranted. We in the US are not ALL fucktards.
>>
Hamarchy - Sat, 03 May 2014 18:15:59 EST ID:YYd1+/Wq No.193328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193080
>If somehow everyone in the US all believed that 9/11 was indeed orchestrated by the government, what would happen?
Absolutely, positively, FUCK ALL
It already happened and they already got what they wanted, its over. The rich can buy themselves out of trouble and that's just how it is. If you need more proof, lets ask Ethan Couch, aka THE TEENAGER WHO KILLED TWO PEOPLE AND GOT AWAY WITH IT or Robert H. Richards IV, aka THE GUY WHO RAPED HIS BABY DAUGHTER AND GOT AWAY WITH IT or Kacey Anthony or Zimmerman or Barbara Bush or George Bush Sr. or George Bush Jr or...
>>
Wesley Buzzwell - Sat, 03 May 2014 18:27:25 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193327
Depending on who you ask, the stereotypes will vary, sometimes hillariously so. As far as I can tell, in most of the former combloc european countries it used to be widespread to imagine the US as a country populated with J.R. Ewing clones, gun-toting Elvis impersonators, and cocaine-fueled stock brokers (ain't hard to guess which products of American culture were the first to gain ground behind the Iron Curtain to be promptly confused with reality). Worh noting that anything that could be even remotely linked to the US was coveted and sought after as a status symbol, even if it served no fucking function. National stereotypes are funny like that.

In loose connection to the topic: American conspiracy theories are the most widespread ones, but are certainly not the most striking. Ever wondered how they'd look like if half of US gubmint top honchos died in a plane crash occuring over the territory belonging to a country you fought with for the larger part of ever, while trying to land in order to be present at a ceremony commemorating aforementioned country's soldier executing half of the government 70 years ago? Wonder no more: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/04/2013410113411207111.html

Now that's what I call a radical example. Why wonder how it'd be like if most of the US populace believed they'd been gravely deceived and affronted where you can find a country where the scenario had just played out.
>>
Lillian Mummerwell - Sat, 03 May 2014 19:16:37 EST ID:Zqpr8g7a No.193331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399158997016.png -(660461 B, 1280x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 660461
This seems like the right place to put this.
>>
Lillian Mummerwell - Sat, 03 May 2014 19:17:35 EST ID:Zqpr8g7a No.193332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399159055016.png -(288490 B, 1280x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 288490
This seems like the right place to put this.

http://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/have-a-sane-perception-of-conspiracy-theories/


mental strength by Cornelius Dartbury - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 22:13:15 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.193110 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398564795912.jpg -(418191 B, 1512x1512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 418191
This is probably the most appropriate board to ask this, but how do you become mentally strong?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Charles Bremmerbury - Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:46:17 EST ID:z+d9UZyr No.193158 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193130

stupid.
>>
Ian Bunwill - Thu, 01 May 2014 00:01:40 EST ID:jgUq9TXB No.193217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I try to understand every situation to the best of my ability. Knowledge is confidence. Confidence is strength.
>>
Eugene Seddlestud - Fri, 02 May 2014 23:14:21 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.193313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193111
I don't see how you could draw that conclusion at all, when I disagree with absolutely everything in your post. If you see any similarities between our posts, then you must have meant to convey something which you failed to convey.
>>
Fanny Mallerham - Sat, 03 May 2014 01:07:21 EST ID:AuxujMuC No.193319 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How do you become mentally weak? is the reverse-answer to this question. What is "strong" and what is "weak"? What are you actually asking, or is the question just empty? Sometimes we ask empty questions without even realizing it, we attach significance to a certain way of thinking ("strongness", "weakness"), but they are, like, just subjective as hell.
>>
Angus Buzzshit - Wed, 07 May 2014 04:56:13 EST ID:1+z1I/+g No.193363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193110
Mentally strong in what aspect and context?


the opposite by Phoebe Gecklelick - Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:31:54 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.193034 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398274314845.jpg -(19099 B, 265x265) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 19099
Isn't zen the complete opposite of philosophizing?

One requires to think and the other requires to be thoughtless.
11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Suggleshaw - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 15:59:55 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193094
>Google it?
I ask because I want an insider's perspective. Dry definitions mean nothing to me in this case.
>>
Simon Cunningsere - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:57:55 EST ID:JNRmwY9n No.193100 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193094

>Anyway, the ethics are fairly standard: don't kill, rape, lie, steal, cheat etc. Also don't do drugs.

What about killing in self-defense?

What about punitive rape for rapists?

What about lying to save someone's life?

What about stealing to feed yourself if you'd otherwise starve?

What about cheating someone who just cheated you?

And what about amphetamine, caffeine, and other drugs that don't cause inebriation in small doses?
>>
Nicholas Dartman - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:03:46 EST ID:tfECjuoE No.193101 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1398546226492.jpg -(202645 B, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 202645
>>193100
>What about punitive rape for rapists?
>>
Alice Cloblingwitch - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:24:39 EST ID:tr9La7Bc No.193104 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193100

These moral conundrums don't have a lot of weight in this environment. It's generally accepted that nobody can uphold the precepts without flaw, but we try to do our best. For serious offenses there's always repentance.

I still don't understand the point of punitive rape. And drinking but avoiding intoxication is rather normal. Heck, drinking to the point of reckless intoxication isn't that uncommon among historical Zen monks.

The only one on there that I can give a definite answer on is the cheating. To cheat in retaliation is a waste of time and energy.
>>
Cornelius Wicklekudging - Sat, 03 May 2014 00:17:15 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.193317 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399090635014.jpg -(49634 B, 1008x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 49634
the more buddhist or zen I try to be or think or not think and then type, the less text happens.
i suspect that when i am zen or buddhist enough, i do something else... or at least not answer to the thread


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