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


Global left and right by Henry Mallytud - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:51:43 EST ID:vJKc3YFi No.198348 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423306303327.jpg -(417037 B, 2364x1747) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 417037
The political definition of left and right is very different in every country, is there a GLOBAL definition of political left and right, accepted by all countries?
9 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eugene Tillingforth - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:03:56 EST ID:zCM18ONs No.198417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198402
Conservatism and progressivism mean different things in different parts of the world.
>>
Eliza Geffingstone - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:17:51 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198417
yes to political parties but you can all narrow them down into the philosophical definitions that are objective in academia petty social issue distractions aside
>>
Ernest Cocklestack - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:20:14 EST ID:Xx5xWZwg No.198548 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198348
The concepts of "left", "right", "conservative", "liberal", "independent", etc.. all need to die to make way for "needs". This really it should have already happened, but unfortunately might not happen for a while, until most people come around to this idea.

In a world where there is sustainable energy, enough food, enough shelter, enough clean water, and enough jobs, the only thing we will need to focus on are the needs of the citizens of earth. The very notion of a liberal policy or a conservative policy goes out the window once everyone has their basic needs met without needing to exert themselves. And this /is/ possible, we can grow enough food, we can purify enough water, and we can build enough shelters - what we have right now are hording mentalities and distribution problems.

What is left after that? Profit? If everyone has their needs taken care of without being bum-fuck broke, the 99% vs 1% of wealth becomes irrelevant even if it were still in place. More likely, what is left after the humans on earth have agreed to prioritize human needs, will be art, sport, fun in general.

Because why not? Why would you need to invade a country for their oil if you have switched to an alternative, renewable energy source? Why would you need to funnel infinite money into black ops and military growth, if every person has their needs met and does not need to take them from other people? Why would you need to decide how food stamps and welfare are distributed if there is no longer a need for them?

The global definition of "right" is "opposite to the left" and the global definition of "left" is "opposite to the right". They only exist so long as the other exists, ad infinitum. They aren't inherent aspects of human thinking, they are hacky exploits to keep the world running in hording/tribe mode, to further the agendas of individuals rather than all humans.

Of course all of this depends on humans sort of evolving to be less selfish... which, yeah, may take the near complete destruction of the only planet which we inhabit. But I think that anyone who believes we are going to actually blo…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Hedda Drunkincocke - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:07:18 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198548
can we ever come around to it, as long as people can make people look like they are inconsistent or not commited to an ideology if whatever they do doesn't match up with every argument they've made in a consistent manner. Any time they contradict themselves as a political leader or representative which they will because our needs will contradict. They can be made to look weak or not "stand" for anything. Any time we have the argument of "well that's not what you were saying then" we will face trouble in this.
>>
Nigel Wondersidge - Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:31:50 EST ID:EvuQpjex No.198612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198417

i dont think this needs to be repeated over and over eugene, it doesnt invalidate anything he said.

special fucking snowflakes everywhere. irrelevant, lets break shit down to how it really is and not squabble semantics.


Following the path pointed out by the wise by Ian Bellyshit - Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:29:58 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198100 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422743398973.jpg -(143168 B, 650x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 143168
A little philosophy leads one to Atheism; a great deal of philosophy leads one to God.
73 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Doris Cuckletine - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:45:23 EST ID:mtJ8GWXD No.198235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198232
I get it now. I think.

That's why Abraham was prepared to kill Isaac.
>>
Vincent Blaze - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:42:32 EST ID:GWE1IHrg No.198465 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1423680152787.jpg -(320109 B, 1920x1378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 320109
OP,
You are most correct!
HOWEVER
The "God" that philosophy will eventually reveal at the bottom of the glass, is not a magical, mystical out there being, controlling, and watching the earth. Definitely not the God of the bible.

God exists as the connection of life that we know of. We as human have the capacity to love stronger than any other creature because we can reason and question why. Some say "God is Love", whether or not it is factually true, would it be bad to just believe in it? Treat the things you love, equal to how you think a god or goddess would like to be treated. We prefer to avoid thinking out loud in public, as if we are some sort of deity, because BAM! [psychotic stamp] but I believe, that since we as individuals are able to take 100% control of our own lives, we are each a god or goddess in some small form.

Also think about the male and female relation in the form of deities:
Male- God of Energy
Female- Goddess of Life
Funny enough, time can be considered a form of energy since it can be gained or lost.
[Father Time]
[Mother Earth]

There are only two logical reasons I know of, for any hoopla about any supernatural occurances that someone claims is 1) actual alien contact (universe is vast there is definitely life out there) and 2)they fucking lyiiiin.
>>
Nicholas Bundlewill - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:22:42 EST ID:10eS65U3 No.198473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198116
This is from an old quote in one of plato's writings. The text written here is directed towards socrates from one of his homies
>>
Lillian Fasslesture - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:43:32 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198473
>>This is from an old quote in one of plato's writings.
correct
>>The text written here is directed towards socrates from one of his homies
Incorrect.
>>
Lillian Fasslesture - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:47:05 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198465
I imagined Love as this intermediate between Man and the Divine.
Love itself by itself does not seem to be God itself.
Though it seems that way to me.
God is something separate from Love, but is certainly the most loving.


Go Cry Emo Kid by Alice Sindlepud - Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:44:37 EST ID:vavHm2X4 No.198252 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422992677004.gif -(76788 B, 580x435) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76788
How did emotion evolve? What will it evolve into?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
David Bunman - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 00:25:47 EST ID:7S3xmEyn No.198364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198363
>However, did you know that serotonin is also used by the nerves in your stomach to regulate hunger as well
Next time you take lsd look out for the blood pressure effects and the strange nausea symptoms- receptor affinity in action. I think it's pretty nifty. nb cause tangent
>>
Eliza Geffingstone - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:55:05 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198406 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My gf made me have an ephiphany

>emotions were developed to maintain a relationship with others in a time where humans were evolving and needed others to surivive

I think that was already touched on, but lets just agree (or later find flaws in) it is part of the reward system for survival?

can we try our best at a group effort thread, ITLL BE SO FUN LETS PLAY NICE PLEASE
>>
Eliza Geffingstone - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:56:35 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198364
last time I took acid I lifted weights and I almost free floating in space pushing the gravity of the sun away with my legs and flying into the astral plane
my friend described it as lifting in his garage, doing 1 rep, dropping the weight off my back then standing there with a Jesus stance for almost an hour
nb
>>
Ebenezer Hittingkuck - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:47:05 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.198449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198406
Who wasn't playing nice?
Was it me in my posts about the reward system?

Cuz I had no ill intentions, I am just a neuroscience researcher, I am very passionate about it and that's just how I talk.

Though in regards to your post:
>emotions were developed to maintain a relationship with others in a time where humans were evolving and needed others to surivive
That's probably somewhat correct, but since this isn't a neuroscience debate and I don't want to totally derail the thread, its correct enough.

And that would be part of the reward system, like a branch is a part of a tree. But there are many branches. You are onto something though.
>>
Edward Turveyworth - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:22:06 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198449
No I was just saying that to keep it this way
s'all good


Delusions by Ian Chedgesotch - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 06:04:36 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.198130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422788676026.jpg -(373026 B, 1024x856) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 373026
How long before religious belief is understood and accepted to be a delusion by doctors? If I had to guess, I would say about 20 years. That means within our lifetime we may start seeing religious belief being a mental disorder in the future DSM or whatever is used in the future.

I guess 20 years is a bit sooner than it would be. I can see a lot of issues within the medical community accepting this as a genuine mental disorder because of the social climate and the pursuing controversy - China is already ahead in that they recognize religion as a mental health concern... but the USA, for example is another story.
28 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Wesley Chushkedging - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:10:26 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198281 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198273
i see what you are getting at, while i believe more things than we think are religious in nature to us. I see how a very powerful religion leads to problems.

I experience conflict with any belief i gain but not all the time. not even before a certain period in my life.

It would be harder to accept the confusion that comes along with any faith that you have taken in anything or made out of anything. Including other people. Its already a trying experience, one where the conclusion is a mystery. Its best not to have everybody around messing with any of that, its like using guilt, and suspicion and refusal to confront the experience or even deal with it indirectly but rather just shut it down or push it out.

Everybody seems to be going on a searching period. You seemed to describe that yourself. I went on this myself, never really made it out, completely. It's more like floating, its a constant process.

I also in someways stalled out and others, made progress. definitely did also have an interesting experience with devout missionairies similar to jevhovahs witnesses, however interesting they were they wanted commitment from me immediately when i told them up front i felt a prexisting hesitation or disconnect about the whole thing. That made me think the conversation was over and the needed the jump to be made. If i was ever going to get to that place i needed the conversation.

In a way i was to needy, and needed beliefs and emotions to be validated, and they were just like no, do this. We need you to do this. I couldn't understand why so i was hesistant.
>>
Beatrice Nollyperk - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:26:31 EST ID:kBbQD0Gr No.198432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know practicing Hindus who would laugh at this OP.
If you asked them "do you really think your god is real" they'd 'av a giggle cause you gotta realize their "gods" like Shiva and Vishnu are just images like you and I are. This is their philosophy, of course.
Brahman is simply giving off images, including those deities, they're just manifestations that represent things like creation and destruction.
It's a really different point of view, it's not religion in the Christian sense at all.

(also the only possible rational argument for being ethical is that you reap what you sow and that requires reincarnation because not everyone gets what they deserve in the same lifetime but that's just my opinion man)
>>
Ian Goodridge - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:40:04 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.198450 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198272

No, it wasn't rhetorical. Why are you speaking for me?

I asked because I think the mindset the original post exemplifies is just tired and played out. People in the western world conflating all of religion and religious experience with the Establishment Christianity that tries to make them feel bad for having sex before marriage and make them hate gays, rejecting it like any half-thinking person would, and thinking that this is somehow a major intellectual achievement. Then they go around clubbing people over the head with their Logic and Rationality and Science, which are really just their tools for masturbating their ego and feeling superior to the stupid plebs who can't ~*face reality*~

Congrats, god is dead. The Earth isn't 6000 years old. There's no evidence that asuras and devas actually exist. No shit sherlock. That's not even the point anyway. That doesn't mean that there's nothing of value in the social teaching of Jesus and more reasonable Christians, or the Hindu worldview as someone else pointed out, or the words of Dogen or Chuang Tzu or Ramana Maharshi or Anthony de Mello or Peter Maurin or or or or or or or.

To dismiss the inclination towards things greater than the individual self, or the will to awe, or however you want to describe the indescribable, as mental illness, is just silly. Suggesting that the vast majority of the human race throughout history has been MENTALLY DISABLED seems kind of unlikely. It's ridiculous on its face, and it reeks of schoolyard mentality masked with pseudointellectual Smug. Or in the case of China, it reeks of authoritarian social engineering. Glad to know OP is keen on that sort of thing, I guess?

OP is dismissing very complex schools of thought with real world implications with a flick of his wrist. It becomes even more absurd when you realize that people like the OP tend to do the same thing, except instead of being in awe of Christ or the Buddha or the Great Spirit, they're in awe of the Forward March of Humanity or Technology or Knowledge or The Nation, which are just as much idols as anything else.

Sorry you had to go through what you did OP. Most of that rant isn't directed explicitl…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ian Goodridge - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:45:19 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.198451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198450

Though my original question was obnoxious and condescending and contributed nothing of substance to the thread, so I take it back. My apologies. I'm sure OP is a fine person.
>>
Lillian Fasslesture - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:50:37 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198451
You are a kind soul.


Fun with Old religion by Albert Boblinghood - Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:52:42 EST ID:xuZ3tZ56 No.194325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402627962387.jpg -(193949 B, 904x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 193949
DAEVAS (HINDU GODS)
Known Members: Aditi (Gaea), Brahma (god of creation), Ganesh (god of wisdom), Indra, Kâli (god of destruction), Maya (god of illusions), Ratri (goddess of night), Shiva (god of destruction & transformation), Vishnu (god of heaven & preservation), Yama (god of death)

^ The only of these from the following really still worshipped on earth .
32 posts and 22 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Lightfoot - Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:27:18 EST ID:kWlZmuQS No.195182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194663

Good, I can agree with that. It would be like calling Archangel Michael or the animal-headed servants of Yahweh "monsters".

Hindus/Indians have consistently been ridiculed in western culture. Steven Spielberg showing the Indian guy eating the monkey brains was just the tip of the iceberg. Personally I think the actor who portrayed that man should be ashamed of himself for disrespecting his own culture by playing into a canard.

Indian people don't eat monkey brains.
>>
Alice Bannerstock - Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:20:02 EST ID:BjzYRVcz No.195870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Besides the hindus the neopagans in Europe and America can revive this in modern society. Which brings the question then polytheism maybe doesn't have a place in modern society ?
>>
Hamilton Goodshaw - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:09:08 EST ID:bQCB/kxX No.198445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194327
This one has many indiscrepancies. Yazata's are lesser than God's and are eminations of the 6 divine sparks (Amesha Spentas). All of these being the divine aspects of Mazda which is supreme. Amertat, Shahrivar/Kshathra Vairya, Vohu, Atar/Asha, and Haurvatat, are all Amesha Spentas and several of their attributes are misleadingly labeled here.

Yazatas are minor gods, Atar, and Mitra are the only Yazatas on that list. Other Yazatas include the primordial Ox and spirit of animal life Geush-Urvan, Verethragna the god of victory, Ashi god of luck, tha Faravashi guardians of the soul, Vata the god of space and proportion, and many others.

And it's blasphemous to describe Ahriman as a God. Ahriman is the Lie, an enemy of God which does not exist and yet does paradoxically.
>>
Hamilton Goodshaw - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:11:07 EST ID:bQCB/kxX No.198446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198445
holy shit, I had no idea how old this thread was, my bad. Random Thread button's crazy.

nb
>>
Hamilton Goodshaw - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:19:06 EST ID:bQCB/kxX No.198447 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198445
Correction, Atar is actually Yazata of fire. Asha is Spenta of Truth. and Armaiti is Spenta of devotion and earth.


Sam Harris by Nathaniel Worthingwell - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:37:59 EST ID:zPp9d3s6 No.198276 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423107479579.jpg -(3904 B, 200x251) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3904
So I've found myself agreeing with Sam Harris on many points, and am rereading his Waking Up right now because it seems like one of the better rational sources of information related to meditation.

Apparently a lot of the internet doesn't like Sam, thinks he is a hack, thinks his idea that science can address moral issues is complete bullshit.

What is this boards opinion of him? Also, can we keep it civil please, even if you really don't like the guy? Thanks.
52 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jenny Shakeville - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:24:54 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198419 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
>*define happiness

nb
>>
Jenny Shakeville - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:25:55 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
also
>discussion of morality

nb

fuck my typing
>>
Reuben Dommlekan - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:47:48 EST ID:gqVFybCs No.198421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
>You're basically asking, "does happiness exist?" I'd say it obviously does, and there's nothing useful to be gained from attempting to deine happiness in such a way that it isn't a real thing
This is a strange argument coming from the camp that defines free will as nonexistent.

I recognize that happiness exists, but it is very subjective.

>At the very least, you have to concede that happiness and suffering are far more quantifiable than good and evil.
Not really. You run into the same problems of differing philosophies and inter-subjectivity.

A stoic will have different ideas of true happiness than an epicurean, and they would both have different ideals of happiness than a Buddhist monk or an axe murderer. I would wager that fMRI scans of those people in happy states would all look very different. The hormones they experience in a happy state would be different. The reason is that "happiness" has a large socially-defined component. It depends on the worldview of the person.

A catholic can pseudo-quantify good/evil in terms of venial or mortal sins, and the different prayers and sacraments. A Buddhist can quantify good/evil in terms of lack of desire, or suffering. A They can quantify all they want, but it doesn't make their measurements universally true.
>>
Albert Gabbersen - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:22:43 EST ID:jKeP5C9F No.198422 Ignore Report Quick Reply
SUDDENLY THE UTILITY MONSTER APPEARS AND TAKES GREAT PLEASURE IN THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS
>>
Lillian Fasslesture - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:54 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198419
the ends by which is achieved through virtuous activity.


Education by Martha Turveyforth - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 17:06:36 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198357 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423346796292.jpg -(29100 B, 600x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 29100
So I just came up with this idea and I'm wondering what you guys think of it. Let's assume that in a distance future I have enough (/a lot of) money to hire a bunch of people (20/30) people, for a couple of years.

An arbitrary amount, let's assume half, consists out of great teachers/ technicians/ video editors/etc. And the other half consists out of very talented (top notch) students, who will get their education paid for (in Europe: let's say about 2000 Euro per year), a laptop, some other stuff and a big enough salary to live on.

Let's say all these students do the same study (computer science/maths/chemistry/whatever) but do so at different universities. Now the thing I expect from these students (as a return for their free study and salary) is that they work together to create cheap/accessible/awesome study material. Study material in the form of videos/website/notes. This stuff preferably has to become better and more accessible than stuff like coursera and khan academy. With a big added bonus of documenting a complete university level bachelor and master.

The ultimate goal of this is to create an accessible source, from which one could completely get on the same level of education as doing a university study. Preferably all this material is free. I could perhaps get some money back through funds, donations and additional purchasable material (private lessons/advice/etc), maybe even in different ways (but without severely suppressing the accessibility). The main goal of this project is not to monetize, but to bring cheap/free education, breaking even in some way would be nice though.

This material could be helpful to both people enrolled in a university and people who are not and just want to increase their knowledge. If it becomes a success, we could start expending and documenting more university courses. Eventually you create one big source from where you can learn almost anything. All the material will probably be in English btw.

What do you guys think?
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:40:16 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198358 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198357
So a non-profit organization that makes higher-education free?

I think there are certain legal stipulations involved with making school programs accessible through the public domain.

Aside from that, I'm totally for this idea. Let's make this happen.


what does this quote mean, especially in the context of zizek? by Thomas Bunfuck - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:30:02 EST ID:cS9mqAho No.198338 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423276202078.jpg -(85043 B, 640x431) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85043
Zizek uses this quote a lot. Robespierre said "(A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. [this part if often omitted]) Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains.". When Slavoj Zizek mentions this quote, it's without any explanation. What does this mean? Especially if you know what it means in the context of his writing; it seems he applies this quote in the way same to multiple books of his.
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:54:40 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198338
So it seems to be that Zizek is saying through that quote: Liberty is to be favored over security; Freedom over freedom with exceptions.

>>"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me."
A man that cries for those that are against freedom is a suspicious man.
Why would a man that is free be concerned for those that hate his freedom?
Why ought he be ALMOST entirely concerned with those that are tyrants?

>>"Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face,"
Don't remind me of the tyrant's death -- Julius Caesar, the tyrant.
As one with freedom, as one that values personal liberty, I care not for those that share values unlike mine.

>>", or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains."
If you continue to remind me, to tell me, constantly of the death of the tyrannical, I will think you are a man that shares their sentiment. I will find you to be someone that is just like them, in their hatred and opposition.
One that seeks to put all the citizens of his or her great fatherland in captivity, one that seeks to restrain for the sake of security.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:17:41 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.198342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Robespierre is referring to Marc Antony's address to the Roman public following the assassination of Julius Ceasar. He distracted the public from Brutus and his conspirators' intentions of restoring the republic, by presenting Ceasar's bloody robe to them. With Brutus effectively painted as a villain, Rome remained more or less a triumvirate dictatorship lead by Antony, Octavian and Lepidus.

This is somewhat similar to Robespierre's role in the French revolution. Following the downfall of the aristocracy there was significant internal culling of dissidence to maintain the rank and file, known as the Reign of Terror. Robespierre vehemently defended the necessity of terror, but it eventually fomented to a level which did not sit well with his contemporary. As the head of the Committee of Public Safety, he was used as a scapegoat, and sentenced to death.

This quote suggests that his accusers are simply using the face value of his actions to obscure the justifiable motivations.

i had no idea what Zizek means with it.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:57:31 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.198343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198341

>So it seems to be that Zizek is saying through that quote: Liberty is to be favored over security; Freedom over freedom with exceptions.

i don't think so, or if he is, Robespierre strikes me as the least appropriate means to that end. Robespierre's actions would better depict the opposite. He fought to ensure the security of the republic at the expense of individual liberties, and this can be characterized by the extreme measures of the Reign of Terror, going so far as to execute dissidents without trial for even the hint of discontent with the new regime.

>"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me."

Robespierre's accusers were co-conspirators, not Crown sympathizers. The important historical context is that he /is/ the "enemy of liberty" his contemporaries are wailing over, and that concerning themselves with face value of his actions is, by his intuition, an opportunistic power play. As Antony did to Brutus, paint over the good intentions with gorey details of his actions, and when Brutus is out of the picture, seize power for yourself.

nb for dp
>>
Ian Grandstock - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:28:53 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can someone link me this guys work?
whats it relate to?


The egg andy weir by Alice Cenderfere - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:31:14 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198219 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422909074699.jpg -(361227 B, 648x1920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 361227
Wouldn't it be nice if reality looks something like described in this story? I also don't see a reason why any other belief about reality is more or less legitimate than this story. So due to the lack of any substantial evidence, why wouldn't I belief in the thing that I want to belief in?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martin Shittingfuck - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:33:15 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198234
>>198234
>>"I know logic...How does that make sense?"

Axioms are a priori, and are the result of a posteriori truths, friend.
So it would be wrong to say that "every" logical statement is based upon some axioms -- reason deduced. Rather, at the base of all axioms remain experience, and we accept this experience to be right.
Some logical statements can be based on axioms, like: God is immaterial, and is divine. which itself is derived from: That which is immaterial is unseen, and that which is divine exists elsewhere.


All I am saying is simply: We can make conclusions in a manner such that, reason is derived from reason, but prior to that, reason is firstly derived from experience.
(This is what's known as Kripke's a posteriori necessity.)

If your belief of religion is challenged, and the majority disagree with its implicit a posteriori claim because it does not make evident its deductions, then it would be considered worse in comparison to beliefs like physicalism, scientific materialism, etc.
>>
George Pandlebodge - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:24:02 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198236

First of I appreciate your replies, so thank you.

Though I am very much interested in (theoretical) physics, astronomy, chemistry etc, I must admit that I have not had any higher (/university level) education regarding these topics, but I do know some things about those topics from self-study. Also I do not try to disproof the validity of the current paradigms within these fields. But with my knowledge I have on these matters I would like to address two issues related to my initial post.

First of all, the things we know from those sciences neither disproofs or proofs the story of Andy Weir. From what I know theories on the big bang, dark matter etc, are still fairy speculative and change constantly. For example, what I know about dark matter (or at least a simple version of it) is that some scientist noticed that light from distant galaxies was bent in an odd way, indicating there was likely something in the way. This unexplainable matter was coined "dark" matter, because we know so little about it. Then later some other studies attained some other astronomical findings, for example regarding the formation of galaxies, which were unexplainable by gravity and therefore the scientists explained that there was likely another force from dark matter/dark energy in the equation. Now I do not attempt to argue that these are interesting and useful scientific findings. But I feel like the average self-appointed intellectual quite easily takes these findings as hard, definitive, unchangeable facts, even though in my mind the main findings of these studies is simply that we still have a lot to learn. For it could just as easily turn out that there are hundreds of types of matter/forces that we simply group together as one simple "dark matter"/"dark energy" concept. And there could fairy easily be other types of very important types of matter/energy forces we have not observed at all. The main point being, is that I feel that we sometimes might severely over-estimate our knowledge on important topics, simply because we have made a couple of ambiguous scientific observations.

And secondly, even if we eventually make tremendous progresses in these exact sciences, I fe…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Chuffingbury - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:11:13 EST ID:e5fOiWO3 No.198318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198313
>For it could just as easily turn out that there are hundreds of types of matter/forces that we simply group together as one simple "dark matter"/"dark energy" concept. And there could fairy easily be other types of very important types of matter/energy forces we have not observed at all.

just because something is unknown doesn't mean every explanation is equally likely
>>
Fanny Fanlock - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:42:52 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198318

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Anyhow, so you instantaneously take something as definitive just because someone has made an weird observation and invented the term "dark matter" aka matter I do not understand. Seems a bit shortsighted imo.
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:38:47 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198313
You ought not to thank me. For it would be like a friend thanking a friend for being his friend. It is totally unnecessary, because we should both understand that we appreciate one another.

In regard to your first claim:
>>"I feel that we sometimes might severely over-estimate our knowledge on important topics, simply because we have made a couple of ambiguous scientific observations."

This is why I feel philosophy remains pivotal, even in the technical fields, and deeply relevant to the advancement of our well-being. One should always be aware of how speculative one's theories are, and maintain good judgement so as to not be dogmatic in their beliefs. I completely agree with you.

In regard to your second claim: If it is true that science is primarily tasked with describing reality it will by necessity, only be able to give good descriptions. To some, the scientific "how" is the "why." Because it occurs, it occurs, and no other reason.

I personally believe that careful deduction IS the only way to transcend experience. Pascal for instance, from his comprehensive understanding of water, was able to formulate, by deduction, how air works in such a way that it does; and how air works in relation to water in apertures. He was able to flawlessly depict what was later proven through experimentation by his servant, purely on the basis of careful deduction and an open mind. He skipped, ENTIRELY, the experiential part of handling air and water. That to me, is truly divine.


Logic by Edwin Blytheman - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:39:29 EST ID:6PLphZZr No.198051 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422293969379.png -(106992 B, 297x183) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 106992
I've been getting into philosophy, but so far I've tread lightly (Schopenhauer, Camus, Nietzsche). Now I feel like I should get into logic. Where should I start? What's a good book on philosophical logic for a total doofus? All the ones I found with google were for people who have the basics down (I don't).
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nigger Hobblehood - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:13:21 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198078
>All of philosophy concerns itself with the discerning of right and wrong.
>All of philosophy concerns itself with truth
FTFY
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:08:12 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198264
>>FTFY
I think my claim still stands.
Philosophy can be defined as a myriad of things.
One can say that philosophy is the science of estimating values. For when one is considering what the worth of another life is, one does so through philosophy.
Additionally, philosophy concerns itself with the discernment of superiority and inferiority. As the superiority of any state or substance over another is determined by philosophy. Because it can assign a position of primary importance to what remains when all that is secondary has been removed, philosophy thus can become the index of priority or emphasis in the realm of speculative thought - what is right, and what is wrong; what is good, and what is bad.

In my opinion, the true mission of philosophy a priori is to establish the relation
of manifested things to their invisible ultimate cause or nature.

Philosophy to other philosophers as outlined by Sir William Hamilton:
"Philosophy has been defined [as]: "The science of things divine and human, and of the causes in which they are contained." - Cicero; "The science of effects by their causes." - Hobbes; "The science of sufficient reasons" - Leibnitz; "The science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible." - Wolf; "The science of things evidently deduced from first principles." - Descartes; "The science of truths, sensible and abstract." - de Condillac; "The application of reason to its legitimate objects." - Tennemann; "The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason." - Kant; "The science of the original form of the ego or mental self." - Krug; "The science of sciences." - Fichte; "The science of the absolute." - von Schelling; "The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal and real." - von Schelling – or, "The identity of identity and non-identity." - Hegel.
>>
Nigger Hobblehood - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:51:29 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198307 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198271
right in wrong implies there is a right or wrong to discover
there could be a reality where neither exist and we don't know.
Some people define it as simply the first step of scientific discovery, taking something you take for granted in terms of logical thinking and then reevaluate it.

I agree with you, I was plugging my view of phlos and raising the statement I started with
>>
Frederick Worthinghood - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:35:32 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198307
I mean, doesn't truth fall into right or wrong, or neither, in any given situation?
They say that you question something, and when you are left with no leads, you are in a state where you must question all of the processes and mechanisms, every variable and disregard preconventional held beliefs.
Once you delve deeper into these questions and start gathering objective data, you could then easily be categorized by another scientific field.
The point is, philos is the root of all sciences, ya feel
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:11:45 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198307
Right and wrong are to be thought of as directional gauges. Like when someone says you're getting "hotter" or "colder" when looking for something.

There is nothing right or wrong in itself to discover, but there remains something right in relation to something else: what is good and what is bad.

Right and wrong are better understood in relation to pleasure.

For example -
A happy life must include pleasure, and therefore pleasure is by its nature not bad. There are other pleasures besides those of the senses, and the best pleasures are the ones experienced by virtuous people who have sufficient resources for excellent activity.

And so it can be said that the best pleasures experienced by the virtuous are the "right" pleasures, and the pleasures experienced by those that practice vice are the "wrong."

Though pleasure derived by those who practice vice, say for instance, from an enjoyment of "feel good music" isn't itself a bad thing.

It can be enjoyed because: Vice practitioner: "It makes me move my body in weird ways; it makes me shake myself. I like that."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Jung by Alice Clibbertat - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 20:28:50 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.198183 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422840530608.jpg -(40953 B, 533x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 40953
What do people think of Jung nowadays? He seems worth looking into from what I've heard/read.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Molly Fuckingwell - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:12:11 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
he's the man, will take you on a journey
>>
Henry Genderlot - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:59:34 EST ID:/I8deqLU No.198213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Seems like a faggot that couldn't let go of magic.
>>
Clara Grandbanks - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:24 EST ID:6fn2/8K2 No.198217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198183
The typology system is still applicable and has no real weaknesses or blind spots. Well, I guess it makes it difficult to diagnose a psychopath, but there are other systems to do that. You don't have to pick just one.
>>
Ernest Hebblehall - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:17:48 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198213
he did he let go of most things outside of science.

Until one day.....

Go read the red book
>>
Alice Murdbury - Tue, 03 Feb 2015 04:58:40 EST ID:b1TacAuc No.198238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pseudoscience.


Capitalism by Hedda Pushpedging - Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:28:24 EST ID:4LkM4Gbl No.197733 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1421101704295.jpg -(45151 B, 481x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45151
Many cultures and economic systems didn't last that long the past hundred years.
Now we have capitalism since already over 100 hundered years in the western world as it exists today but it feels like it won't last that much longer anymore considering all the shit thats been going on the past years like recession of 2008, the euro crisis, currencies are dropping, all western countries are in huge depth and capitalism needs infintie growth to secure prosperity (which obviously not possible)
now on the other hand china is on the rise and other countries along with it are getting more important
how much longer do you think wil capitalism still exist?
33 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
George Fingermit - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:26:06 EST ID:mDPHx73Y No.198129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197775
>Scarcity is only an issue now because capitalism is completely shit at making use of resources.
>>197766
>Capitalism [,,,] is a great system for making use of scarce resources


I don't know what to believe anymore.
>>
Sidney Sonnermin - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:13:12 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198135 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198129
Look at it this way.

Is there enough food produced to feed the whole world?

Yes.

Are millions of people still starving?

Yes.
>>
George Fingermit - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:24:27 EST ID:mDPHx73Y No.198136 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198135
That implies capitalism doesn't make good use of abundant resources (a position highly contested itt), but nothing about its efficiency in using scarce resources which is what I'm confused about.

I kinda get that the problem with starving people has a lot to do with infrastructure and transportation and such, ignoring starvation in rich and capitalist countries (like the US).
>>
Sidney Sonnermin - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:07:59 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198136
Aah, I see.

I don't agree with the argument that capitalism makes good use of scarce resources, since the growth of capitalism was all about exploiting resources on a massive scale.

Capitalism produces goods in vast quantities, but that doesn't make it efficient. An efficient lightbulb isn't hte one that converts the most energy into the most light, it's one that converts the least possible energy to produce the amount of light required. In this sense capitalism is anti-efficient, and in fact anti-economic. Consider that more money is spent on advertisement than on production, and that advertisement is by its very nature unnecessary; if you have to be sold something, that means you didn't need it to begin with. Then consider that of what is produced, most of it is wasted; technology is designed to become obsolete landfill, and most of the food consumed in the west is thrown away, while people unlucky enough to have been born in the wrong parts of the planet struggle for the most basic necessities of life.

Capitalism has never been efficient. This was fine once upon a time, but now we know we can't afford it and we need efficiency.
>>
Wesley Durryspear - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:39:41 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.198141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Capitalism is geared towards benefiting the ruling class. Not progress (it will stifle progress, social, scientific or otherwise, if it endangers the ruling class), not rational exploitation of resources, not sane distribution of goods/means of production. Capitalism is a system that functions with the sole purpose of enriching the powerful and empowering the rich.

Literally any attempts at integrating elements of social justice into a capitalist system are motivated either by long-term projections of growth (ie. when it's cheaper and benefits the ruling classes) or as a form of appeasement. The original goal is preserved, and it's what matters - no matter how much bones capitalist govts throw at its subjects, the meat still goes to the rich, so the plasticity of capitalism as a system is largely illusionary.

As for its long-term viability it remains to be seen. Once oil runs dry, stopped cars will be the least of our worries. Fertilizer shortage will shake up the food production process, and a more egalitarian food distribution scheme will be required, lest 80% of the world will starve and cheap labor will be a thing only read about in history books. That alone will chop a few of the monster's heads, although if the lower echelons of the affected societies will buy into the inevitable bullshit, blame-shifting, and random sand-hole invading the power structure itself won't fall, despite the opportunity.


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