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


Ethical egoist question by Lydia Sambleville - Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:46:22 EST ID:RDR6Ipe+ No.195099 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1405133182603.jpg -(142076 B, 600x420) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 142076
Let's just say ethical egoism.

So the right action for you is the one that makes you happy.

What if you are presented with a choice, and you don't know whether following that choice will make you really happy or really miserable?

How do you choose, if you don't know how you feel about it?
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Wesley Bimmerdale - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:07:36 EST ID:RDR6Ipe+ No.195131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195123

>People are happiest with irrevocable decisions.

That's contrary to my own personal experience.
>>
Ebenezer Penningfoot - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:09:28 EST ID:FTdAAf6v No.195132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195131
Well Wesley, you knew it was a bad idea to shoot him but you went and did it anyway.
>>
Ebenezer Penningfoot - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:11:22 EST ID:FTdAAf6v No.195133 Ignore Report Quick Reply
jk lol

but always do the right thing and you'll never have to look back.
>>
Molly Sullyman - Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:40:22 EST ID:3qw7DdRm No.195137 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195133

>but always do the right thing and you'll never have to look back.

But how do I know what the right thing is?

What if I go through life always thinking I've "learned from my mistakes", but in fact, the situations in life change so often that every time I try to apply knowledge from the past to the future, I'm behind the times and I end up doing the wrong thing?
>>
Fuck Fedgedark - Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:53:00 EST ID:NbMtjgO9 No.195138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195137

You don't know. That's why you throw away the concept of anticipating the future altogether, and you start acting on what you think will be the best option, on what you think is the right thing.
It's a delusion, but you have no choice but to rely upon a delusion. Well you could go blindly but then you'd be all afraid and unfocused and shit, and that's gonna be a problem whatever ends up happening.
So choose the option that makes you more confident of success. At least if you fail you're gonna be in a better mental position to regroup and change plans.


What is the fear of dying? by Lillian Pockstock - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:32:43 EST ID:czaR8xJU No.194855 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404264763311.jpg -(33740 B, 500x397) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 33740
Its hard to pin down what i mean by this question. For example if a young person finds out he is about to die, he/she might think that its not fair because they have not really lived life fully yet. But is this just a illusion that they tell themselves? What i mean is that
this is just something that people think in these times, they think a whole lot of things when they are about to die old or young, but could it be that its really always just the death itself that is the main issue for them? Its not that they think they have not lived
life fully or lived enough but that to think these things, is really just a way that the fear of death manifests itself inside the person?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Crabbleham - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:04:54 EST ID:djNCqNnB No.194894 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194855
The unknown. It is a remarkably simple answer to a complicated issue.
But you might want me to expand on that.
The other short answer is it is biologically an instinct to live; though on the other hand life is possibly set to a limited length of time and immortality could be horrific to the undeveloped brain of humans.

I don't know shit about evolution in detail but I suspect evolution only occurs in generations and not a single life. But do we see anything biologically alive old enough to observe that? Beats me.
Another theory states the rate in which we see "time" occur speeds up as we get older which is why 5 minutes is forever to a child in a corner. Imagine that. All of time passing by in mere seconds. Ending up right back into the unknown.

Immortality seems impossible, futile, and pisses nature the fuck off.
>>
Henry Shakespear - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 16:17:24 EST ID:JgGU6Mja No.194957 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404505044509.jpg -(92950 B, 751x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 92950
>>194894
would eternity itself not be immortal?
>>
Jenny Cavingfadging - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:26:13 EST ID:saCEn9GD No.195051 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194957
Like I said, time doesn't work how we generally think. The universe is a living thing and can die. You and I are the universe dude.
>>
Archie Ponningcocke - Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:55:13 EST ID:6/R1QgUg No.195080 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Life is all we've ever had, so we're scared to lose it.
>>
Walter Tillingstock - Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:59:35 EST ID:7pgWG3Kt No.195081 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194855

loss of consistency, this could be a bit of a freakout for your body seeing as its primary function inst too fall apart.


Why are you a skeptic? by Samuel Banderfuck - Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:51:08 EST ID:YpGo89lE No.194627 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403646668003.jpg -(91643 B, 580x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 91643
Give me your complete, unabashed perspective. Why do you reject religion? Or why do you believe in it?

I'm curious, as I'd love to see what variations in justification will spring about.

I personally take the undecided stance. I can neither refute or assert the existence of a creator. But I doubt one exists.
47 posts and 11 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Bollerlug - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:37:05 EST ID:9ztRiXOJ No.194885 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404326225703.jpg -(32876 B, 261x359) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32876
>>194861

I don't think you know what materialism is, if the spirit could be materialistically explained it would not be the spirit. If materialism WAS the spiritual truth, then by materialism's ability to explain all phenomena there must be a way to justify that truth within it, which makes no sense. Either it is capable of explaining everything or it can't. If it doesn't have the answers "just yet", then there must be a hypothetical explanation to be discovered in the future. Your "dude no" is not a refutal, you haven't shown how it is possible for materialism to be spiritual truth when the dogma of materialism denies spiritual truth altogether.

You have entirely missed the point of what I've been posting about in this thread, at every point that I mention something pertaining the non-rational, you yellowtext it and scream "but it doesn't rationally make sense!".

I could fully respond to your line-by-line deconstruction but it is totally pointless at this point, you desparately cling to ideas founded on misinterpreted definitions, rather than trying to consider the possibility of an alternate viewpoint. You reaffirm the monopoly on truth that you have given your viewpoint, while labeling anything that differs from yours "retarded". No one needs your infantile space kitten hyperboles and smug, indignant refusal to let go of your idols for the time it takes to read a post.
>>
Charlotte Lightbanks - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:39:23 EST ID:smQtjWn+ No.194891 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194885
Whether something is material or immaterial is being debated in almost every thread on this board.

One of the problems with these terms is that some people think "everything that exists must be material" while some people think "some things can exist that are not material."

Then we get into this argument about whether immaterial things can exist. But does it EVEN FRIGGIN MATTER whether something is immaterial or material?

Either something exists, or it doesn't... right? That's what matters. Whether something is immaterial or material really doesn't friggin matter compared to the question of whether that thing exists or not.

90% of the posts on this board are about "materialism precludes spirituality, and so it's mean and closed-minded" or "spiritualism is incompatible with the view that everything is material". These sentences are so much nonsense that it hurts. You're not even saying anything, just shifting around with the definitions of the words "materialism" and "spiritualism".

It's like having an argument about whether the Team Mascot is "really" on the basketball team or not. Who fucking cares? Some people say the mascot is on the team, some people say he's not. The really interesting question is DOES THE MASCOT EVEN EXIST?
>>
Hamilton Trotridge - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:42:11 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194892 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194885

>I don't think you know what materialism is, if the spirit could be materialistically explained it would not be the spirit

why? material explanation is the only way to unequivocally define something. if something is categorically unable to be explained materially then it is unable to be defined at all. consider "the source" or "god", how are two people supposed to know if they are thinking of the same concept except to appeal to what they share, the empirical world? sharing truth inevitably appeals to the objective

>If materialism WAS the spiritual truth, then by materialism's ability to explain all phenomena there must be a way to justify that truth within it, which makes no sense.

no because individual spiritual truths are not phenomena, they are generally emotional convictions, and emotional convictions do not need to be "explained" to be valid, though they can be reduced in a causal sense with psychological analysis.

im suggesting the possibility that maybe embracing a true and rational materialism leads the mind to the emotional truths of healthy spirituality.

>Your "dude no" is not a refutal, you haven't shown how it is possible for materialism to be spiritual truth when the dogma of materialism denies spiritual truth altogether.

good thing i followed that "dude no" with a clear and rational argument. and no it is you who has not shown that spiritual or profound truth is somehow in contradiction to materialism, how and why would that be the case?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
George Nondlewill - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:05:55 EST ID:Cr5BuY16 No.194925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404410755620.jpg -(21509 B, 329x481) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 21509
>>194627
BECAUSE RELIGION, MYTHOLOGY AND SUPERSTITION ARE HALF BROTHERS and you should ask children what their logic tells them or what does your logic tell you? Of course traditionally good behavior has been illustrated throughout many holy books in history, shouldn´t that be enough rather than to let some fanatic group to infect you any further with their already distorted perception: the practice of values that contradict the original perspective that inspired so many to write about the proper conduct and balanced state of mind
>>
Barnaby Ginkingold - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:40:00 EST ID:03dJh9TD No.195071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194925
why is a religious perception or a mythological truth something that you don't want to have in addition to rationality. It makes it seem like you believe that something doesn't exist until its logically explained rather then the logical explanation being your means for knowing how it exists.


Purpose of Religion to the Common Man by Tilly Tabernacle - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:13:51 EST ID:ziro4XeA No.194563 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403460831399.jpg -(47487 B, 720x555) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47487
As someone who has renounced belief in any theistic being and has led a life of secularism and following morality based in society for a few years now, I've recently been pondering the purpose of religion in the lives of Man. What IS the real purpose of having religion? Is it a man-made structure designed to control people and adopt a specific belief? I've come to the conclusion that religion is simply something that is taught from birth (in most cases I presume) and fear is struck into the minds of babies which is why many follow religions, indoctrination. It also appears to be a cultural thing.

If you think I'm wrong, by all means, make a valid point and we'll discuss.
176 posts and 28 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Brookham - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:46:31 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195029
>But that's exactly what psychiatrists are doing, shoving usually incompatible pills down people's throats to get a paycheck. And yes, it is basically mind suicide for most.
It's an overgeneralization. It depends on the psychiatrist, really; there are still the types set in their ancient ways who treat the clinic/hospital they work in as a lunatic asylum from XIX c., there are whacks who make patients dependent on them to serve their own goals, and there are genuine physicians who realize the limitations of their current state of knowledge regarding the workings of the brain but do their best to use what they know to genuinely help people.

For all those who are interested, I suggest they plow through whatever Ben Goldacre has written, especially Bad Science. A scientist delivering a scathing criticism of the current state of science is always interesting to read; plus, he's a psychiatrist, and an accomplished one at that, so it gives a valuable insight into the state of modern psychiatry.
>I like your 4 way system, though you must realize there is an overlap in usage as to which area of usage they are utilizing. Entheogenic usage could also be self medicating, or recreational. Last time I took mushrooms I was expecting a purge like medicating experience, a tough one, instead I got an extremely lighthearted recreational esque experience, still entheogenic though, I danced with a light being in the snow at one point. Unless of course you meant it as a spectrum?
Of course it's a spectrum, hell, it's not even a linear one. Many people don't even realize the underlying purpose of their drug use - a person might swear he's using drugs for fun, but in reality, it's to patch a gaping hole in his life and so on. It's complicated.
>>
John Morrychock - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 18:44:21 EST ID:F1UCl0+j No.195056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194954
>how little besides emotional comfort comes from it

Some people KILL to be with people who make them feel emotionally comfortable.. What do you mean how little? What did you expect, that the DMT gnomes paid your bills?

>No predictions, no useful models, no deeper understanding of real things
>I tried to find truth in those two movements


If you talk about truths about the shared external world as described by abstract materialism.. Well mysticism doesn't do that.
Mysticism tells you truth about your own behaviour. It's not for doing work and messing with material things, it's about breaking out of your own patterns.

>But deep inside, I felt a strong repulsion towards bullshitting myself

Again, I think you used them wrong. These "fantasies" are not to be taken literally, as abstract materialist fantasies could. They're to be interpreted and adapted to what's around you.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
John Morrychock - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 19:14:40 EST ID:F1UCl0+j No.195057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194969
>I first tried an over-arching application of skepticism (as in, applying it to everything, even my emotions, as opposed to just being skeptical of what can be inferred from the intersubjectively verifiable; I was already rather convinced of the effectiveness of the approach in arriving at conclusions, so I just gave it a shot) as a manner of reining myself in

Shit now I know why I find you so relatable, that's what I did too for a while.
It's hell isn't it? Like being torn to pieces, a constant search with no end, because where's the verification? How do you progress?

>I conditioned myself to question everything I do, feel and think, in order to bring the three to any semblance of congruence

Aaaand this too. Been doing it all my life really.
More and more tired of it, for once because I feel like I'm the only one making the effort, while everyone else just gently slides on a river of bullshit. And also because it's psychically exhausting, and who would care really? And what if I'm bullshitting myself too, but it feels more true because it took more effort?

>what defines who I am? My behavior?

I believe so, in the end. Even if it doesn't agree with anything else, it's your behaviour that leaves the mark, to you and to others, and so that's what.. Not quite defines, but molds who you are.
It sounds deterministical until you realize that you can make any self true by faking it long enough. We're Pavlov AND his dogs.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
David Gongerstedging - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:02:02 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195057
>It's hell isn't it? Like being torn to pieces, a constant search with no end, because where's the verification? How do you progress?
There's no verification, there's only the "good enough" and the "not good enough".
And yeah, it's hell, but for reasons I think wouldn't change, no matter the method.
As to why it's hell... I have to think about *everything* I do, lest I do something stupid and initiate a vicious spiral again. CONSTANTLY. Day and night, at work, while resting, cooking, trying to take a girl out on a date, all the time I have to stay painfully aware of what I'm doing and why, lest I do something irredeemably stupid and start a vicious spiral again. It's hell not because it doesn't work (it sort of does), it's hell because I have to deal with dictating behaviors that a normal person doesn't think about ("oh, I'm being lightly made fun of at work, hm, what would be an appriopriate reaction... let's put anxious smile nr. 5 on and see what happens next", that kind of bullshit).
Progress... Not so long ago I came to a conclusion that one can progress as much as one wants without going anywhere when one is going in circles. Like I do, right now. The root cause is seemingly unchanging, and I don't really give a fuck about any other problems or achievements of mine anymore - no wonder, it's kind of impossible to form a stable relationship, stay in one environment, or be at peace with oneself with problems like these.

>More and more tired of it, for once because I feel like I'm the only one making the effort, while everyone else just gently slides on a river of bullshit.
Word.
>And also because it's psychically exhausting, and who would care really?
Not many, I'm afraid. Firstly, not many understand, or even attempt to, for that matter.
>And what if I'm bullshitting myself too, but it feels more true because it took more effort?
I'd like to know that, too, but I'm afraid I never will.
>I believe so, in the end. Even if it doesn't agree with anything else, it's your behaviour that leaves the mark, to you and to others, and so that's what.. Not quite defines, but molds who you are.
That'd be bad news for me, because my behaviors paint the picture of me being a deranged asshole clown.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fuck Gongerteck - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 07:02:04 EST ID:F1UCl0+j No.195067 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195062

Shit your example matches perfectly for me too, it's one of those situations when I'm not really sure how to react without offending anyone, or even worse, acting too distant.
Btw, I think it's hell exactly because it's so obsessive. I mean imagine if this will we have were an actual person, all the time sitting or standing beside you and saying to you what you should do, or should have done, etc.
That kind of shit makes people go crazy, it's like a poltergeist, only worse, because he wants to kill you by making you too tired to want to live anymore.
It's torture.

>Progress... Not so long ago I came to a conclusion that one can progress as much as one wants without going anywhere when one is going in circles

Yeah this too. Thinking about it, it's pretty crazy that I still try to do this when I have no idea about the condition I have to fulfill to stop doing it. It's been far less obsessive for me, mind you, but still annoying..

>That'd be bad news for me, because my behaviors paint the picture of me being a deranged asshole clown.

Note that by behavior I only mean what an external person could see, not what you think etc.
This means that the "veiled and suppressed behaviors" don't define anything unless you manifest them in reality. They're like ghosts pining for corporeal form: annoying, yes, but only dangerous when they get what they want.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Political Credibility by Martha Hashdatch - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:24:10 EST ID:RmXw6KPA No.195011 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404638650571.jpg -(149763 B, 1176x1055) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 149763
So many political parties exist. So many politicians vie for that moment when they are given some semblance of power.

How does one guage a politicians political credibility? What are the bare minimum criteria that must be fulfilled for one to consider them to be a potentially successful candidate?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Lydia Bunshaw - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:42:53 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195045
>religious
I can't see how religiosity (or lack of it, for that matter) would constitute a "bare criterion".
>>
Lydia Bunshaw - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:59:03 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195048 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195046
Now that I think about it, neither having a family or being a man. for all it's worth. Also "status".

This smells of paleocon voting instructions to me, as in, it's exactly what you seemed to attempt to warn against in the next sentence - things absolutely unrelated to a candidate's sheer administrative and diplomatic ability, but very, very related to catering to the needs of a special electoral group - which isn't what OP is looking for, I think.
>>
Lydia Gadgefure - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:43:01 EST ID:qhzTh2mi No.195050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195048
Well the fact that in the USA nobody without those criteria has ever been elected implies that they're important.
>>
Lydia Bunshaw - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:13:24 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195052 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195050
That's obviously true, but in light of OP mentioning "credibility", "successful policies" and so on, I kind of feel it's not the kind of success he meant.
>>
Charlotte Cleggleman - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:46:37 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.195064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195050

How do you know the OP is from the USA? Those things are not essential qualities in other countries.


So.... by What is name - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:34:44 EST ID:EeIfVA0W No.195047 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404804884986.jpg -(6800 B, 304x164) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6800
What is going on?

Im not sure I can even form an accurate enough question.

What? No...why?
Ugh.
There's the cliche question, "why are we here?". I guess thats as accurate as I can guess.

Does anyone know the question? Answer would be cool too.
Maybe this should have gone on b...
>>
Lydia Gadgefure - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:42:10 EST ID:qhzTh2mi No.195049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Inb4 "Because"

Also /b/


older generations lived it and the best is over? by Henry Bengerwill - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:53:50 EST ID:ZRGf/SUd No.194952 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404492830142.jpg -(206157 B, 960x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 206157
do you think growing up was overall easier or more fulfilling for babyboomers, generation x??

im a strong believer that economics ie. resources in the last century really does determine the overall wellbeing and happiness of people. so looking at todays economics, dont have to an expert to see its getting worse as the years go by. the only disadvantage i can really think of in the past generations is they didnt have internet, maybe less video entertainment.......

i always hear older folks grieving about this and that and how this todays upcoming generations get it easy and "back in the day" ect ect do you think it was harder for older generations?? are they just ignorant?

the economy is worse, the music is worse, the culture is worse, finding a job is harder, i dont see how its easier... but what do you think?>
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:39:13 EST ID:LKeG39DH No.195009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195004
I read a post once that kinda went like this
>talking to grandad
>he proceeds to lay into me about doing shit with my life
>says he dropped out of high school
>walks into factory, immediately gets full time job
>makes bank
>asks first girl he meets to marry him
>she says yes
>starts family, all goes smooth as fuck
>mfw im 100k in college debt
>mfw no job will accept you without years of experience first
>mfw all the girls are too uptight to even talk to or ask out "to coffee"
>fuck this gay earth
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Mallyway - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:10:24 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195009
You are using one guy's story with limited insight on many aspects that would be needed to paint a broad picture to derive a general rule.

Also, I'll remark that the vast majority of arguments put forward ITT work if and only if one lives in the US, perhaps more generally in the first world, which I, for instance, do not.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:30:11 EST ID:MaNF82cq No.195022 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195018
Ver very true, I'm assuming where you live it's more along the lines of "walk into factory, get job", etc. but remember from the other thread on pss (I think), the world is homogenizing towards western values, at least for now, which means debt based financial aid for college and jobs that require a diploma AND experience. I think its a dangerous trend for the world to be "looking forward" to living like Americans live (if that's even a thing, it seems to be from my perspective, and I've traveled to a bunch of places too.
>>
Emma Brookham - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:01:49 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195036 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195022
>which means debt based financial aid for college and jobs that require a diploma AND experience
Again, overgeneralizing to the point of being wrong.

I live in a country that was once behind the iron curtain. It went through the transition from communism to (roughly) western capitalism, and realigned itself from being east-oriented to west-oriented (as many other countries after the fall of the USSR did). So, yeah, it's westernization all right.

It also has state-run universities that are open to all students regardless of income (and no, they're not considered "worse", like many community colleges are in the US), are paid for from taxes, and are completely free. One can even pursue TWO subjects at the same time, and it's as free as pursuing one.
Making it paid isn't even considered, no plans to do so were ever put forward, at least, not to my knowledge.
>>
Emma Brookham - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:09:12 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195037 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195022
Also:
>I'm assuming where you live it's more along the lines of "walk into factory, get job"
More like, "walk into factory, get a hard as shit job that pays a tiny fraction of what a job of parallel kind would pay in the west". I make less than 400 USD a month. And you know what? It's still a fucking improvement, considering what's the situation was like before.


Condition of the Present Life-Order by Walter Picklelat - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:38:54 EST ID:EJv0IqyK No.194971 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404535134984.jpg -(174187 B, 1162x752) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 174187
With the globalization of our planet there has begun a process of levelling-down of the individual which I contemplate with horror. That which has today become general to our species is always the most superficial, the most trivial, and the most indifferent of human possibilities. Yet men strive to further this levelling-down as if, in that way, the unification of mankind could be brought about.

On tropical plantations and fishing villages of the far north, the films of the great capitals are thrown on the screen. People dress alike. The conventionalities of daily intercourse are cosmopolitan; the same dances, the same types of thought, and the same catchwords (a compost derived from the Enlightenment, from Anglo-Saxon positivism, and from theological tradition) are making their way all over the world.

At world congresses the same levelling-down is furthered by those who, instead of aspiring to promote communication between heterogenous entities, want unification upon a common basis in religion (or lack thereof) and philosophy. The races of man interbreed. The historical civilizations and cultures become detached from their roots, and are merged in the technico-economic world, fused into the universal vacant intellectualism of today.

When will this nightmare stop, when can we stop becoming mere cogs in the machine of society and truly become ourselves? Is this viewpoint wrong? We look down on those who differ from our Kardashian-western perspective as backwards and ignorant, but are we really any better? We laugh at the Andaman islanders for throwing spears at us.

I want to believe that society can change from solely being concerned with delivering bread and tv to the masses, to furthering each person by allowing them to realize themselves. Rather than force them into a slot so they can chase the "American Dream" and be good little drones, we should promote real substance in people.

Everyone agrees that something is "wrong" with the society, and it isn't just the Republicans or Democrats causing the problems. I believe it is this disgusting globalization and materialism that is present everywhere, including this board. What are your thoughts? How can we …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
21 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:30:12 EST ID:XVcImQPV No.195007 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195003
Quit taking things so personally bun. I'm saying people act perhaps worse than before since we have so many "restrictions" on our behaviors set by well-rounded decent individuals and such. It may not be overtly violent, but it sure is outright annoying.

And I've literally only posted the picture and post of my gods twice on 420chan, once on pss when I made them and once on spooky. It's a thought experiment im conducting with a friend. And I don't read minds, I've literally never said that.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:31:23 EST ID:XVcImQPV No.195008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404621083063.jpg -(1433994 B, 3264x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1433994
>>195007
Bub*
>>
Frederick Sonkinstone - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:20:32 EST ID:qhzTh2mi No.195020 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195006
>hurhur, you haev a smarr pen0r and you pee urself because I am smrt
And you're done.
>>
David Cricklefetch - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:03:35 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.195031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195020

Just getting started sweetheart
>>
Shitting Hegglehood - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:17:58 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.195034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194971
you view globalization as a horrible thing, but should you live in the neighborhood of traditional islam people who would start a jihad on your neighborhood, or cannibals, or people of some culture that force you to defeat a bear with a broomstick to be accepted into the community and not be eaten by the bear, you would rather level down those traditions and culture in favor of some great common values such as safety and human lives and whatnot.
>allowing them to realize themselves
except any person who is too dangerous or annoying or unproductive to fit in ~your~ american dream.

that's how it works.


Painless assisted suicide should be legal for anyone by Archie Gindlefork - Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:45:05 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194139 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402069505957.jpg -(424550 B, 1037x1555) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 424550
I really feel that society should not force people to stay alive, or make those who wish to cease to exist resort to potentially painful, failure-prone methods of suicide.

Some people seem to not be meant for this life. Not everyone can take joy in it, and some who have had that ability have had that taken away.
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Whitey Sattingmut - Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:08:31 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194305

>Curable

What if it isn't?
>>
Walter Hinkinnag - Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:26:55 EST ID:mRtXcFPt No.194385 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194305

I've been wanting to die on and off for years and years. Please cure me.
>>
morahdin - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:01:35 EST ID:WLFN9U4x No.194893 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if this was allowed i dont think it should be a same day thing, you should have to talk with some one who would try to talk you out of it. with that thay would try to help you get thou what it is that made you want to. then you if you still want to go thou with it you should have to w8 for 30-60 day to get your affairs in order and tell you your loved one why your doing it so thay can have closure.
>>
Ian Bumblemidging - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 01:54:40 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194903 Report Quick Reply
If I state:

"As of the time of this writing 07/02/2014, I am of sound mind, and sound body. This fact can be attested to by friends, acquaintances, and doctors: M. Bradley, R.Reilly, F. Smithbeck, O. Levens. I do declare that should my body lapse into such a state from which my physicians so determine that I am unable to make remarkable recovery from, I direct my caretakers to watch over my wellness of being with such instructions: please aid and hasten my death in a merciful, respectful way, with as little pain as can be reasonably be expected for my situation.
>>
Jarvis Duggleville - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:15:33 EST ID:ljQSkHpH No.194905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I do not want the government mixed up in suicide for people experiencing psychological difficulties. I support terminal cases, though, on a case-by-case basis. Something else I could consider supporting would be people who have, say, lost all their limbs, or lost multiple senses. But not depression, it is too frickin common and too misunderstood. I am a depressed person myself and I have suicidal thoughts as of this moment, but it is something that I plan on doing alone, without aid. I think that suicide is a desperate, final act and it's right that it should not be an easy thing to do.


On Mind by Jarvis Ningershaw - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:12:49 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194411 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402891969486.jpg -(346598 B, 1528x1525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 346598
I was thinking today, about the motions of the clouds and of the highly complex motion of all the winds together that create the network of weather systems on the Earth that make our particular habitable earth what it is. It came to mind that nothing separates such complexity from the complexity of our minds. After all, it is also through some mysterious clockwork that our minds have gained self awareness. And, after all, what separates our minds, from the rest of the mysterious network that is our planet, except for the fact of self awareness? What separates the mind of the planet from the mind of man? What makes it so we can safely assume that our mind is a mind, and that the mind of the planet is not a mind, but rather, just a random assortment of unmeaningful processes? My argument is, self awareness. Or perhaps just awareness. It is the mind that lends awareness. Mind, I argue, is self awareness, and I would also argue that mind is not only the most pervasive element of existence, but that mind is all there is. What do you think?
100 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Cugglemin - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 04:49:25 EST ID:P3JlUK+P No.194769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194768

yes. there can be no word to describe how the world really is, because once you name it or describe it, it becomes a concept in our minds.

so the only way to see truly is not to think, but to experience - without categorising what we experience. maybe babies, before they develop a Gestalt (your "mnemonic device the brain creates to create and organize sensory data") sense of the world, experience something closer to reality than we normally do. i also think that the purpose of meditation (to cease mental chatter) brings us closer to that state.
>>
Jack Grandshit - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:24:58 EST ID:WTFM3vGj No.194873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If order to have a productive discussion on this topic, we must share ideas, not argue.
>>
Hamilton Trotridge - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:26:48 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194874 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194873

arguing is a kind of sharing ideas
>>
Jack Grandshit - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:53:16 EST ID:WTFM3vGj No.194880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194874

Earlier in this thread, people were arguing about who's right, and who's wrong.
>>
Emma Mopperstock - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:40:24 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194882 Report Quick Reply
>>194874
>arguing is a kind of sharing ideas
I agree. Argument/debate is one of the most interesting ways to share and discuss viewpoints in a lively way.
>>194880
>Earlier in this thread, people were arguing about who's right, and who's wrong.
Some "debate" is just the verbal equivalent of monkeys throwing poop, though.


That is: the quality of argument/debate on 420chan varies pretty greatly


Gonzo by Charlotte Summerput - Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:03:56 EST ID:GVcumqZg No.194705 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403809436544.jpg -(22320 B, 256x177) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22320
I can't remember where I heard this but I once heard gonzo journalism had some sort of philosophy as a writing style, I think. It's some kind of philosophy.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? It's bugged me for awhile because I don't get it
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Wupperfune - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:14:37 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194789 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Philosophy" is a very bastardized word, it's sometimes employed to mean nothing much more than "state of mind", a way to do things, or a three-words "witty" sentence that's supposed to make you think about the-universe-and-stuff. If you read the word used with a "a" or a possessive before, like "my philosophy is...", that's generally the case. It doesn't have anything to do with actual academic philosophy nor serious thought.
>>
Henry Greenworth - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 19:16:07 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.194798 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah, most of "my philosophy is..." actually means "my style is..." or "my opinion is..."
that said, philosophers who can spend their life getting an idea and writing lengthy books about it without getting bored aren't that much better that the layman whose 'philosophy' is to look the bright side, enjoy life, be positive, etc. english textbook crap.

whenever people reply to a longer post here, there are those who read one or two lines, yellowtext it and reply to that specific line without trying to get the point of the whole post (which is obviously complex enough to require a long post, and can't be fit into any one line of the post). some even go as far as stopping after every grammar mistake in every word.
others just read the whole post without stopping, or maybe the whole thread. these people usually understand more of the posters message, sometimes even taking sides with them, however they may not notice mistakes or contradictions that sentence-by-sentence readers do.
(please reflect here - do you have some answers already? or did you not yet stop to see if i'm just rambling bullshit?)
in case of essays, books or a bunch of books, the line may get so long that sentence-by-sentence/idea-by-idea readers will get absolutely lost and feel like reading the ramble of a madman, while people who don't stop might just have believed all the nonsense without checking up on it.

and so, every great philosopher or philosophy (with an accordingly huge and complex line of ideas to check) has defenders/fans who are unable to properly defend and support it, and attackers/haters who can't see the simplest points and just shittalk about "some sentence on some page" (just look at all the bible quotes). some people try to explain and clarify such works, and quite often end up in the same shoes, or totally ruining it.

i don't think academic philosophy is that useful, it hasn't come up with a good solution to stop my laptop being slow or making people like me post less crap. neither did sciences or religion answer why i should go to work tomorrow and give a damn about anything at all. 'objective' journalism hasn't been faring to…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nell Fonderville - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:40:39 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194804 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194798

>i don't think academic philosophy is that useful, it hasn't come up with a good solution to stop my laptop being slow or making people like me post less crap

i disagree, the process of academic philosophy led to the scientific method, to the principles of democracy, and so on

basically every good idea owes some of its nature to the philosophical discourse in which the theorizer was educated. philosophy will never lose its usefulness, just look at what has happened in the 50-60 years since we started disrespecting it. Irrationality and anti-intellectualism is on the rise just about everywhere, but its worse than before. It used to be that people felt that even though they weren't intelligent or learned enough for philosophy, it doesnt matter because its too abstract for their lives. They were wrong, but this is a respectable opinion born of experience.

Nowadays on the otherhand we have people who are so narcissistic that they believe they are ABOVE philosophy, and that all the work of deep thinking that humanity has done for thousands of years is worth nothing to "an independent mind".

Now logic is looked at with scorn. When you point out the irrationality of a common person's argument, they believe that you are playing semantic games with them. People have lost the humility to accept that what they are saying might not make sense.

It's a goddamn tragedy
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:08:03 EST ID:i6AHkpOb No.194807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194798
>in case of essays, books or a bunch of books, the line may get so long that sentence-by-sentence/idea-by-idea readers will get absolutely lost and feel like reading the ramble of a madman, while people who don't stop might just have believed all the nonsense without checking up on it.

I find you really have to be in the right mood to successfully read a philosophy and be able to undertake dissecting its actual meaning while reading it, usually when people are at their most comfortable. That's why arguments here on /pss/, when. Given a day or two between a certain level of argumentative posts, tend to be more civil and accepting of ideas, whereas a spitfire yellow texting argument can devolve into pure semantic buffoonery really fast. It's just the excitement I suppose.
>>
Jarvis Musslenire - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:54:28 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.194860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194804
> is -that- useful
my point with the whole paragraph was that nothing is much more useful than other stuff. i see a lot of people specialize in something, be it a language teacher, plumber, chemist, researcher, doctor, engineer, mom, policeman, lawyer, whatever, they always get a huge perspective on how 'extraordinary' and 'invaluable' that something is to human society, and how we couldn't live without kids learning English in school, mom cooking tasty food, epidemics being prevented, evil companies stopped doing whatever they want, water pipes being kept clean, the human mind kept exercised, washing your teeth twice a day, not eating tuttu-runipaa-nedar oils and fats to prevent nail cancer, and supporting people who lost a leg and an eye but not an arm. that's all so very unusually and a-lot-more-than-anything-else important.
philosophy is useful. i usually defend that, and shoo these edgy new arrogant science-fans away. science is useful, but not that much either. neither would do much good if no one grew plants on the field. or if the sun decided to black out.

i think most of the things one can see is necessary for the whole hive to operate, except some forms of entertainment, luxury, and fashion.

>>194807
yeah, and then also there are personal limits. it can be quite hard to pass your thoughts to paper accurately, and for others to read and undertand them accurately. some people are smarter than others and may not be understood by the less smart - but since there is no 'foolproof' way of telling if someone is writing nonsense or you are the fool who can't grasp it, there is always resistance.


Objective truth. Does it exist in reality? by Sidney Blathercocke - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:08:58 EST ID:pTnrq//f No.194557 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403453338412.jpg -(178454 B, 775x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 178454
Im leaning towards no but still on the fence.

Present your arguments and try to convince me one way or the other.

PSm not talking about math and logic (systems invented by humans in order to describe reality) im asking about the natural world.
21 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:38:21 EST ID:dgQekpPI No.194786 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194785
Well that ties in with the idea that consciousness is a spectrum of experiential qualia, not simply you have it or you don't.


And synchronicities are less the local world revolving around the one having the synch, as much as that individual has tuned into reality in a harmonious way.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:39:25 EST ID:dgQekpPI No.194787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786
Harmonious and beneficial way*
>>
Whitey Blackhood - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:37:37 EST ID:C6QsteKY No.194839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786
>Well that ties in with the idea that consciousness is a spectrum of experiential qualia, not simply you have it or you don't.
Or each animal could have degree's of qualia. It is after all a reasonable intelligent animal. Perhaps different animals have different quantities of qualia no matter how big or small.
>>
John Clodgebury - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 05:31:53 EST ID:dy+9g9py No.194840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786

Yeah I see synchronicities as simply a different beat to which you rock your experience. A catchier beat, I guess. Then some people idolize them and go crazy, but one doesn't necessarily follow the other..


>>194839

I would agree. Only humans though, when faced to someone with a bigger degree of qualia, start to idolize it and call it a God, or absolute. Bigger doesn't even mean necessarily better, since such a creature could be so different as to be completely oblivious to things which we take notice of.. Like humans and viruses. In their perspective, they could make a God sick.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 07:16:00 EST ID:W3v00mT+ No.194841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194840
>>194840
Well since they are essentially meaningful "coincidences" I could see how people would go crazy over them, but once they are ubiquitous enough in ones life they become the norm and thusly a bit comforting that reality is still going down the accustomed path.

I would disagree aboot the "bigger" quale experiencer, a vast enough consciousness, such as the posited mind of a galaxy or such, well it wouldn't be better per say but it might have more ability of will, or that of a planet with life running its "brain" or "synapses" might have the sort of understanding of the whole of the issues of the world. I'm not saying these things are the way things are most definitely, but if they were such things, vast minds of their own, accessing them and communicating with them might and probably would prove beneficial. If we could even understand them that is. So yes your last point is relevant to my post, in that our individual problems might seem trivial in the way that a obstacle in the path of an individual ant to us seems insignificant, at least compared to the plight of the entire planet.

Another thing to be aware of, is that once the Earth is covered in a singular global AI system, it might associate itself with a Gaian Mind whether it's there or not, effectively creating one itself, again, whether or not one is already there. Is a merging or combining possible if both exist? Well, if you've ever had a SO you might know you develop a type of connection that would be said to be not far off from a low level telepathy, though I'm sure a more appropriate definition exists surely. Who's to say the same couldn't happen with a global AI and a planetary mind?


I have no idea how a galactic mind would fathom though, tbh. It could work by using life bearing planets as synapse nodes, but beyond that I don't have any current speculations.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.