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


The Unconscious by Cornelius Buttingstedging - Fri, 16 May 2014 15:08:33 EST ID:OzCj/Vpw No.193601 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400267313413.jpg -(62531 B, 1200x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62531
The other day I was reading some sections of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" out of pure boredom and I found myself strongly agreeing with his belief of a non-divided self. After reading some supplementary material online regarding Sartre's position on reflective and unreflective consciousness, I'm finding the whole idea of an unconscious rather unconvincing. For example, at some point in the day I reach for my cigarettes and light one up without actually taking a moment to reflect on why I want one. Just because I didn't articulate that desire in terms of language doesn't mean it came from my un/pre-conscious. I simply recognized the signs of nicotine withdrawal and addressed it without reflecting on the matter.

I'm fairly ignorant regarding Freud and psychology in general so feel free to rip into me but I want to hear some other opinions regarding this.

inb4 Kocoayello's "Jung maan"
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cornelius Buttingstedging - Fri, 16 May 2014 15:45:33 EST ID:OzCj/Vpw No.193608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193605

Just because I fail to articulate my choice to have a cigarette in terms of language does not mean the thought was not conscious to me at the time.
>>
Priscilla Dusslefield - Fri, 16 May 2014 22:15:24 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193601

in my opinion sartre and other phenomenologists like heidegger and husserl are the bane of philosophy, and the progenitors of the most profound and disastrous theoretical mistake possible, I prettty much hate everything they've ever said and believe they have everything wrong, their whole metaphysics is totally broken. everybody they claim is wrong is actually right, empiricists, representationalists, etc

the "undivided self" is the opposite of the truth, we could not be any more divided than we are, we are the sum of infinitely divisible parts

>For example, at some point in the day I reach for my cigarettes and light one up without actually taking a moment to reflect on why I want one. Just because I didn't articulate that desire in terms of language doesn't mean it came from my un/pre-conscious. I simply recognized the signs of nicotine withdrawal and addressed it without reflecting on the matter.

I dont see how you can pretend this isn't a direct contradiction. How the fuck are you supposed to "recognize" and "address" something without reflecting on it? The only way would be recognition and planned action could occur "subconsciously".

I mean what do you imagine the subconscious to be OP? It is simply any and all functions of the decision-making cortexes that were not part of a lucid chain of reasoning. What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion? You are a fool if you believe the brain is not capable of enacting things without the approval or blessing of "the center of attention", either that or you are a fool for not seeing the clear distinction between that which crosses "the center of attention" and that which is not noticed.
>>
Fucking Murdstock - Fri, 16 May 2014 23:41:45 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.193619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400298105899.jpg -(57847 B, 443x468) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57847
>>193614
>What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion?

I get what you're saying with this but its still kind of an unfair statement.
The metabolic functioning of the millionth cell in my left hand's index finger isn't controlled by any subconscious reasoning.
OP's talking about decisions and thinking.

Basically the "subconscious mind" is a reservoir of every single input data your brain has ever collected throughout it's entire life time.

Things you were aware of and things you weren't aware of, this stat isn't true, but I can almost guarantee you 99.99% of the stuff that creates your subconscious mind were inputted unconsciously. Consciously I'm typing on my laptop right now but subconsciously I'm being reminded of a ton of memories that my laptop elicits.

Every single thing that you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, emotionally feel, think; experience gets store into your brain and added to your subconscious.

After enough experiences have been acquired they become aggregated and create a personality accordingly.
Ex, somebody who has gone through a lot of traumatic experiences growing up will most likely have a subconscious mind filled with trauma, creating a personality that has trust issues.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Priscilla Dusslefield - Sat, 17 May 2014 01:29:06 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193619

>I get what you're saying with this but its still kind of an unfair statement.

your statement that my statement was unfair, is fair, it is not fair to exactly compare heartbeats with subconscious decision-making processes because beings presumably without consciousness or with severely limited consciousness still have nervous systems that perform "automatic" functions (and they lack decision-making).

still I do think it is undeniable that not only the fingers and heart, but the brain, and the decision-making as well, are home to immense structures of action that go on without our "consent" in the forefront of our attention. It is interesting that Sartre once wrote that neurochemistry has no hope of explaining the sort of phenomena he was interested in, but neurochemistry actually went on to discredit his theories, in my opinion, there's studies that show distinctive, irreversible electrical activity associated with specific decision-making can be observed in a person's brain up to a second or two, I believe it was, before the person reports having decided

it doesnt have to be the end of free will but I think it cast enormous doubt upon the phenomenological scheme.

and for the rest
I agree with basically every thing you said in this post

>Basically the "subconscious mind" is a reservoir of every single input data your brain has ever collected throughout it's entire life time.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Lumpen !rGOAfuB3jA - Sun, 18 May 2014 18:44:48 EST ID:809AcqAg No.193688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193614

Apologies for the late reply.

>in my opinion sartre and other phenomenologists like heidegger and husserl are the bane of philosophy, and the progenitors of the most profound and disastrous theoretical mistake possible, I prettty much hate everything they've ever said and believe they have everything wrong, their whole metaphysics is totally broken. everybody they claim is wrong is actually right, empiricists, representationalists, etc
Yeah, I'm not versed enough to even attempt arguing against that.

>I dont see how you can pretend this isn't a direct contradiction. How the fuck are you supposed to "recognize" and "address" something without reflecting on it? The only way would be recognition and planned action could occur "subconsciously".
Yeah I realize after looking at my example it was worded terribly and overall just piss poor, I'm sorry (I probably should've spent more than two minutes on my OP). What I meant about unreflective was being "absorbed in the world of objects", ie fully engaged in the external world, not contemplating the "I". But to go back to my example about the cigarette, it wasn't reflective in that I didn't have an internal dialogue saying "I'm going to have a cigarette now" but at the same time it isn't unconscious in that I don't look down a minute later and say "how the fuck did that cigarette get in my hand?". I was lucid the whole time.

>I mean what do you imagine the subconscious to be OP?
A part of the mind that is largely inaccessible to the conscious mind but nonetheless affects decision making to a degree. I guess my view of the mind is that in addition to the main dialogue of consciousness, everything else is going on in the peripherals of the conscious mind but those thoughts aren't always recognized as being conscious because we naturally give priority to our dialogues.

>What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion?
Well that's an automatic process, I couldn't start or stop my heart if I tried.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Stop Your Wondering And Wake The Fuck UP!!! by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 17 May 2014 02:00:53 EST ID:0q89Kd+Q No.193629 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400306453325.jpg -(10644 B, 168x301) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 10644
The true irony of life is not that we live to die, but that we are already dead, yet think we live. All of us, every single human being on the face of this earth is motivated by what gives us pleasure. We perceive something that is pleasurable, and interpret it as good. The perception of good immediately creates an antithesis, and we are stuck in an endless cycle of chasing the dragon we call good, and running from the demon we call evil. Just like an addict, we all are motivated by the perceptions we create. They generate emotions, which give us pleasure, and a game is created amongst and within ourselves. Though some think it about sex or love, in reality it is about power and control, to feed the emotional addiction. The irony of the situation is that as humans, what we call “good” is what we find pleasurable. Everything we agree on as species as being “right”, all morality, is sought after in the fashion of addiction. Instead of seeking true knowledge, true righteousness, true love, we pursue the pleasure of it. Thus the true irony of the situation is shown. How can one know something, how can one be righteous, how can one love, if he/she only pursues the pleasure of it? The truth is you can’t, the pleasure of knowledge is not knowledge, and the pleasure of love is not love. We go through life thinking we know we want what is good, but once we get it, we feel empty, because we never really wanted what is good. The source of pleasure and pleasure itself are not the same thing, and this is why people find themselves lost in life, when at first they thought they knew what they want. People have goals to meet, but feel like they accomplish nothing upon the completion, they want wealth, but feel poor when they own everything, they want love, but it leaves as soon as they think they have it. This happens to us because we have been driven by our desires into a situation we think we wanted, but in reality it was nothing but a mental expectation. All the more ironic is that this way of living is natural. Inside we all know it, we all know that we delude ourselves into justifying it; we all try and delay the meeting of a source of truth, because in our hearts we understand that the source and its pleasure are not the…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Cyril Dindlewine - Sat, 17 May 2014 08:00:59 EST ID:dDnfuO1m No.193636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thank you Buddha, Schopenhauer
>>
Charles Brookridge - Sat, 17 May 2014 10:05:14 EST ID:C2g2IsPf No.193639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The only way to find true happiness, true love, true anything, is to overcome the natural drives which make up the game, and to stop playing.

You can't.
>>
Caroline Gocklestig - Sat, 17 May 2014 10:21:53 EST ID:3H/BjwPI No.193640 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193629
this is what people mean when they say between heaven and hell and learning to live beyond this is seen as a virtuousness but moreso learning to simply accept that we seek good and leave bad is to live between two spaces in harmony.

one could draw a parallel to the oceans tide.
>>
The Tower - Sat, 17 May 2014 11:50:57 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400341857775.jpg -(33937 B, 220x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 33937
Don't know man, I think en masse what you're saying is true but in reality individually the journey is different. We're not always all necessarily motivated by what gives us pleasure, there are a good chunk of us motivated in what keeps us alive, food, shelter, staying away from gunfire/explosions/generally things that can kill you or cause you serious harm. I'm not saying that we don't seek pleasure out, far from it a lot of people do, but there are a lot of people that don't have that luxury of seeking pleasure out to as great a degree as other human beings.

It's a natural impulse to want to stay alive, there are times we as humans vainly wish we were dead but when faced with a near death experience i.e. some kind of accident it can make you feel alive as if your system was jump started. There's no doubt that a lot of people are sleep walking through their lives just casually living, buying the next cd of their favorite band, or whatever their favorite thing is and their experience on this planet is limited to the tangible of this world and they're perfectly fine with that. But then there are people like you and me who are here on this board discussing these kinds of things because we have that need or wish or itch for that something more out of life. We pontificate these theories on what life is, rinse and repeat and it's a lot of fun in its own way. I can think of at least ten to twenty people I can't talk about these kinds of things with because they would take it too personally or try to make the conversation exclusively about God, as in, their minds simply don't wander this far and it can confuse and anger some.

I've read it multiple times and believe it myself but, death isn't the end it's just a transformation. So we don't really live to die, we live so that we may live again and hopefully we get something good out of it to take with us. And on a personal level I believe that the trials and tribulations we go through are necessary for our journey to whatever awaits us beyond this existence.
>>
Albert Chamblewell - Sat, 17 May 2014 14:36:32 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193647 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>your happiness isn't REAL happiness!
>your love isn't REAL love!
>you'll never know what REAL feelings are!

Sure is OP being 13


Beauty by Nicholas Fallyspear - Thu, 15 May 2014 15:30:15 EST ID:Rzu44lmQ No.193575 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400182215582.jpg -(459889 B, 650x499) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 459889
If I do not acknowledge a God whose perfection we aspire to through correct action, and I do not acknowledge that there is an essential way of nature that should be followed, what argument do I have for beauty?
Or do I have to join with the tumblr fat activists and say that everything is equally beautiful because nothing is objective?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Whitey Sammlespear - Fri, 16 May 2014 09:25:09 EST ID:C2g2IsPf No.193592 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I found this article an interesting read.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/
>>
Caroline Pickman - Fri, 16 May 2014 11:24:08 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193582

False dichotomy. Nothing is ugly, either. Things ARE.
>>
Whitey Sammlespear - Fri, 16 May 2014 11:41:12 EST ID:C2g2IsPf No.193599 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193598

Is anything sweet?
>>
Nigel Wankinmat - Fri, 16 May 2014 17:21:21 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.193609 Ignore Report Quick Reply
aesthetics is so boring
>>
Clara Clillystine - Sat, 17 May 2014 01:46:27 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193599

Yes. There is a scientific definition of what "sweet" means that corresponds to what we mean when we say that word. It is experimentally verifiable that "sweet" exists.

Sweet and beauty are not the same thing.


Cultural interference by James Cheshbidging - Wed, 14 May 2014 09:30:41 EST ID:kyPjaFuA No.193536 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400074241486.jpg -(51462 B, 762x286) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 51462
Why is that humans feel compelled to interfere with cultures they neither understand or even come close to living by.

It seems that every TV channel has an advert or two about how "uncivilised" a particular country is and how we should be giving them our money to make it better.

Now I have no problem helping those in need,
But when it comes to other cultures, Should we really be interfering ?
Wouldn't it be best to let them figure out there own countries/areas future ?

Why do we as first worlders (Americans, europeans and china.) do we feel compelled to fuck with the way of life for millions in third world countries ?

It's not like we have a perfect world either, Our governments are ripe with corruption and covert actions, Why is that we think we can uplift others ?
Is it part of the human condition ?
Or is it just a capitalistic venture that has spanned our emotions making us believe it is human nature ?

TLR: why are humans such nosy interfering mo-fuckers ?
>>
Albert Pickspear - Wed, 14 May 2014 14:05:28 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193539 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193536

africa hasnt always been filled with millions of starving and disease-ridden children. 3rd world extreme povery and wealth disparity is directly related to first-world capitalist foreign policy.

their economy had no trouble supporting pre-colonial African societies, it was only after the Africans adapted to foreign money by urbanizing and expanding population that they discovered the continent doesnt actually support a population of the magnitude they have now, especially with moderning energy demands. Now there are simply too many people in Africa and not enough low-skill labor for them, so they make more babies to try and catch up their family income, in a reinforcing cycle that may never be resolved until catastrophic population drop in Afirca

the point being, it is quite reasonable to argue that Africa is not even an independent culture for us to intrude upon, we are quite entwined with them already and it is only "fair", like child support, that we, the capitalist society, should be financially responsible for these lives that capitalism brought into the world but has not been able to provide support for.

now the flip side is that its not clear that sending money actually has any benefits to the people, in which case the whole affair is really just something rich people do to make themselves feel better about the plight of the poor
>>
Caroline Blullerlock - Wed, 14 May 2014 14:23:23 EST ID:4PQFvQ9C No.193542 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193539
I am unsure of your point so please correct me if I' wrong.
But it seems as though you believe that due to previous attempts at utterly failing to create an empire your country and those involved have some sense of or undying gratitude to those who suffered under the hand of someone who probably isn't even related to you.

This isn't even due to morality, But merely a sense of a particular society based morality

IE: It's the invaders fault, Not the original beliefs of invaders.
>>
Fucking Dummerstock - Fri, 16 May 2014 03:03:06 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193542

all I mean is that sending money to starving africans is not "interfering with their culture" because their culture and way of life was already destroyed by colonialism and globalized capitalism, sending them money now is basically no different from sending poor americans money now, its just poor Africans are often worse off and in greater numbers.

it would be one thing if we went to isolated villages where people have been consistently living for thousands of years, and bought a bunch of stuff for them "cuz their so poor"

thats not what happens in africa

rather, we have military and business operations there, and they spread weapons and money to the worst elements of africa, and they in turn oppress the people, who then can no longer live their traditional lives (economy changes, abuse from paramilitary groups), who in turn die in vast numbers without food being sent to them.

when i said its only fair that we help them, i meant that as "this is what the people who send money are thinking", and I think their reasoning is valid, if anybody can be said to deserve help, it would them, and from who else but the people who profitted most from the process which has ended in this regrettable situation: foreign investors.

I only disagree with such people on the practical point that constantly sending money to africa is an advisable path to helping them


Whys and Hows by Augustus Dallychidging - Tue, 13 May 2014 03:21:50 EST ID:0s1jixrA No.193471 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399965710969.jpg -(434537 B, 1500x1500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 434537
"Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how"

-Uncle Fred

How do we deal with the "why's" of philosophy, namely the "why" of even undertaking the task of dealing with philosophical problems? Do some people's minds just churn more philosophically than others? Is philosophical thought something everyone should engender? What is the role of the uneducated person in today's society, the role of the layman unversed in things like Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, etc? Should we necessarily judge them harshly? What would a world of all philosophers look like? Would there be any action? What is the role of the philosopher in today's society, the self taught man of reflection?

These are some questions that have been running through my mind as of late. Feel free to have at them as you wish.
20 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ebenezer Wankinmatch - Thu, 15 May 2014 00:34:59 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193563 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193561
>No bro they were brainwashed shits who lapped it up.

Don't know about that man. In my experience with the American public school system you could tell which teachers gave a shit and which ones were just coasting or simply didn't. When it came to those "Leadership" classes which were usually in middle school most the teachers took the opportunity to let the students have free time (least in my neck of the woods) or once a week did some exercise which didn't seem to teach much which is why I say the class itself was mishandled but on a different level. One problem is we have these standardized tests which tower above most of the other curriculum and put a lot of pressure on schools and teachers leaving little room for something like Ethics to even be a factor for anyone to give a shit about even if it goes by a name like "Personal Development" or "Leadership."

>Or people who tend to harp on about the importance of ethics classes tend to puff themselves up.

>Simple question? Do you think you're smarter because you took an ethics class?

I actually didn't and never have taken an ethics class. Had one been available in high school I might have though. Most of what I know comes from podcasts and books I've researched on my own. My desire to see a class and people to take one comes from unethical practices I've personally witnessed. None of this makes me an expert or any smarter considering I got my information in a way that anybody, including yourself can. Hell you possibly or probably know more than I do which is why you're fighting me on it.
>>
Ebenezer Wankinmatch - Thu, 15 May 2014 00:41:48 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193565 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193562

>what sort of curriculum do you have in mind? are you talking about utilitarianism, deontological theories, etc? or are you talking straight moral precepts, killing is wrong, etc?

I'm only going to respond to this because I really don't have anything in mind as this thought only really entered my being a few hours ago. If somebody came up to me and told me they wanted me to teach this class and paid me X amount of money or my budget is X amount of money, then I would do proper research into what it might take to get my point across to whatever my demographic might be. But that is not the case and I don't really have any desire to go off on my own at this point in my life to make such a "What if" happen.
>>
James Nudgedock - Thu, 15 May 2014 00:58:22 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.193568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193562
You're a fucking tool.
>>
Cedric Drasslewat - Thu, 15 May 2014 01:34:52 EST ID:uOs+C2Ja No.193569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400132092554.jpg -(25371 B, 250x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25371
>>193562

>the way i see it, a person's moral beliefs are mostly controlled by their parents beliefs in combination with their natural empathetic talents.

And brain implants and microwave mind control.

> All I was mindful of was a weak radio signal of unidentifiable origin inside my head. It was only after a few years that I became wise to something having been put inside my head during the operation. This time was to be a period of great and inexplicable change and, when I turned thirty, I decided to tread a criminal path.



>It is hard to claim with any certainty that this was a result of what was happening to me, but it was, in any case, after the implantation of the transmitter which linked my brain to a computer so scientists could use me for their own wicked designs, that my conceptions and feelings were radically altered.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon29.htm
>>
Hannah Mudgetutch - Thu, 15 May 2014 07:30:39 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193568

boohoo poor utilitarian's feelings


MBTI thread by Nell Moddlepedge - Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:58:06 EST ID:1CUvy/BP No.192138 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1394762286065.jpg -(9720 B, 192x262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9720
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Let's discuss personality types. I just took the test (19, male) and got ENTJ (E 1%, N 88%, T 1%, J 22%). Do you feel like your result is congruent with who you are? Anyone else get similar results?
46 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nicholas Dandlefuck - Sun, 11 May 2014 02:50:53 EST ID:163ewhWi No.193421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399791053165.jpg -(968865 B, 3115x3115) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 968865
I'm an INTP, and I think the description is quite accurate. Not 100%, of course, it never is, but it does a great job of describing my way of thinking.
>>
Alice Pinderded - Sun, 11 May 2014 13:10:27 EST ID:vrzQYW4d No.193425 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193377

My main objection is that MBTI is only really capable of giving a "snapshot" so to speak of an individual's personality at a given point in time. It's incapable of accounting for a Rorty like shift in consciousness that may occur over time.
>>
Charlotte Bardspear - Mon, 12 May 2014 04:56:35 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193425
its however fairly could at predicting the various crisis's and shift's in conciousness that occur and in an individual and give a fairly accurate telling as to why. You may end up a different personality all together from that point in time yes, but that snap shot alone, is eerilie descriptive of the road ahead and the challenges in thought. When i took it at 19 i hadn't faced any of the things it outlined, but when i went back to it later during a time period where i was facing problems they were almost to a tea, what were listed as being the enfp's(which was my result) problems. And i'll tell you this much it wasn't often what i wanted to hear, and i usually would argue with the conclusions they drawed from this, but the observations they were making were scary. Although the viewpoint they then acessed the person from as far as what they thought was good and bad, often reared its imposition during this time. That's why i would say its a legit psychological method because it works the same as any therapist or psycholigist i've ever been to, every insight is followed by an i told you so or a judgement on where you should be without saying why but on the basis of the shock at the level of being known you just felt. They clearly do know in the same way that a pyschologist could now.

Now would this involve manipulation, yes, could this involve, confidence tricks, yes, could this invovle alot of knowledge that is available but imperfect and perhaps can of worms like in nature, yes. But that's all irellevant to if the myers briggs is good psychology, because now you've got a problem with psychology in general.

Also to double digress, jung less, but the jungian stuff in socionics and myers briggs are somewhat hypocritical if you read alot of it, alot of its about the ability of the jungian version of "the superior man" ability to look into his psyche and use those things that are found within the psyche, to know what's all around him and understand others and himself. But all of it still seems to be afraid to look crazy, despite Jung's overall realization that he realized through his work being, most of the things that you think …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Lydia Nicklespear - Tue, 13 May 2014 19:54:55 EST ID:EQpXZ2aY No.193506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ENTJ bordering ESTJ here. I'd say it's pretty accurate, though I'm more an ambivert than a raw extrovert.
>>
Cyril Fanshaw - Wed, 14 May 2014 01:34:19 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193506
ambivert..that's based

It seems alot of the myers briggs is concerned with being completely balanced like that's there version of the uber mench if somebody had completely balanced all poles and functions.


Hegel by Angus Dumblekat - Fri, 09 May 2014 00:32:24 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.193393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399609944846.png -(15799 B, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15799
i'm interested in the phenomenology, but i'm afraid that without a guide or teacher i'll stumble through it and not glean all that i can

if you've taken a course in hegel, please recommend a companion, introductory text, or something else i'm unaware of that will help

thank you
20 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Priscilla Gevinghut - Tue, 13 May 2014 04:53:11 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193483 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399971191045.jpg -(43754 B, 413x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 43754
>>193480
while being a hypocrite....troll confirmed
>>
Priscilla Gevinghut - Tue, 13 May 2014 05:09:42 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193484
hegel asserts that there is always a third ideology/philophy/thought thread that the two sides that are arguing are dependent on and share. The point of conflict is where they merge, so usually what the argument is over if its the point of contention is the point where synthesis occurs, and can bring the things together in a synthesis.

So in that picture curly is actually the third thing discovered in the opposing tugs of larry and curly, that bring the three individuals larry, curly, and moe together to form the whole the three stooges. Which contains all the conflicts of the three individuals but in a greater whole a synthesis that knows that conflict(like the line in that writing you sent "god must know himself", the goal of self consciousness is to know itself while knowing) and is self aware the three stooges. Which is the way in which the group can "work" while containing all their conflicts and tensions between the various rights of their sides, within a greater synthesis.
>>
Priscilla Gevinghut - Tue, 13 May 2014 05:12:36 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193485
you did the same thing by attacking hegel's argument without reading it....boy...o
>>
Lillian Duckfuck - Tue, 13 May 2014 18:31:16 EST ID:JQnxT3xo No.193502 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193487

Nope. I used the wrong idiom, it wasn't "fall on one's sword" but "hoist by own petard".

Anyways I'm not a hypocrite until I hoist myself by my own petard. Get it?
>>
Cyril Fanshaw - Wed, 14 May 2014 01:16:22 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193520 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193502
yes in exactly the way i'm not a hypocrite until i agree i am one, you are not hypocrite.

In the fashion that that we both criticized another person for doing something we claimed was good for us, we are hypocrites.

The problem is we are the kind of hypocrites that see a difference in the various things we criticized each other for doing and what we did. But are criticisms could be eerily close to what we endorsed when it came to us.


Objectivity. by Reuben Niggerbury - Thu, 08 May 2014 04:23:17 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193381 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399537397058.jpg -(57233 B, 530x530) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57233
I have only taken one Philosophy class in my life, been meaning to take more just you know, life happened. Yet it sucks the philosophy teacher I had came across as closed minded in his own right. At the time (this was seven years ago so I've gone through other schools of thought since) I was reading some different Ayn Rand stuff. I caught him after class in the school cafeteria and asked him if he knew anything or read anything by Ayn Rand. He said he hadn't but there was a teacher at a different school that was really into her if I wanted to talk to somebody about it.

The next time I had his class he stood up in front of everybody and said "Anyone ever heard of this Ayn Rand nut?" Along with a few other things, the class didn't really know who she was as a whole but some individuals chimed in but didn't say anything too bad or good. It just bothered me because he was a philosophy teacher and his view came across as very closed minded and very judgmental.

Now don't get me wrong he's entitled to his opinion, I'm not saying Ayn Rand is the be all end all or am I saying that he's wrong I'm saying that his way of introducing it to the class wasn't objective and I don't feel he was living up to what I believe makes one a good philosopher. Even though I may not agree with a philosopher completely, or think most of their ideas are not for me that doesn't mean their view point is any less valid or wouldn't be of use in some way to someone else.

And in that moment the Professor may have steered individuals away from a philosophy that possibly could have transformed somebodies thought process for the better. I wish I had said something that I felt he was being objective, but I was too surprised that somebody who is a philosophy professor could be so closed minded.

Now if he had maybe tried to explain why he disagreed with her in a more constructive way rather than dismissing her and calling her a "Nut" I might have walked away with a better experience. If anything I feel he should have maybe explored a few of her other ideas that he might have felt were positive for him, though it's possible he might have found complete…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
18 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Clara Dabblechune - Sun, 11 May 2014 18:31:16 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.193430 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193427

OP here. I would like to take the time and I guess point out the sort of obvious to you. I understand that Objectivity and Objectivism are two different things.

>Objectivity: impartiality, absence/lack of bias, absence/lack of prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness

>Objectivism: is a philosophical system that originated as the personal philosophy of Russian-born American writer Ayn Rand

If you bothered to read or take notice, this post initially wasn't about Ayn Rand, or her philosophy Objectivism. She was definitely mentioned and then the thread turned into "FUCK AYN RAND!" No this post was initially about my college professor of philosophy who I asked his opinion of Ayn Rand, outside of class as in this conversation didn't involve the class what so ever we were in the school cafeteria, and at first he was courteous and admitted he didn't know much about her and told me I should seek out a professor at a different college as that professor was more knowledgeable. The next time I had class he opened with "Anyone ever hear of this Ayn Rand nut?" This statement wasn't very objective and as I perceived to be a closed minded point of view given his position and the field he chose to become a professor in.

Then the thread was derailed into Ayn Rand bashing which is why I can see you might think I confused the two. Once again for clarification this thread was initially about a Professor of Philosophy who I perceived to have lacked objectivity when speaking about a Philosopher he disagreed with.
>>
Cedric Dedgeridge - Mon, 12 May 2014 08:21:12 EST ID:MqiT6KrB No.193448 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193430
Well, looks like I won't have to jolly african-american you up, then, OP. I'm glad you came out to settle this with your logical words.

And I'm sorry to hear about your professor. To be frank, he sounds like a huge cunt. I'd jolly african-american the fuck out of him, OP; show him what a real philosopher is like. I've got 2 philosophy courses right now, Kant and Politics, and I actually love both the professors because they're so chill and down to earth. I think a good philosophy professor knows to entertain all ideas and tries to understand where the ideas came from and why. Then again, I've had one or two that have had their heads shoved way too far up their own elitist asses.
>>
Emma Shakewill - Tue, 13 May 2014 08:46:07 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193428
>Ayn Rand rules
"At first, I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I'm never reading again!"
>>
Thomas Greenhood - Tue, 13 May 2014 10:31:28 EST ID:MqiT6KrB No.193491 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399991488344.gif -(504419 B, 300x299) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 504419
>>193490
I'm about to jolly african-american the fuck out of you.
>>
Emma Shakewill - Tue, 13 May 2014 11:36:46 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193492 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193491
What are you going to do to stop me, enlist the help of ridiculously cliched characters and crash the world into disarray?


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

wikipedia is really good in this department, no lie


simply put

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

>ITT
>recommend philosophical texts dealing with the subject of love
18 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jarvis Driggleshaw - Thu, 08 May 2014 21:09:37 EST ID:fU/ENrl4 No.193390 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193387

>From a psychological and neurological standpoint, it's not.

Of course it is. SCIENCE IS MEASURING SHIT. How do they measure 'love'? They can't, they can only do MRI scans of peoples brains and get them to fill out a survey on how "in love" they are.

Fucking uneducated peasants who worship science like they're wizards!

>Nope. Drinking blood just digests it. You're thinking of a news article you didn't understand.

Prove that stomach acid destroys the blood before it is absorbed. Go on, do that.

>Did Satanists even exist hundreds of years ago?

Yes numnuts we burned a lot of them.
>>
Sidney Bunridge - Fri, 09 May 2014 05:41:58 EST ID:8mrIxlbB No.193396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193390
>SCIENCE IS MEASURING SHIT
It's more than just measuring shit.

>They can't, they can only do MRI scans of peoples brains and get them to fill out a survey
That's all? They're not allowed to do anything else? Shit, we better stop them!

>Prove that stomach acid destroys the blood before it is absorbed. Go on, do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion
Now prove that drinking blood is actually health improving, as per your claim.

>Yes numnuts we burned a lot of them.
I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure they were just innocent heretics.
>>
Sidney Bunridge - Fri, 09 May 2014 06:12:21 EST ID:8mrIxlbB No.193399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193397
>Not really. They measure shit, ie. map the physical world onto some number system
Sigh..

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

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

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

>funnily enough a lot of Catholics are actually satanists
This fucking guy
>>
Eugene Trotbanks - Sat, 10 May 2014 14:06:27 EST ID:8mrIxlbB No.193408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193404
>Scientists link blood transfusion to youth.
Earlier you said it was the consumption of blood which conferred benefits, you can't even remember you own lies.
>>
Alice Pinderded - Sat, 10 May 2014 23:37:35 EST ID:vrzQYW4d No.193417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193408

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


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

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

Could you clarify what you mean by these terms?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How to make people dumb through education by Ernest Daddledadge - Mon, 05 May 2014 04:33:18 EST ID:KhEERxOa No.193339 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399278798575.jpg -(9277 B, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9277
How would you go about it? What would you teach them to make them stupid and servile?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cedric Tillingville - Wed, 07 May 2014 05:25:26 EST ID:VtAdcy8p No.193364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193345
Yeah you idiot. Communism won because it worked so well
>>
Doris Goodville - Wed, 07 May 2014 08:28:47 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193364
>blatant strawman
Yeah. "Idiot".
>>
David Fippergold - Wed, 07 May 2014 15:22:25 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193344
I would teach them that nationalism is evil without explaining why, that things like facts and reasoning that oppose equality is evil, rationality is a white man's social construct and only context matters and this justifies hypocrisy, and that society props the dominant group up unjustly and their place in society is unearned.
>>
David Fippergold - Wed, 07 May 2014 15:23:44 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193345
>create a wholly imagined but otherwise mildly believable model of reality with some universal good at the end
>school is there not to facilitate the search for knowledge but to teach what it has to teach
>absolutely block any incoming info that contradicts your POV AND/OR effectively label it as racism to take advantage of the cognitive dissonance; whichever is more viable
>bonus points for implanting so much hostility towards foreign ideas that students will be unlikely to associate with them even by choice
>make "if I can refute it, then it's racist" the default mode of reasoning
>make "if I don't like it, then it's racist" the default mode of priority-setting for academia
>label every bit of info that doesn't fit into the picture as bullshit and hand out failing grades for that. invoke teacher's authority as often as possible, often just to teach the subje...err, students servility
>>
Doris Goodville - Wed, 07 May 2014 16:32:54 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193373 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193372
This works, too.

Before anyone else misses the point, I drew a comparison between the way commies taught people and the Religious Right did, which apparently stung some of the egos around here (bonus points for that, I guess). I did that intentionally; my point was, when you look really closely, EVERY dumb-them-down-and-implant-the-bullshit tactic looks pretty much the same, with relatively minor differences (nevertheless, commies did it first on such an overarching scale, so the credit should go to them, methinks). Be it communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism or flippant pseudo-democracy.


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