420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Chatting with desired girls via Whatsapp while High by Chilli - Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:42:16 EST ID:7ecNYdXE No.206287 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1467744136769.png -(52621B / 51.39KB, 313x205) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 52621
how is it do you have good/bad experiences

i have some girl in my whatsapp list i kinda grief hard for,
i am just enjoying life staying under the radar right now uk
is it a good/bad idea to connect / chat to the girls u value while beeing high
not on chilling stuff but speed, coke, etc
stuff eliminating your emphatic side doping others

i mean it would be just mad to not recognize your bad upturn while keep on chatting

sounds weird so keeping it simple whats your experience
i'll share some but most of the time i am in a set like at home i just feel like fucking up with everyone in standard...
>>
Henry Crollyfield - Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:13:09 EST ID:GNPCcPc0 No.206288 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's good because i have generally good people around me
>>
Emma Sellystock - Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:08:41 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This isn't /b/ or /qq/, Chilli.


Can the media abuse the feelings of the public? by Betsy Naddlewill - Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:44:37 EST ID:3a4OBfhC No.206270 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1467053077837.jpg -(71282B / 69.61KB, 580x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 71282
If the media is trusted to not do certain things then a breach of that trust is something I would call abuse. The problem is, I can't put into words what we trust the media to not do, I can only think of vague things that are weak in principle.
>>
Phoebe Pemmerforth - Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:51:17 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I spend a shit load of time examining the media as a whole, and yes, it is rich with abuse. Time Warner abuses the shit out of liberals, for instance, by constantly hiring 3rd party news teams to churn out agenda-based propaganda every few hours on all formats of social media. It's quite disgusting to watch, but it's legal to lie and call it news, as of 2004.
>>
Frederick Chucklesit - Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:11:07 EST ID:l6TgzVv5 No.206276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1467123067779.jpg -(67532B / 65.95KB, 1280x702) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Believe half of what you see and nothing you hear.

The sole purpose of the (traditional) media is to shape public opinion. Everybody is in somebody's pocket, whether they know it or not. It's them, or their boss, or his boss, or their boss' boss' boss. Somewhere along the chain of command somebody decided to prioritize money over truth.
>>
Ian Fendledane - Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:46:26 EST ID:Iu15Is6p No.206277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Trust is earned between family and friends. Anyone else - especially for-profit corporations and governments - need to be regulated via constitutions and laws and other feedback mechanisms.


Misanthrope tendencies by John Pendertock - Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:21:28 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206245 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1466450488852.jpg -(26778B / 26.15KB, 331x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 26778
/PSS/, what are your thoughts on balancing pain and pleasure? On the significance of happiness and sadness?

I've recently been enjoying reading about peoples' suffering and pain. It always amazes me how little of a problem can cause such a drastic reactions from people, and the mental gymnastics people do to feel innocent and victimized. I'm a hard-core believer in balance; I consider pain just as important as happiness. I also believe that these days, in the USA, civilians are indulging in dopamine overdoses that eventually manifest as depression, anxiety and misery. Sure, I'd love a world without pain, but this world needs pain, and I guess I think some groups of people really need more pain in their life or else they'll end up as useless boobs, the kind of useless boobs you see in a college safespace or in the morgue after they die of things like suicide over trivial matters or starvation from ceaseless video-game playing.
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martin Fanbanks - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:51:00 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206261 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206260
I spent an entire year in bed, bleeding from my guts. My life fell apart and my health completely faded away until I was practically lifeless. I was a walking skeleton people would look at and assume was a drug addict of some kind. It was the most horrible suffering I've ever faced, but it was such a blessing in disguise. I was so miserable until I had nothing. Then, everything seemed like a blessing. It was the single greatest dose of reality and humility I've ever faced, and it's profoundly changed me, making me a much better, happier person. Sheltered is the opposite of what I am, and it pains me to watch so many of my fellow human beings walk around with their near-perfect lives they feel so miserable about constantly, humans feeling depressed and useless even though they've never actually suffered anything greater than a trivial irritation. It astounds me that kids kill themselves over such trivial things as losing their smart phone, or they die bingeing on MMORPGs. Maybe if they had real problems to teach them the basics of pain they'd all be stronger, happier individuals.

That being said, a life of pain alone is not a life worth living, in my book. Life needs to be balanced, is my philosophy. I want to see more balance in life, which can require more suffering; I don't want to see people spend their entire life suffering, though.
>>
Ian Parrylere - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:16:24 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206262 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206260

Christ, I'm not saying pain is wonderful. Pain hurts. And through that it teaches us what to avoid, what we care for and most importantly it teaches us hope.

My father died of cancer and my mother is an alcoholic. None of that would have any significant meaning to me if it didn't cause me pain, and that's what I mean when I say that pain has intrinsic value.
>>
Martin Fanbanks - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:53:47 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206262
Pain is a lesson, but too much pain is suicide.
>>
Molly Trotwell - Sat, 25 Jun 2016 08:00:41 EST ID:FWgQKrV0 No.206265 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I totally agree with you OP. Being a junkie scumbag piece of shit actually did help me realize that a balance of pleasure and pain is important. Even something as pleasant and blissful as heroin gets really boring if you dose it everyday for months and months, after a while all the euphoria went away and I was just depressed AND now drug addicted. If you try to overload yourself with pleasure it just won't work, you need a balance, without pain you can't realize how great the pleasure is. If you just choose to overindulge in whatever your favorite pleasures are, you can quickly get bored of them and just end up more depressed than you were before, this doesn't only apply to drug addiction, as you said people nowadays are indulging in "dopamine overdoses".
>>
Molly Trotwell - Sat, 25 Jun 2016 08:03:33 EST ID:FWgQKrV0 No.206266 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206265
And drug-wise this is obviously why people addicted to heroin start using other drugs like stims or benzos or alcohol on top of it. It's not because they want to ruin their life further, it's just because ANY drug gets boring after a while, and you're just dependent on it, it's like drinking water, not that fun.


conservative and liberal by Shitting Brookfield - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 03:12:30 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.206194 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1465801950354.png -(408371B / 398.80KB, 820x1018) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 408371
people talk about being conservative and liberal, like labels they use on themselves. What does this mean anyway? I have seen so many political discussions with people being left or right wing, lib or con, or whatever.

What do these labels even mean? I saw one definition; a conservative likes society to stay the way it is while the liberal desires change from the present. So I could be a liberal leftie, but if society changes tomorrow, I could become a conservative righty. What is wrong with this political language and why is it used so vaguely?
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hedda Peckledodging - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:12:29 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1466100749809.jpg -(91999B / 89.84KB, 900x455) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>206219

>well if left wing is defined as being progressive and conservative is defined as keeping things traditional, that sort of label only makes sense in this time. People who want tradition become right wing and people wanting change become left wing. So far it makes sense.

It's interesting to note that the left/right divide in other countries usually means something completely different.

Where I live it's mostly about state vs market. The most socially conservative party is made up of Christian centrists. Also, while Americans might put environmental concerns on the left side, a market-liberal party in my country fronts that cause along with the democratic socialists.

So this diversity in political entities is something America lacks, which might be why American political terms (which I assume are the terms OP wants to talk about) are so vague to begin with. Your two parties are so big they encompass a great deal more views than any European party, yet they always get presented as two defined entities. On the surface, your politics appear to be rather simplified. And a surface understanding of politics is what's usually held by laymen voters.
>>
Hedda Peckledodging - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:14:36 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206222 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206221

And by simplified I mean vague by extension.
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:02:16 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206221
>It's interesting to note that the left/right divide in other countries usually means something completely different.
+1
This is the notion of the "progressive" liberals and the "conservative" conservatives in the USA. In Europe and most other places in the world, these terms have little meaning to their roots.

The definitions that OP sets out to define only work in the theater of US (and maybe Canadian and Ausfag) politics. That being said, they have varying degrees of definition and need to be set in stone before we confuse the conversation further.
>>
Jenny Blamblefuck - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:25:06 EST ID:qV4OApJw No.206241 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206221
Your two parties are so big they encompass a great deal more views than any European party, yet they always get presented as two defined entities

Yes. I find it difficult to align myself to one of these entities, because my views can be found scattered in both parties, yet i also see many party beliefs on both sides that go against my personal views, so i cannot resolve myself as left wing or right wing.

>>206225
In Europe and most other places in the world, these terms have little meaning to their roots.

So are you saying that parties in Europe are mixed between left and right issues in their political position like I am? When you refer to their roots, are you saying that their 'left' or 'right' stance does not fit in with their party's position?
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:27:28 EST ID:gm9dPrV5 No.206242 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206241
Yes. Socially conservative and economically liberal groups exist in Europe in decent droves. Whereas in America, if you support BLM, you're almost certainly a full fledged communist.


determinism by Wesley Hugglewit - Sat, 05 Dec 2015 20:25:55 EST ID:0p7U580/ No.204374 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1449365155339.jpg -(157904B / 154.20KB, 625x538) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157904
how does quantum mechanics invalidate casual determinism?
71 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shitting Dubblepire - Wed, 25 May 2016 17:59:52 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206069 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206067

I don't know, that sounds a bit too intuitive. As far as I understand, relativity makes itself noticeable to the naked eye on massive scales but it still counts on our scale. Keep in mind though that we can see galaxies, but not particles. Perhaps that shift between quantum scales and normal scales is mostly due to perspective, but what would I know being a simple biology student.
>>
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:00:27 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206067
That seems to me the most reasonable answer. Seeing as we can see through our endeavors in quantum mechanics as compared to classical materialism/physics, the "laws of the universe" are really just guidelines that are relevant at certain scales or levels of experience/perception.

At our level, classical physics is the main set of guidelines but when it comes down to subatomic space, the game changes. Going further and deeper past leptons, quarks, gluons, bosons, whathaveyou, it might change even more and become so alien that quantum mechanics can't even support it. Going out to scale of super-clusters and beyond, we will probably find that not all of relativity or classical materialistic physics applies all the time

A fundamental flaw in my opinion of Western science is assuming that if someone in the past twenty years has written a mathematically verifiable theory on it, that is it and that's how it works, more or less. With that mind set, you abstract that theory to cover every scale of reality, which as we see with quantum mechanics, doesn't groove. I'm sure most physicists are aware of that but the common man's understanding of physics seems to be that the classical laws are absolute and until Hawking or Tyson or CNN announce this or that, they view anything weird as being horse shit.
>>
Ernest Sushstock - Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:49:01 EST ID:ox39W3p3 No.206237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206091
This notion of shifting physical laws that depend on scale is what most quantum physicists have become to believe in (source: Dick, my. 2016). Something about free will being the result of interactions between scales of size and thus interacting laws of physics and quantum physics.
>>
Samuel Hirringshaw - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 05:50:27 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.206239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206091

>A fundamental flaw in my opinion of Western science is assuming that if someone in the past twenty years has written a mathematically verifiable theory on it, that is it and that's how it works, more or less.

Well that flaw is thankfully only present among laymen and not really in science itself. I remember a lot of physicists were stoked on actually not finding the Higgs boson, for example, because that would mean proof that they are wrong and would be forced to rewrite the standard model and physics in general.

Any physicist worth his weight knows the theories are abstractions that only explain events under certain conditions; Newtonian physics for example explains events on our scale remarkably well, but you need relativity to properly explain the orbits of planets and the shape of galaxies. This is why there's been so much work in unifying relativity and quantum physics.

My bet would be that both models are essentially wrong. Like Newtonian physics both explains event well under their predisposed conditions, but fails to take into account the underlying forces responsible for both scales. So for us there appears to be a break where the laws of nature change dependent on scale because the theories themselves are wrong, like how Newton's laws break down when you apply them at celestial scales because they fail to account for gravitational space-time distortions.
>>
Thomas Climblenet - Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:54:22 EST ID:vCtuTH8+ No.206240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205865
>>206047
QM doesn't invalidate determinism, it invalidates reductionism / local realism. Systems evolve deterministically via Schrödinger's equation, but that evolution can pass through states that aren't possible or reachable for a system composed of fundamentally discrete parts. Rather than attributing inherent state, structure or parts to systems, it makes more sense if we attribute state and structure to the interactions among systems.


Rand by Martha Funningchodge - Mon, 23 May 2016 14:52:31 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206050 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464029551258.jpg -(62345B / 60.88KB, 402x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62345
Does anyone else here love Ayn Rand?
She's a little edgy, but undoubtedly a modern Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Barnaby Fuckingfuck - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:11:24 EST ID:PpZMPMvh No.206126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So do you Rand fanboys actually buy into the idea that all humans are rational through and through who, when left to decide for themselves, will always make the best decision through selfishness for the good of society?
What happens if a considerable part of the population is retarded?
>>
Shit Binningnudge - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:52:33 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206126
You don't quite get it. Nobody is going to do what's good for society, only good for themselves. The point is that doing what's best for themselves is often times what's best for society, since uplifting every individual is how you uplift society. And to counter-balance this, we have set laws stopping humans from being a detriment to each other, and instead everyone is left as a competitor, and the more they compete, the better everything becomes as survival of the brightest constantly occurs in this process.

For all the retarded people in the population, well, that's what prisons/self-defense laws are for. You just protect yourself from the retards by competing against them and winning, and then if they try to fuck with you you can call 9/11 or kill them yourself, depending on the extremeness of the circumstance.

This is all based on Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. I'd advise you to check it out; Aristotle was a hell of a guy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:53:59 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206121
She is remembered in her failures where other people can galvanize and build upon their thoughts. Radical notions are always controversial and it is in those controversies that they are propagated and remembered. The intelligent observations are just that - observations. But the web of connections they make to create opinions and to-do lists are what I am talking about.
It's not meant to be controversial, it's just that there are these avenues of approaching famous figures in the world.

If you want examples, I'll provide you with one from each of the people you have named:
Marx detached his theory of politics from his social commentary which allowed Lenin to fill that void and write an "instruction manual" for how to apply communism in revolutionary life. His social critique was based on observations but his communism was lacking relative and relevant substance.
Aristotle's general metaphysics was all over the place and a reason why people no longer discussed the ether and classical elements after the enlightenment. He demonstrated how not to conduct science.
Confucius' theory of timocracy that was separate from the Western traditions.
Einstein is a result of everything that was built up leading up to his accomplishments. Science is a tricky one especially since it hinders on the fact that nothing can be proven but only so much to uncorrelated - that perhaps outlines the essence of what I am trying to say in terms of philosophers being wrong.
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:58:46 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.206224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206129
I actually give people on /opi/ Nichomachean Ethics whenever the question "how can I use opiates in moderation" comes up. 10/10 on that.

However, 0/10 for "nobody's going to do what's good for society". The point of a democracy in the classical sense is that people vote for the best interest of the people - not for themselves. Of course that doesn't work in reality which is why democracy is becoming more and more of a failed state if not implemented like a confederate or an aristocratic fashion.

In fact, the reason why people like Ayn Rand and other classical US conservatives despise communism and socialism is because they naturally ignore the fact that many humans strive towards a greater good.
This shows up more in educated societies and smaller societies, of course.
>>
Martin Gorrybanks - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:21:14 EST ID:6eB5rYI1 No.206235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206126
Some people may think this but that's not the idea.

Up against the staggering doubt man doesn't succeed is her point.

Atlas shrugged means atlas dropped the world.

The ego needs to be fulfilled precisely because we still doubt our very existence in the self.

And we can never overcome the crushing wait of existence.

Hence the ego hence positivism postive form in a void because of the voids reality.

She just gave a philosophy saying most of the world will undo peace inner and outer.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Philosophy of Art by Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sat, 14 May 2016 17:21:25 EST ID:gvdNptq8 No.205976 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463260885590.jpg -(328603B / 320.90KB, 1000x1007) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 328603
I'm not sure how often this gets discussed here but I would kinda just like to hear what everyone's philosophy of art is, personal or someone else's you hold truth to. Maybe these topics would be interesting to discuss:

>How art has and can affect the world, both positively and negatively
>The connections between art, the viewer, and even the artist
>If you make art, how does it make you feel? Why do you make art, and why do you enjoy it?
22 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nigel Dullyforth - Sat, 11 Jun 2016 13:44:55 EST ID:FUP8SuWx No.206185 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206180
Hmm? I never said everyone opinion should be the same as mine, in fact I said just the opposite. That everyone is free to feel how they want-- that modern art is perfection or trash or anything in-between. I'll agree there's a whole lot of subjectivity is modern art, too much for me sometimes too, but you know that's really just the nature of art. When the first Europeans saw the statues ancient Indians made of their gods, they were appalled at the lack of realism, the exaggerations and departure from human anatomy. But you can't really say either one was right. If you're saying that I'm close minded because I'm putting forward an argument, then well what's the point of this whole board? You have to call someone else wrong at some point, doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion or that I think you have to think the same things I do. I also don't really believe Fountain is a piece of shit, or that La Pieta is amazing just because it fulfills the criteria of a beautiful classical piece. I was just illustrating my point, that in modern art anyone can use any criteria they want, and feel however they want to feel. The only alternative is the one standard of the classical era.
>>
Charlotte Siblinglock - Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:48:14 EST ID:hJcqruvH No.206191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205976

The problem with art is the subjectivity of the perception of the artist shoe someone a picture of a murder scene and it would be a harrowing insight etc but tell them it's by Ed Geen and the majority will be repulsed. Of course the notoriety will draw some people but a good deal would never look again. Same with music I'm sure many people stopped listening to Lost Prophets when the gut was revealed as a sex offender. Or stopped watching Sons Of Anarchy. Can you imagine the reaction if you told someone a painting they liked was by Hitler?

This to me suggests that the beauty we perceive in any art form is relative to an assumed connection to the artist and the belief that they're somehow special or enlightened
>>
Eugene Blythelock - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:25:38 EST ID:DrKoeeI3 No.206197 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206185
>If you're saying that I'm close minded
you definetly seemed close minded from your post. And you were lamenting subjectivity in modern art (while being very subjective) so it seemed you wanted objectivity: ie everyone agrees.
you don't really seem to know that much about art....
>>
Martin Smallspear - Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:58:34 EST ID:G7HNZ8D0 No.206212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206183
1e+a2e+a3e+a4e+a
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 05:06:15 EST ID:DA5qZhTg No.206218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206178
Nonetheless I don't think we disagree. Fountain is a piece of shit, but a very good joke, only one that has grown quaint with the years, like the bawdy jokes in Shakespeare -- when's the last time you saw people laughing at Shakespeare? Fountain transcends, but not the way a beautiful work like the Pietà does. The Pietà, like all exceptional Christian art, turned one's mind to higher things. Duchamp's act, by contrast, was wholly destructive -- breaking the shackles of sculpture as Malevich had done 2 years previous for the canvas.

However, jokes are only funny once, and shackles can't be broken again. This is the bind of contemporary art, which has only been able to continually re-assert its own nullity.

In any case, my point was this -- if you can appreciate the beauty of classicism, you can appreciate the formal energy of modernism, just like the chemist can calculate the chemical energy liberated by the carbon-carbon bond in combustion. Whether you find modernist works to be beautiful is maybe besides the point. Beauty is itself a classicist notion, and we are never going back "there," to the status quo ante.


a psychological question by Doris Shakehall - Tue, 31 May 2016 23:24:59 EST ID:w8gYmmm/ No.206082 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464751499223.jpg -(87461B / 85.41KB, 840x722) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 87461
hey i posted this question in /b/ but im not getting the in-depth responses that i hoped for.
what could inspire someone to destroy the life of someone they love? what gratification does one get from it? im seeking your wisdom. someone who loved me tried to destroy my life when i did him no wrong. And while i am doing quite well in getting over the situation and moving on, i feel that if i knew the psychological motives for his actions i would have more closure. any ideas?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
David Giffinghood - Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:11:07 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206192 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206175
yeah that's you're entire psyche outside of your ego, unless you've already dealt with your complex


i wouldn't judge her, i went through it and i didn't.

Although i did go through the feeling of being accused that i had. And that in turn gave me my own complex, to which people took advantage of. Giving me insight into how one can go there life time with no difference between the reality and the complex. For they completely coincide.

You're only going to really tell a difference through your own introspection, your own beliefs, which can in turn be jeopardized in any viewing of anything, unless you find some way to deal with being contradicted and being invalidated or validated by contradictory things.

Not necessarily internally or externally, but realizing you live in a narrative, you are a narrative, and you have pieces of that narrative that come from and exist in insecure foundation.

Can you remember the pieces of you're brain/mind/pysche that you're language springs from, or are you those questions. If you feel that mechanism break, even if it were said to be psychosomatic, how would you explain not being able to speak as well without that mental conglomerate phantom leg reacting with it's reflexes.

Point being it wasn't so easy to look at it as you have. Given that it seems to feed into the thoughts of inferiority to categorize it in a way that is done, to dismiss it from whatever counts as a good psychological reaction.
>>
Barnaby Parringfadging - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:23:30 EST ID:j46/6F10 No.206193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206192
>you're only going to really tell a difference through your own introspection, your own beliefs, which can in turn be jeopardized in any viewing of anything,

Which stems from closing yourself off to other viewpoints, out of fear. You have tunnel vision and only view things through the lens of your complex.

>unless you find some way to deal with being contradicted and being invalidated or validated by contradictory things.

You deal with it by listening to the contradictory things, and trying to understand it. Maybe you are wrong.

>Can you remember the pieces of you're brain/mind/pysche that you're language springs from, or are you those questions.

I can remember. It springs from everything. Unlike other instinctual parts of my mind, my language is always evolving. Learning new words, learning how to communicate better. It has happened almost every day of my life, even now.

>it wasn't so easy to look at it as you have.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:31:04 EST ID:G2LMnx/t No.206205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You need to provide more context to the situation in order for a proper analysis to take place.

From what you've given us the answer could be anything from he's a sociopath to you're delusional.
>>
Priscilla Messlelock - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 01:05:11 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206193
well this helped a lot because i just remembered feedback loop.

But now i'm also contemplating the psyche itself as a feedback loop, so that's a new wrinkle from an old story, to which you reminded me of it.

i guess i should have said there is a intriguing possibility that exists in a difficulty of trying to put into language those parts that language comes from. Because you begin to access more language, and can look at something that's very funny and contradictory to a logic which most of your rules of thoughts obey.

i like the part about listening to contradicotry things and going through the process more, but going through the idea of maybe you are wrong. Exacerabates the problem of there being only one position one right or wrong in the first place, which is why you are in the position of feeling stress over being contradicted.

Because you feel the loss of something in side that did exist by the rule of nothing being able to contradict it.

It's too close to the danger of if you can't beat them join them, when you see that the process is never ending so even after the dread and more loss of basically living by abandoning self and knowledge.

The only thing you're doing is living in a farcical false pretense of thinking what you have is right because you're stuck in a process of being accused of that because of the structure of the dialogue. To make the next painful near psyche deat experience easier.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Matilda Duckshaw - Thu, 16 Jun 2016 03:45:36 EST ID:meSS26fV No.206216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206215
I guess it's like another shortcut into thinking of yourself as the being what's wrong while the outside is in the authoritative right.


wtf by Ernest Pashbid - Wed, 18 May 2016 20:10:48 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206006 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463616648684.jpg -(23001B / 22.46KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23001
is it all really so complicated?
it seems to me that many philosophers overly complicate what it all really is.
why can't things be simple? i think the reality is that they are.
it's the most simple thing, as obvious as anything can be. but this very concept is paradoxically the most abstract concept.
fuck it yolo
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ernest Pashbid - Thu, 19 May 2016 15:43:36 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206013
i may be a cynic, but isn't all knowledge relative? even if we're talking the empirical sciences, there's always a degree of uncertainty.
life, as it seems to me, seems to be answer-less. there may be certain equations that can predict certain outcomes, but as a whole life seems to be something that transcends this kind of segmented knowledge
>>
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:47:11 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206019
I feel you on that. Look into the Tao Te Ching, Buddhism (to a degree), and some stuff by Manly Hall on the nature of reality or consciousness. Depending on your perspective, life/existence/reality can be eaither ultimately simple or infinitely complex. The fact of the matter is that it's both. Existence and nature are paradoxical in many ways. God is the universe is our experience of subjective reality is nonexistent and existent so on and so forth. It isn't something that can be put into a neat box absolutely. It can be imagined into a box to better understand it or some aspect of it in a given context but ultimately it isn't completely containable by the human mind.
>>
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:49:58 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206089
To finish that thought-
[...] but ultimately it isn't completely containable by the human mind. The only thing you can do is to explore as many different perspectives as possible and figure out which one works best for you as a tool to experience life the way you want to and to serve you as a tool for personal growth. I'm coming from the standpoint of someone very entrenched in the esoteric traditions of the east and west so someone going on standard western materialism will vehemently disagreee and that's okay.
>>
Nathaniel Gockleman - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:43:21 EST ID:9PdOSkmz No.206099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206006
I think that you are right at some point. Philosophers always write in a very complex and abstract way without any reason to do it. I think that in this times it's necesary because the academy have the need to create an elite of people that can only understand talking to each other but all the things that they talk about have nothing to said about the human existence. Note that if you read Plato, for example, he is not THAT complicated, in fact it's pretty simple and I'm sure that it was simple for most the greeks since they lived in the same context.
If you ask me it's simple: what is the being? well the being is what we do and what we said with and about the world that we live in. And therefore you can ask: wich is the work of phylosophers? well, in my opinion they have to work to create those beings not to clarify THE being, suposing that there is only one and that it fell from the sky making all the others things be. For example, Plato lived in a time were there were others that tought that the education, wisdom and truth were not like he used to think about it. I'm talking about the sophist. So what did he do? well, he didn't just wrote a lot of stuff refuting all that sophist used to said he also creates a place were truth, wisdom and education were lived as he tought those things should be live. I dont know if I'm being clear or simple....
To conclude: phylosophers should work to create new beings, like magic, like a summoner. With their words they should make appear new beings in front of them. New ways to live the same things that we live everyday: education, work, production, politics, etc.
>>
Phineas Pimbleridge - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 08:08:25 EST ID:DSUsjw9o No.206109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206006
It is simple my friend! You see the way, now follow the way, and bend the path of the way if it is your desire; though if you hold desires then be prepared for the outcome when you fail to reach them and for the hold they will take over your mind!

Do not disturb the muddy waters and they shall be clear again!


Does anyone deserve anything? by Eliza Honeyshaw - Thu, 12 May 2016 05:14:15 EST ID:DV+RWBaM No.205936 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463044455615.png -(24604B / 24.03KB, 539x256) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24604
I came across this picture browsing facebook of course. Putting aside my intense hatred for tumblr post screenshots, I was going to post this in /pol/ because of it's obvious political basis and motivation, but I didn't really want a political discussion. Do you think people inherently deserve these things? Do you think that anyone deserves anything at all simply for existing? Does anyone even deserve to live simply because they are already alive? My emphasis being placed on the word deserve.
13 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fanny Greendock - Fri, 13 May 2016 10:30:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205964
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Like, if this was 4000 years ago I wouldn't even care about my fellow humans getting housing or healthcare, probably, due to how many problems every human had to face at the time, but today, in 2016, I definitely consider the amount of healthcare and housing we have to be vast, so vast that we can house 99% of people and heal 99% (of people in the USA) if we really wanted to.

I think we should find a happy medium with these things. Do I think society should have to (financially) take care of every deformed child and cancer patient that doesn't have money? No. But do I think that it's unreasonable to do things like, say, give out free health screenings and check-ups to low-income families, or make enough shelters to cheaply house all the homeless during the night hours, and tax society for those things? Absolutely not.

My only beef with more communistic set-ups is that I think we expect too much of certain situations. Like I think we just need to keep working on these things little by little, constantly improving them, rather than trying to do something to fix the situation permanently and then have it blow up in our faces. I think that's the ethically wise thing to do.
>>
Oliver Turveylock - Sat, 14 May 2016 01:50:48 EST ID:aLUPZsOL No.205970 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205964

>>205937
>>205941

nb
>>
Isabella Hublingville - Wed, 25 May 2016 18:44:55 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206070 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Given what we have, people that live here deserve this.

This statement is true, but it's based off the dream we see when we look out, and know something is right or wrong, nice or mean, based simply off of feeling.


Why do we deserve to be happy, simply because we recognize the universal longing to be.
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Wed, 25 May 2016 21:44:36 EST ID:D6gwXmSI No.206071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205962
This is a philosophy and social science board and the way you look at it is a very basic understanding about the concept of rights as well as the concept of humans.
Much like OP's picture, there just seems to be a limited understanding about the philosophy of "rights" as well as what it means to be "human". In other words: "citation please".

Depending on which political school you follow, necessities are given to you regardless of who you are. They can treat a 16 year old the same as a 30 year old.
Arguably, religious existentialism places the necessity of children to eat, be housed, and educated (past enlightenment). This is extended towards the entire family structure that has had 1.5 millenia of religious influence on being with families. Then once they become adults, they are both members of the church as well as the state. Before the 1950s, there was a tough family structure and there was less focus on individualism.

However, nowadays, the concept of "rights" have been more prevalent than ever because individualism is coveted. This is where the dawning of ethics comes in.
Kant would argue that before a certain age and life experience, you would not be considered a true "adult" and therefore not as a person. Therefore, you would deny their rights as an individual. In this current day, those are the various freedoms we enjoy such as consumption of legal drugs, voting, gun ownership, etc.
However, once you turn this age, you are then given various responsibilities along with the rights. Depending on the society you live in along with your political affiliations and which school of philosophy you belong to, these rights can then vary wildly.
In communist countries, theoretically, everyone has the right to food and shelter. No such right exists in a theoretically applicable capitalist country.
>>
Samuel Sablingson - Thu, 26 May 2016 20:32:59 EST ID:a7f2BoJM No.206072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What we deserve, our rights, is dictated by society. We can't know if we inherently deserve anything, so instead we've devised a system of rights, which is validated by its own invocation. Such is why other animals decidedly have no rights. We may have responsibilities to them, but a caribou can't thwart a lion's attack by threatening legal discourse.

It is our ability to invoke rights that validates them, and these rights are created and given to us by society.
Also, we're all ass holes here. Why is that?


Aristotelian Metaphysics and how it relates to quantum physics by Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Mon, 04 Apr 2016 23:51:57 EST ID:rcU6pCY9 No.205547 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1459828317490.gif -(74594B / 72.85KB, 980x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74594
Any time during my STEM degree when Aristotle is brought up, it is just so we could dismiss him. In history, he was violently and immediately purged from most scientific literature as science moved on. Aristotle didn't really have metaphysics down to a tee......... but at least he tried.

Little did he know (what with him being dead and shit) that his metaphysical works will one day be relevant again when relativity came along in the 1940s and his metaphysics somehow became relevant again. His concept of objects having innate values and inherent properties is probably the best way to describe quantum particles to people.
Arrie: Air is above water because it is meant to be higher and its natural tendency to be above water and ground. Alternatively: things fall on the ground due to their natural tendency to be close to the Earth.
Quannie: a proton is comprised of three quarks because of their tendency to be together and their natural attraction. Sure, it can be measured but WHY it happens is just because of their natural tendency to be a proton. In fact, during nuclear decay and an unstable neutron:proton balance is achieved, a neutron could transmutate into a proton by releasing another inherent particle.

These two concepts are miles apart but have the same essence, in the end.
When my quantum physics teacher teaches, she uses words like "because the molecule needs to become what it is supposed to be" or what it "wants" to be.
This kind of terminology is core to Aristotelian metaphysics. And it's something I wish they still referenced when talking about quantum physics.

What does /pss/ think?
16 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:38:23 EST ID:RJWzMG+n No.205819 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205547
Is the language that your teacher uses actually reflective of the mathematical theory, or is a phrase like "wants" simply a pedagogical device?
Does quantum physics describe objects, like Aristotelian metaphysics, or is it just a model we use to understand objects?
>>
Eliza Suttingfoot - Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:35:08 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205823 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205819
Where did you get all these big words? You some kind of English student or student of theocracy? Because I had to google like 3 of the terms you use, which I see are all religion-based terms.
>>
press !QUHukXEvkY - Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:20:50 EST ID:dKvwsnko No.205825 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1461799250240.png -(138882B / 135.63KB, 425x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>205547
so youre comparing a way of describing the world by gathering directly observable phenomena that aristotle used to the way scientists do it nowadays?
i dont remember who said it, propably somebody that wasnt a fan of plato or goedel, but "all models are wrong, yet some are very useful"

theres no direct need to have a model that explains why things behave the way they do, the most desired thing is often to join already observed phenomena in a model that makes them look coherent or atleast not opposing.
the basic aristotelian idea of everything being composed of five founding elements was very useful for describing wether or not a rock would fall down or sink in water, yet it at least to me seems very useless if you want to explain why girl get pregnant, how is babby formed? the QM teacher also doesnt need to explain why shit happens, she just has to explain how it happens and how her students can use QM to explain other phenomena.


the idea of the scientific method or any form of empirisicsm gaining value by not just explaining what we already learned about the way stuff happens but by being able to make predictions based on reasoning within those models is very fucking young.

>>205817
the idea of models being surpassed by models that withstand the same test of falsification is a very popper thing and could easily be critisized in a found way even by somewhat unreasonable people such as feyerabend.

how ever much i dislike the false dichotomy between continental and analytical philosopy, im afraid that while philosophy is the art - art meaning almost anything that has a system of beauty/truth/soundness - that should be considered the freest of them all, its at the same time something that suffers from that very freedom. id call math a daughter of philosophy but atleast that girl gets her axioms sorted out most of the times.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Matilda Ducklock - Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:57:48 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.205828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205825

>thats the problem with induction.

As a philosophical concept, induction obviously doesn't prove that the pool cue actually causes the movement of the billiard ball you hit with it. However, this issue is of a philosophical nature and has no bearing on the actual world. The position that you can't directly know that A causes B is much like solipsism. You can't directly know the external world exists outside your mind, yet you still act like it does.

What we've been discussing in this thread is a result of the relationship between events and the natural limits of the observer. It has nothing to do with reality itself.


>thats a very funny thing about induction and empirisiscm, they seem to be right because they havent been wrong yet.

And this makes the case for the pragmatic 'leap-of-faith' required to actually function in the world. For example, if you're going to be working with small-pox sufferers, you'll make sure you're vaccinated. You can induce that you won't be infected if you're vaccinated, even though philosophy might poke a hole in the validity of induction itself.

Induction, if done right, just works. If it didn't, then reality would work differently than what induction tells us about it.
>>
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Fri, 20 May 2016 02:38:21 EST ID:qiVkRTJI No.206024 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1463726301057.png -(119507B / 116.71KB, 680x509) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
DICKS EVERYWHERE


The Founding of the USA and religious influences on it by Archie Drezzlefield - Mon, 16 May 2016 12:26:03 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205986 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463415963529.jpg -(497569B / 485.91KB, 800x1208) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 497569
So, the other day I got into an argument with some Christians about the foundation of the USA. They claim that the USA is a Christian (Protestant) country in origin, where as I claimed that it was an Agnostic country in origin. They did make mention of some good points, like the fact that the Enlightenment thinkers were religious and that the Founding Fathers were religious. But at the same time, it seems clear to me that even though the Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers were religious, that they did not support the Church or institutionalized religion, but rather saw those things are perversions of Faith, humanity perverting religion into something of an empire. Like, while I understand the founders of the USA were protestant, I see them all as rebels against religious institutions, and I truly believe that they intended on creating an Agnostic country so that anyone could practice any religion freely without any other religion getting in their way. The very first amendment claims that no religion may be respected by law. But, then they mentioned that plenty of Enlightenment thinkers considered religion to be a staple of civilization and necessary, and indeed quite a few Enlightenment thinkers did think that.

What do you guys think of this? Is the USA a Protestant or Agnostic country?
>>
Hannah Fonningmot - Mon, 16 May 2016 12:33:11 EST ID:tyk7r1Q9 No.205987 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205986
Protestant /Puritan technically yes.

In favour of religious diversity? Probably.

Agnostic? Well a lot of believers have doubts at some point in any religion so I find this term a bit vague and useless.
>>
Archie Drezzlefield - Mon, 16 May 2016 13:18:28 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205987
>Agnostic?
When I use the term Agnostic, I mean specifically the complete lack of faith in both theism and atheism.

I'm starting to think those Christians didn't quite understand my vocabulary, either. I know for a fact that the Enlightenment thinkers valued Rationalism over religion, to the extent that they had no faith whatsoever but instead used science to back up their religious ideologies, but when I claimed that the Enlightenment thinkers 'had no faith' I think they mistook the word faith as meaning 'belief in something spiritual' rather than my definition, which is 'belief in something without scientific reasoning'.

But you said this country (the USA) is technically Protestant/Puritan. Why is it 'technically' either of those?
I know that places like Virginia were Protestant, politically, but again, like I said, the Constitution makes no mention of supporting Protestantism, so I want to know why you see it as Protestant. I consider the English colonies of North America as Protestant, but I really felt like all religious ideologies were left out of the Constitution.
>>
Nathaniel Nemmerdot - Mon, 16 May 2016 17:06:52 EST ID:XBnR1a57 No.205990 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>205989
based on where they came from (can't remember where exactly in Europe but I think a lot of the anabaptists were from Austria) and the theology which prompted them to abandon the Catholic church (Zwingli, Luther, Calvin) I guess you can be reasonably confident that you can refer to these migrants as Protestants or Puritans and they would likewise agree.

I used the word technical just because if you were to quiz them one by one on their faith then I bet few of them would be v into theology and would have a huge variation in their definition of God.
>>
Fuck Gedgeforth - Tue, 17 May 2016 11:11:01 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.205994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The founders of the United States were largely deists, and when using the term "God," were not actually referencing the Yahweh of Christianity. The Constitution of the United States, Declaration of Independence, etc. make no reference to a Christian God and Christianity does not nor should have any legal bearing on its laws. It was founded to be a secular state. I think they were intelligent enough to see what religious wars and dogma had done to Europe.


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