Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
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
[*]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


DELETED EVERYTHING by Fucking Bendlechin - Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:43:31 EST ID:vWcAbLEe No.195932 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1411577011390.jpg -(494708 B, 849x565) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 494708
I went on a serious slash-and-burn campaign through my inbox and old email accounts that I had in high school. According to my trash, I deleted over 14,000 emails in my primary account alone.
Besides the plethora of spam and promotionals, there were plenty of embarrassing nuggets of personal information, as well as tender messages from friends whom I haven't talked to in forever.

This exercise caused me to think about personal data in this "digital age". With storage issues being trivial, we can basically store every digital correspondence that we have ever sent or received. I wonder, does anyone care about their old data? Did I just delete a part of my "memories", albeit externally stored memories.

If you deleted all of your old backups/emails, would you be losing a part of your self?
Martha Sattingshaw - Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:17:37 EST ID:hTlZ7Uli No.195945 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If you deleted all of your old backups/emails, would you be losing a part of your self?
If you went back and read them would you be overriding your current self in favour of your past self?

I used to care, but over time old memories serve less of a purpose. At most they might be useful someday so I let them stay on the hard disc.
Samuel Worthingstone - Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:32:41 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195946 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You still have memories of them they exist.
If deleted, and someone questions the credibility of the email existence, you cant really prove it, thats about it.
That must be a weird experience OP, I still have a email from a teenager that has 10k emails
Doris Nicklecocke - Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:25:40 EST ID:z/+SKLWa No.195973 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think about that when I delete pictures from my phone. If I go to a cool show and get some pics but later on delete them accidentally or for whatever reason they end up not being on my phone anymore. How can I prove to people that I was at the event that took place? I can't all I can really offer anymore is my word after that. I don't htink it really matters because having high quality cameras on a phone is a pretty new thing so before it was just like people maybe talked about the event more in person. People talked more in general and had better social skills too.

love by Luke de LaFranco - Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:59:00 EST ID:4JzsVuBN No.195913 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1411444740049.gif -(19742 B, 279x254) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 19742
I ain't even shittin you guise.

What is "love"??

and don't tell me it's oxytocin & all that brain chemicals, i feel it way deep and it's like I know what it is, but then when you ask me I'm all like, "it's all like, fuck what is it"
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Serrystot - Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:51:14 EST ID:GocPVPTk No.195925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>this thread again
Fucking fuck no please not again
Faggy Pockson - Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:57:24 EST ID:D8tJ5vV5 No.195929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A lot of philosophers I've heard say there are different kinds of love, but I would describe loves such as sexual love and that of a mother's love as a passionately uncontrollable intuitive feeling you identify as "love" that comes to one without a driving need to question that sensation's existence.

Fuckin' false egos man.
Esther Fazzlefoot - Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:21:30 EST ID:Ak0VEBMk No.195937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's what you feel when you care for someone's happiness more than your own.
cliché but that's life
Caroline Chossleville - Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:22:22 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I agree with this, and also when you only desire good things to come into a person's life, and only wish for them whatever is best for them.
Jarvis Crottingchun - Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:49:03 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
love is desiring to act in the interest of the wellbeing of the other without condition, and it is also doing the act

i think it's unfortunate people popularly refer to limerence as love, but then again, it's kind of a nice surprise to discover what real love is


Philosophy as an exercise by Thomas Hopperwell - Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:05:36 EST ID:Lt8nB5HX No.195255 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406563536009.png -(5340 B, 120x158) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5340
Here's something I've been mulling over for a while, time to see what you all think of it:

Ask the average person what they think of philosophy and they generally conjure up some image of intellectuals atop their ivory towers, people who do pointless thought exercises for a living. At best you might find somebody who acknowledges that philosophy is important, but ultimately irrelevant for day-to-day life.

And for the most part I agree, things like epistemology aren't really relevant to most people. But I don't think it needs to be that way. What if people saw philosophy as something like physical exercise? Sure, there are people who do it for a living and who will always be much better than you at it, but that doesn't mean you have nothing to gain from keeping fit.

If everybody studied things like formal logic, or even just thought about things a little more, would the world be much different?

tl;dr Philosophy is relevant to everybody on some level, maybe helping people understand what it's for would be a good idea
Walter Hucklefuck - Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:32:53 EST ID:Dk0Ab3Kp No.195273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I dont think people not reading the old books isnt as important as people seeming to not be constantly questioning existence or whatever this is, what I guess youd call "philosophy". I mean like, all the time. Its mind boggling how people can sit in a room together and calmly make hamburgers.
hope i helped.
Jack Clammernire - Wed, 30 Jul 2014 00:13:45 EST ID:Ahbnco9i No.195274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If everybody studied things [...] would the world be much different?
Yes it would. nb
Phoebe Bunman - Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:32:51 EST ID:JJRSOOEq No.195290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think it would have the same problems just over different things.
Hugh Drasslestot - Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:52 EST ID:4FzMI92o No.195935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You may have come up with a very interesting way of re-framing philosophy as though it were the mental counterpart to physical exercise, although i doubt this idea will be picked up and advertised by governments any time soon as a 'healthy thing to do' like the ads that tell you not to have too much fat sugar and salt in your diet and getting at least 30 minutes of walking in your day.

You do probably have more people being educated or at least somewhat aware of philosophical topics and dilemmas thanks in no small part to blogs and ready access to academic resources and instant communication with experts and enthusiasts on every topic imaginable like on circlejerk for example.

Is the by Matilda Trotford - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:26:00 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195808 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410459960073.jpg -(12609 B, 246x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12609
Is every good deed committed have a subconscious driven biological evolutionary angle of
>helping this person will endebt him to help me for survival?
>A diety/kharma will reward me
would then the only good deed come from an atheist or agnostic?

What defines a good deed, and is it good in itself, the thoughts and motivations behind it?
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cyril Clonningstock - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:21:02 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195822 Ignore Report Quick Reply

i dont really have any idea what this post is trying to convey
Augustus Pockfuck - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:58:26 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195823 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ive thought about this a lot

Its only affected me in this way:

When I'm presented with the opportunity to do a spontaneous act of love, out of the sight of all others except for the beneficiary, and in some cases out pf their sight, I take the opportunity every time and train my thoughts elsewhere as soon as the act has been completed

It's made me into a better altruist, really
Nathaniel Chigglelock - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:46:45 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I dont think either of these posters are getting it:

it doesn't matter why you think you are doing a good deed, the question is what are the underlying subconscious motivations

or at least, that's what OP was talking about
Hannah Gonderbat - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:18:07 EST ID:CDP5PjGT No.195891 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No deed is good in itself. There is no such thing as 'good.'

I go by the Categorical Imperative.
Angus Cheffingfield - Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:52:07 EST ID:uyfIEYjw No.195910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Many animals demonstrate altruism. Society helped us keep it I think.

Provided you're not the occasional McKennist hippie trying to go all zen about everything... by Hamilton Mommlehall - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 01:31:24 EST ID:xBZU8PNQ No.195678 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409549484759.jpg -(1743962 B, 1698x1131) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1743962
Tell me, how do I start? What do I read first if I want to get engaged in philosophy and politics, sociology and psychology.
Is it necessary to study the classics in order to read more contemporary PSS?

I mean, I'd like to read The Capital, but I don't think I can just yet (too long and hard). I also want some contemporary philosophy, so I cant bother with Plato's books, for example.

So, where do I start?
46 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hugh Bundock - Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:13:15 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195879 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In the loose sense of it being an abandonment of the earlier, more conventional approach, yeah.
But Husserl made it rather clear he was founding phenomenology *as* epistemology; he didn't reject the very concept of understanding, he meant to replace it - in this sense, no abandonment occurred.
Hannah Gonderbat - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:24:36 EST ID:CDP5PjGT No.195893 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Implying there can be only one epistemological theory
Graham Nemmlechodge - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:53:14 EST ID:Q/pl9moQ No.195895 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think it was rather propedeutic for epistemology; like the foundations for all possible epistemology. Think that Husserl thought of it as a sort of expanded Trascendental Aesthetic.
Wesley Carrylitch - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:49:39 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195897 Ignore Report Quick Reply

that's not what i'm implying at all, I just thought it was the belief of phenomenologists that what they were doing was abandoning the systematizing of knowledge and rationality in favor of describing subjective experience without placing it in a theoretical framework
Caroline Pondlenid - Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:04:16 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
they do believe you can know things by examining the contents of conciousness, and in a way they do place the contents of conciousness into theoretical frameworks.

So they do have frameworks and systems of knowledge.

Just not those kinds of knowledges you may be talking about.

Free your mind by Emma Clomblecocke - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:06:18 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.195789 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410296778683.jpg -(41832 B, 460x457) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 41832
Mind rules the world.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Angus Brennerbatch - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:55:43 EST ID:kiy4prSs No.195853 Ignore Report Quick Reply

those arent even english mistakes, it's just random mistakes ie: you say CONcious then you say unCOINcious
Angus Brennerbatch - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:56:21 EST ID:kiy4prSs No.195854 Ignore Report Quick Reply
still funny and good stuff i guess lol
Barnaby Drorringhall - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:25:03 EST ID:0l1qVRpg No.195855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most of these mistakes are vaguely reminiscent of the mistake a speaker of a Slavic language (or a language in which spelling correlates strongly with pronunciation) would make if he/she tried to write down the words based on how they are pronounced. English has basically no correlation between pronunciation and spelling (standardizing spelling *before* the GVS did its share, and it only got worse afterwards), while in most Slavic languages, the correlation is pretty strong - so a person with a Slavic language as a first language, being used to the relative ease of transcribing words into written form based on pronunciation, would fill the blank spaces in his/her vocabulary with words put together using phonemes transcribed into a hacksawed merger of their respective pools of spelling/pronunciation correlations and English proper when writing.
Mistakes like these aren't very consistent, too - if someone isn't really focused on making the body of text he/she writes look even remotely correct (or doesn't have the brains for that kind of correctness), then it's not terribly uncommon to see the spelling of a word change throughout the piece of writing in question.

I've seen a lot of that in kids' homeworks - at least the ones which I had the displeasure to grade.

Not saying it's the case - it patently isn't - but still, I felt like pointing it out.
Ebenezer Gottingdit - Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:21:14 EST ID:kiy4prSs No.195858 Ignore Report Quick Reply
oh really, well I gussed it was some kind of strange language like that, like I doubt he would have been french or spanish yknow

but ya thanks for the clarification lol
Hannah Gonderbat - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:20:13 EST ID:CDP5PjGT No.195892 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Spirit is the world.
Mind is not Spirit.

Is this as invalid as people seem to suggest? by George Pittbanks - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:50:10 EST ID:Im1aT5e5 No.195834 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410738610630.jpg -(33204 B, 499x362) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 33204
When discussing things with people, it's common to compare something somebody doesn't understand to something that they do understand.

For example there are many valid comparisons that can be made between water and electricity, and you can use them to help somebody that doesn't know much about electricity.

But when discussing certain topics people seem to act like there are comparisons you aren't allowed to make.

Let's say somebody was arguing about seating arrangements in an office and didn't like that one department was kept on one side of the office, and compared the segregation at work to ethnic segregation in aparthied states. Some people might be offended by this or just dismiss it outright, but is it logically invalid? I honestly can't see why, but it appears to be a widespread idea.
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Goodshit - Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:45:01 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yes, they're egotistical because they didn't agree with what you had to say.

That's your ego.

we don't live in a vacuum and scale exists.

There are some things that are oddly comparable, many things, but when you make a comparison that is striking in both how it is and isn't that's a conceit.

if you make a conceit or you make a comparison that's odd and supposed to be provocative that collapse the boundaries and attempts to say there is no difference after making a series of connections between things.

It's not an egotistical refusal, it's somebody refusing to abandon the rest of the differences, when you are saying there is no difference.

Or if it's not clear to them what you are saying. Perhaps you yourself are marveling in the contradictory nature of a comparison or a link. Let's say the weird way in which athiests and thiests are actually alike, if you toss that to someone else they may say WOAH HOLD ON NO. Because they misunderstand what's you are saying and you can't explain it any further.

It's just that what you were doing did not work. An objection isn't egotistical because there are other grounds to object. If you make a connection that is overstated, and you are resolute that its exactly so, you will run into conflict naturally because that's argument. Your pushing an idea another person can push back, without them being egotistical. They don't have to agree with you all the time and they aren't doing something egotistical because they don't. Unless your extending that the reason you make the connection and assert it is egotistical as well, i don't see how arguing or objecting can be that one sided in terms of the refusal to recieve an idea being ego, and the one pushing it being egoless.
Augustus Wonderway - Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:41:49 EST ID:UWYDaXVE No.195877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>But when discussing certain topics people seem to act like there are comparisons you aren't allowed to make.

I believe this is because unfortunately, people don't get the difference between "comparing" as in making an analogy or testing logical consistency and "comparing" as in "equating".

There is a huge difference.

I wouldn't consider it wrong to compare anything to anything else, in the first sense. Almost any two people, events, or places are going to have some commonalities, and sometimes we can learn by looking at them.

Just comparing two things is not necessarily the same as equating them.
Thomas Sogglekotch - Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:14:21 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Finally, someone smart jumps into the subject.
You've made an excellent point.
Syllogism - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:58:40 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.195888 Ignore Report Quick Reply

If we pay a nod to what Cedric is saying about scales existing, i'd think it more appropriate to think of those as just different states along the same line from purely disanalogous to purely analogous.

The potential for an audience to overestimate where your analogy falls on that line certainly exists of course. That's not a mortal sin, as it's just a misunderstanding of where something fell along a spectrum, and not a gross error of judgment in between two mutually exclusive rhetorical frameworks (comparing v. "equating").

You can't forego your responsibility to rectify the misunderstanding if you want to forward the dialogue. Throwing your hands up and saying they're dumb just doesn't get you anywhere.
Hannah Gonderbat - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:12:49 EST ID:CDP5PjGT No.195889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If he can support the comparison by extending the analogy, then yeah, sure, it's valid.

If not, it's just a joke in poor taste.

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

^ The only of these from the following really still worshipped on earth .
29 posts and 21 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jenny Naffingsatch - Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:34:57 EST ID:fE/o9JCd No.194663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1403742897906.jpg -(5757 B, 129x130) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5757
Remember Monsters in My pocket? The Kali figure caused a bit of controversy as it implied Kali was a monster. The figure is now a collectors item
Esther Burringforth - Sun, 20 Jul 2014 01:27:56 EST ID:ZR4mLpVX No.195176 Ignore Report Quick Reply

devas are not free from suffering anymore than we are
Emma Lightfoot - Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:24:57 EST ID:kWlZmuQS No.195181 Ignore Report Quick Reply

They are, because they don't exist, man. They're just legendary figures. that's what I believe.
Emma Lightfoot - Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:27:18 EST ID:kWlZmuQS No.195182 Ignore Report Quick Reply

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

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

Indian people don't eat monkey brains.
Alice Bannerstock - Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:20:02 EST ID:BjzYRVcz No.195870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Besides the hindus the neopagans in Europe and America can revive this in modern society. Which brings the question then polytheism maybe doesn't have a place in modern society ?

What drives a human to do what we do? by Martin Hevingstut - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 02:08:32 EST ID:FGIa06n3 No.195781 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410242912492.jpg -(1179380 B, 1280x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1179380
Simple enough question.
Why do we do what we do?
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Donderstock - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 03:11:28 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most people (90 %): conditioning

Some people (9 %): reasoning, logic, wisdom, empathy

Few people (1%): ????? who knows, raw mental processes mixing with raw emotion, this would include serial killers, suicide bombers, etc.

But what can be said is that the 90 % are usually the ones who drive the 1 % to do what they do, this seems natural to me. Obviously the 9 % are driven by factors having nothing to do with environment or what other people are doing.
Augustus Dommlefick - Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:04:52 EST ID:Ak0VEBMk No.195862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
asking why rarely leads to any satisfying answers.

"why?" is so incredibly subjective
Lydia Hoshham - Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:15:57 EST ID:UWYDaXVE No.195863 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That's a very vague statement.
Rebecca Cecklenack - Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:07:40 EST ID:EHyPMSI7 No.195864 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shit Niddlewine - Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:03:33 EST ID:Is0Ubg8f No.195924 Ignore Report Quick Reply
is bats?

Ethics by George Huttingdale - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:09:03 EST ID:WVhH6ay5 No.195332 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407204543324.jpg -(97812 B, 840x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 97812
How does one justify killing when (I think) the most basic principle of ethics is "The golden rule". Can there only be ethics when justice is involved? Can someone school me on this?
20 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Trotford - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:21:34 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> actually do it because they expect something in return, not because they're saints. They're too greedy.
Is the pious man good because he is pious, or is he pious because he is good?

I do kind acts out of empathy and expect nothing in return. Nevermind my religious views, because Kharma and anything good happening as a result seems less likely than something bad.
Is the joy of helping another person by giving him joy in the form of my assistance selfish?
In that case I would be joyfully selfish all of my days.
Archie Grimcocke - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:42:06 EST ID:73OIA5cU No.195810 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If it came to be that somehow (e.g. through mental illness) I raped and continued to rape children I would hope that I would be killed by the community.
Same as if I were to start murdering people.

I believe that everybody else in the community should be held to the same standard.
Doris Buzzville - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:19:09 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>In that case I would be joyfully selfish all of my days

Good for you!
My points was not really a moral one though.. It's just, every act we do expends energy. This energy has to come back to us in some beneficial way, or we become sad, angry, etc. Even the best-intentioned act is a waste of energy unless it gives us something, anything (even recognition from another person that what you did was good).
Look at the people who always give and never get anything for themselves, if good acts were enough this wouldn't happen, and yet these people are often depressed or discouraged, because they forget the "taking" part, which most people do automatically and often even fail to acknowledge (thus the baffling when meeting these kind of people, it'd be like meeting someone who has to breathe manually)
Doris Buzzville - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:21:07 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195827 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Also about this:
>Is the pious man good because he is pious, or is he pious because he is good?

If only obedience meant "goodness" then he might as well worship cthulhu. If the good of the Gods doesn't correspond with the good of men, what's their fucking point?
Priscilla Dunningseg - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:47:25 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just so you know, the poster you're responding to misapplied the quote (and misquoted it in the process). The uncorrupted one would be "The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. "
And so, the Euthyphro Dilemma isn't about altruism, it's about the *source* of morality in religion-based absolutist systems.

Now, if God (or Gods) commands acts because they are good, then there is a moral set higher than God, one that God has to abide by. If that is true, then who created that law? Another supreme being? Does this mean it's supreme lawmakers all the way down? Doesn't make sense.
If acts are good because they are commanded by God, then it raises two issues: firstly, we're left with a case of divine moral relativism (basically divine command theory; consistently following it quickly devolves into justifying heinous crimes because it being the will of a God or a set of Gods somehow makes it all right in the end), and second, it isn't really possible to consistently detect the will of a God.
Third way out is to claim that goodness is somehow inherent in the being of the deity in question - hence "God commands Good because God is Good". In addition to it being a tautology, it exposes the Problem of Evil ("then whence cometh Evil?")

Persuasion ethics by Oliver Bonkindock - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:33:34 EST ID:HCMXWO6z No.195773 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1410215614117.jpg -(78339 B, 450x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 78339
I have been a long time studier of human behaviour and language. This is not limited to humans. When I was younger I used to study how my dogs interacted with each other and how they interacted with other dogs on walks. Then it sort of grew from there.

My first semblance of thought was how can I use this information to my advantage.
I noticed that as the dogs met me the morning they would bow (I'm cool, I may be bit mental but I'm just being playful) then they would go crazy, tails wagging, eyes wide open, ears up and pointed at me or each other and road running on the laminate floor. This was an obvious sign that they where happy to see me.

However with other dogs, There was a completely different approach, They would drop there head (lesser form of bow) slow down (Not a threat) keep there tails down (lessen sudden movements) and often lay down (Not a threat,Also border collies). But yet as the other dogs would approach closer, They would start acting as if I had just met them in the morning.
This was obviously what they wanted to do in the first place but yet they knew that such an approach with a stranger wouldn't work out all too well.
So they temporally changed there personality to fit the situation so that they had the freedom to act the way they wanted to act.

This strikes true for almost all people that I have met as well.
There is even a homage in phrase, To put ones "best foot forward".

So, my issue is whether or not such behaviour is ethical, Because you are essentially lying to get what you want. whether concious of such behaviour or not, it is still a form a of lying and persuasion. It is obviously evolutionary/biological.

But does it make it right ?
As humans we have the ability to view our own behaviours subjectively, Is it wrong to ignore such ability ? Or is that just okay / natural behaviour ?
Barnaby Seggleworth - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:02:35 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.195814 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How are you lying to get what you want, it seems to be more about what is gonna work and what is gonna not, and keeping the peace. I think all of these stages of behaviour are apart of what is before your mind. that dog as well as humans are doing what they are used to doing in unknown situations, and working off of that as they go.

As you said you were actually okay to play with as noted by the other dogs playing with you. He was doing something from his instincts based on the situations appearance to him. When he noticed the situation wasn't like that he basically said okay this now.

it's adjusting to the situation, and it's not deciet. Athough i think there's something within human culture that has a problem with it, and apart that embraces it.

It depends on how the human is looking at it, if it resembles a fear of changing who you are they would avoid that. But in reality you might have various parts of your self that actually are in conflict with each other, that your only concious of at the times that you are going through them. You may make a concious effort to have your self together. But there could still be more of yourself outside of that, or inside of that, that you have missed, that doesn't completely agree.

this makes you interesting, and the thing is personality grows, so it will have to come in to contact with new parts, or reconnect with old parts.

You have alot to go through in your mind before any one person can say, i have completed myself.

you have the ability to view your own behaviour subjectively, but also the power to call into question, and perhaps the self doubt for it to involuntarily happen anyway your objective view on things as well.

i believe you(people in general at a given point) should when faced with the possibility of being rigid, and thinking something that happens isn't real. Should realize that in itself is a contradiction, and if you have that philosophers quest of erasing contradictions or needing things to make logical sense or perhaps just wanting them to, or liking it. Whatever your persuasion. That just because things to do, it doesn't necessarily mean you can write it off or cancel it out as invalid. You know jimmy to be x but in another situation he has proven to be not x. This can hurt a human being if he sees jimmy acting differently especially now if he thinks he doesn't know which jimmy to trust.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Frederick Bickledet - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:23:57 EST ID:z340RXzm No.195815 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This was obviously what they wanted to do in the first place

Your problem lies here, in believing there's a "true" thing they want to do.. They simply adapted to circumstances, why do you think one behavior is "real" and the other is "fake"?
During the winter, do you see yourself wearing short sleeves in the summer as lying because you really wanted to wear sweaters in the first place?
Faggy Soffingketch - Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:42:47 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195817 Ignore Report Quick Reply
After reading many sociology books and human body language and psychology of languages books, it's hard to turn off the scanner of seeing people's tells and fakes.

It's actually really interesting to watch, especially at college parties because alcohol and drugs really take us back to the neanderthal level of human interaction.

Is OP attacking the idea of "fake it to make it"?
OP can you summarize and simplify your argument?
Nathaniel Chigglelock - Sat, 13 Sep 2014 02:04:06 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195825 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Is OP attacking the idea of "fake it to make it"?

i think rather that he's questioning molding your behavior according to what you think will people around you will be most receptive based on your first impressions of them

basically we all act a little bit different around different people, around a close jovial friend of a friend you might be more sarcastic even on first meeting them than you would be around meeting your new corporate manager, now that's a little different because its like, different situations call for different behavior regardless of the people involved, but i think it's the same idea, being a bit of a different person to facilitate being around other people

i tink OP is wondering whether that is fundamentally manipulative, whether its wrong or right, i guess in one sense it is manipulative

Desperation over meaninglessness. by David Chizzlehall - Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:38:08 EST ID:SDbGlSLI No.194310 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402558688814.jpg -(95179 B, 1079x878) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 95179
This keeps me up at night a lot.

I'm just 18, and I've been reading about all sort of different philosophies and religions there are. Zen Buddhism, "Existentialism", Christianity...etc

I can't sleep at night, because there are no absolutes, and I'm too weak to live without the guidance of a higher being. It's soul crushing, and personally defined meaning is still not fulfilling enough for me. Even after all the LSD I've done and all the meditation that made me aware of the "mind-at-large" concept and the concept of oneness, I can't still be certain.

Since there are no absolutes, and I can't believe in free will or in determinism, I want to "subscribe" to a philosophy or religion of love and caring, that will give me peace of mind.

I consider this, however, as giving up or throwing the towel, as swallowing the entire oxycontin stash, you get me? I have no idea what to do, and my life hasn't been able to continue due to this. I do not want to rush, I've got all the time in the world, as long as I can finally find what is that I'm looking for.

Empathy and love. Empathy and love are my main drives. I can find meaning in it, even if it's a brain soup of serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. I just want give up and subscribe to a philosophy based on empathy and a higher being, and be able to delude myself into believing it.

Sounds edgy as fuck, I know, but I'm truly desperate. The only thing that as been able to drive me lately is knowledge.

I'm sure many of you here are philosophers and theologists. I'm asking for your advice.
18 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Isabella Suckledure - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:37:01 EST ID:DLt8+eaY No.194472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is indeed a great book.
Check it out OP.
Eliza Hudgestud - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:14:54 EST ID:YHQ90Hzg No.195785 Ignore Report Quick Reply
and keep going around in circles!
Molly Niggerlock - Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:13:36 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.195799 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Keep questioning and thinking OP, youll come to love it.
Hannah Hubbersturk - Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:42:07 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1410374527903.jpg -(191575 B, 510x792) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 191575

OP, just stop. Not knowing your place in the universe, not knowing what you are, not knowing what comes after death, not knowing whether or not there's things greater than humans; it's all insignificant, and from a completely logical point of view it is suffice to say that these questions have no answer worth calling 'definite'. You're stuck in the exact same position as every other being. Shut up, do your thing, and smoke some more herbs if you feel so depressed.

Stop trying to be something you're not. You know exactly what you are and what you're here to do, you just can't recognize it. It's one of those things that are just too large for the human mind, and now you're spazzin cus you can't simplify it and put it in a box. Humans have limits.
David Pickbury - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:50:51 EST ID:FnLSIj6V No.195803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1410429051921.jpg -(76399 B, 725x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76399
>Certainty is worse than death.

to actually reply to OP, i don't think you can make that love and empathy thing certain in any way, except if you use them axiomatically and try to explain everything with them (good luck smoking that much), or just not questioning love and empathy, thus
>be certain about something is to end all discussion, halt all research, give no room for improvement or imagination

the hard thing is usually throwing away the 'good' stuff. you can see all sorts of people sticking to the things that always worked for them, be it army knives or observations or scientific methods or axioms or religions or schools of philosophy or ways to organize their banana collection, whatever.
you cannot just go out and find lasting and good pillars to place love&empathy on, because that's what biased looks like. either you forget about them and sooner or later you find that they are everything/cool/worthless/irrelevant/whatever, or you stick to them and never become absolutely sure, but you just don't question it so you can sleep.

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