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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Secret Societies by Hedda Mobbersodge - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:35:55 EST ID:jjNLJE8u No.207142 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478147755506.png -(381662B / 372.72KB, 1024x682) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 381662
I just wanted to talk about what you guys thought about secret societies. Can a large shadow organization be stable and running as well as still stay out of sight from the public eye
37 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Huffingnere - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:06:34 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207267 Ignore Report Quick Reply
On MGS: *brofist*
On George Soros/ Conspiracy theories:
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are almost always organized around a kernel of truth (like all mythology) but that due to 1. the inherent lack of information which lets you fill in the gaps in a purely Rorschach test kind of way 2. the fact that of the people who are actively very interested in conspiracy theories, a larger percentage than in the normal population are going to have mental illness and thus will surround any given conspiracy theory with misinformation (this is not to say that you have to be crazy to believe in conspiracy theories, but that if you are certain kinds of crazy, you will almost certainly believe in them) the true kernel about any given conspiracy is going to be distorted through the lens of some claims that are merely false guesses and some claims that are truly outlandish and delusional.
It's important to be able to analyze all three components separately (i.e. the delusional claims, the misinformed claims, and the root of the controversy)
I think the most telling example of this 'evolution' of conspiracy theory is the claim of there being or being a plan to create a NWO. People get all hyped when any bit of evidence about it falls through the cracks, go insane over trying to convince people that this is happening, that the global elites are trying to create a unified world society. Thing about it is...that's totally true, and if you ask anybody they will admit it. Ever since the advent of the modern nation-state and especially since WWII, global political, financial, scientific and cultural elites have been trying to bring the whole world together under a unified system of law and order with the stated purpose of preventing a World War from ever happening again.
That fact, half in the open and half submerged in the collective unconscious, gets distorted and twisted in the conspiracy theorist's mind into assuming there is an enemy behind every corner. They then quickly make value judgements about others intentions (Soros contributing to BLM must be because he is trying to create a state of global chaos, not because he is in philanthrophy circles and it's a popular …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Nell Farringtane - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:01:41 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Amen to all that.
As for Soros and BLM, well, he did actually pay people to protest like 24/7. Like it bothers people that months and months of protest were bought and paid for rather than actual protests; people call it 'astro-turfing' as opposed to 'grass-roots'.

But also, so what'd you think of MGS4 and 5? Personally, I thought the story of 4 was epic, but 5 had sweeter and smoother gameplay. That being said, I'm upset you never had the ability to call in friendly AI soldiers decked out in specific gear. 5 had a cool story, too, but I mean the story was unfinished and there's like unfinished cutscene locked away in the game that you can't even reach. Why the fuck did Konami have to sour their relationship with Kojima, their greatest asset?

But yeah, as for MGS2, I was really confused by the Colonel's speech at the end of the game, like I thought it was techno-babble when I was just a boy playing the game, but now that I'm an adult and I went back and re-watched a lot of the cutscenes in that game, I see exactly what they were talking about, like to the letter. Kojima's view of the internet and how it works was incredbly accurate at the time and he talked about things it seemed like no one was talking about or noticing at that time in history. Kind of like how Serial Experiments Lain does the exact same thing, except even more impressively they did it in like 1998 where as MGS2 was like 2001.
Archie Dezzlehood - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:56:15 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Before the haters come in and shut down the MGS circlejerk: personally MGS4 is my favorite game in terms of the plot, it is the pinnacle of the over-wrought hyper-convoluted Japanese-style storytelling that propelled MGS to the stratosphere. MGS5 is undeniably a superior game in terms of all gameplay mechanics...but the story is genuinely weak sauce, and a large part of that is that it's literally about ~30% of the complete game, reworked to look like it's finished. If you're up on this stuff I'm sure you know all about the Kojima/Konami fallout, it honestly had a lot to do with both of them reacting from their own perspective to seismic shifts in the game industry but wanting to go different directions (mainly the emergence of freemium and service based games.) As a dev myself I appreciate what Kojima must have gone through -- but at the same time I'm pretty pissed that he had more time, more money, and a bigger team on MGS5 than MGS4, but wasn't able to give it a coherent story or even a complete gameplay arc, yet was able to fill it with useless shit like a 4 part audio mini-series on hamburgers. Yet I'm still out there hunting soldiers for my Mother Base like a...Boss ;)

As for the MGS2 philosophy bits, yeah the first time you play it as the 4th wall breaks down you really don't have any idea whats going on, but it's actually amazingly well structured. I think this kind of 'reality breakdown' sequence is something that Japanese media does uniquely well (Evangelion and Lain are indeed the ultimate examples of this, we must be cut from the same media cloth) and, since we're in the secret societies thread, I will say that all three draw heavily on Qabalistic inspiration to inform these sequences. And yeah, the stuff about information control, managing the internet, memes, is totally prophetic for today (although even back then futurists saw it coming, I mean if you want to know about today Gibson's Neuromancer will still tell you pretty much everything you want to know) in fact it was kind of directly prophetic -- they had to change the New York attack sequence in between the time they finished it and the time they released it, because 9/11…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Jarvis Clemmerfield - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:51:40 EST ID:Ry/UiP1R No.207310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The only thing a secret society needs to function is for all the interests of the member's of the society to align. Also, there needn't be a large, unified society where everyone is a member and everyone conspires together and shares in some master plan for the same practical effects as a conspiratorial secret society. It just happens on a smaller scale. Because the groups of people involved are small and interconnected (think billionaires) there is a high amount of interconnectivity within the entire group. An idea can be floated that takes ahold of the entire group and/or is debated within the group without any sort of formal meetings. The ideas simply spread in the normal virus-like way they do. The only difference is that they all have similar self interests and upbrings, and there are much less of them so the group is more unified than the general public. They are also in a position of great power within our society and actually do have the means to influence the country, unlike normal people.

I think Caroline might have been on to something with her cabal theory >>207150 because certainly these groups would be like little social circles of the immensely wealthy and powerful and there would be some competition between them even though their interests too align.

Basically conspiracies exist they're just much less ordered and formal than most people imagine them to be.
Oliver Dombleson - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 18:20:34 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're skipping over the effect that all kinds of small little conspiracies have on each other.


Why do you think that so often (anonymous) whistleblowers leak information on organisations? Conflicts of interest.

Spirituality vs Religion by Edwin Buzzshaw - Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:52:45 EST ID:G4Ws+Vkw No.206541 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1471470765273.jpg -(150556B / 147.03KB, 1072x804) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 150556
Was having a good conversation with my buddy the other night. I asked him if he thought that he was spiritual and he replied "yes because im very religious."

I explained that you don't have to be religious to be spiritual because they operate autonomously. Like you can meditate and not be religious.

So he asked me what being spiritual means. So here I am /pss/, what is spirituality?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Doggledale - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:45:24 EST ID:t6MSIlrw No.206876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think its more of a difference between a recognized religious organization and an individual belief system that one has arrived on their own, which the "spiritual visitants who came to him in vision had never been seen before by any other; they were his particular familiars and protectors."

Its from that history post contrasting the shaman and the priest. >>56850
Nicholas Blankinpire - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:39:03 EST ID:yeARW8t0 No.206907 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Youre in luck op, I happen to be an expert in dogwhistle communication!

The translation of 'Im spiritual but not religious' is 'I suck dicks for a living and you can quote me on that'.

Have a good day!
Fucking Dessleville - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:04:11 EST ID:bIcAhZ7O No.207109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Religion is the practical application of spirituality.
Ligio means to connect, or to link with. Re-ligio. To reconnect with that Supreme Personality. Due to the age we are in, the standards of what religion is has fallen. There is only one religion, and that is pure Love of God.

This world is comprised of the five elements, namely earth wind fire water and ether. Everything within the material universe is a transformation of these elements, but this only creates a gross, or physical substance. By no means is this actual spiritual substance. Actual spiritual understanding is beyond the perception of our material senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing) and beyond the more subtle senses (mind, intelligence, and false ego). The Absolute Reality can't be achieved by mental speculation or knowledge. Only be devotional service, known as Bhakti-yoga can God be known.
James Blivingham - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:13:37 EST ID:7yzzAWz2 No.207289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
spirituality is connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
religion is an organized connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
philosophies contributing to the creator of everything; different ways of connecting to that creator
Martha Collermetch - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:44:28 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This world is comprised of the five elements

Actually, this world is mainly composed out of iron, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, nickel, calcium, aluminium and some other random stuff.

Transweirdia by Eugene Pickbanks - Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:41:17 EST ID:MkqaTAMB No.206655 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1472524877831.jpg -(77757B / 75.93KB, 640x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 77757
Hey, so I'm 25 and I tolerate and appreciate transgender people, but it's still kind of weird to me. For example, I saw a girl I went to highschool with post about her young child,

>>[Child] asked me today if she's a girl or a boy. I told her she gets to pick. I said I'm a girl, and daddy is a boy, but [friend] 's mommy [name3] is both. She asked if [friend] was a boy, and I told her I think he is right now, but lots of people change their minds later, so he may decide to be a girl eventually. She decided she wants to be like [name3] and be both.

So I'm like, OK, good for them - how does that make my life worse in any way? They and [name3] went on to clarify the distinction between sex and gender. I wouldn't say I'm transphobic; yet, at the same time, it's just weird feeling. Like, sex changes have occurred since the 1950s and trans people have existed possibly forever, but it still feels a little tumblr-y to me when I read stuff like this. It makes me cringe a little, reflexively. Does anyone else feel this way? Will it go away with time and exposure to trans life?

Also, it just feels odd to me that there are soooo many trans people coming out these days - but aren't they like, less than 2% of the population? (in the USA or world? not sure) I guess it just SEEMS like a lot because they aren't as afraid anymore.
76 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hedda Siddlefield - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:04:30 EST ID:butFlNcj No.207240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually I feel like trans people often exaggerate the gender stereotypes of the opposite gender
Edwin Bandlekan - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:33:36 EST ID:nrMZmil1 No.207242 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You feel like that because you don't know much about trans people.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:58:21 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207244 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Actually I feel like weaboos often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of Japanese people."
"Actually I feel like wiggers often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of black people."
"Actually I feel like immigrants often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of indigenous people."
Actually I feel like [any group that has to learn a culture to enter it] often exaggerates [the characteristics of that culture] while they are trying to learn them just like when you were a kid and exaggerated how cool you thought transforming robots were because it was new to you and you were still trying to get a hang of it. You don't still get as worked up about transforming robots now do you? (do you?)
Alice Hoppertene - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:41:27 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207246 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As someone who's friends with a lot of trans people, I agree that they exaggerate gender stereotypes and take gender more seriously than other people. The thing is, when they're young they think gender is like this big deal and that since they don't conform to the gender they're born into they rationalize it as that they were supposed to be the other gender, like they feel like they're supposed to be the sex of the gender stereotypes they most closely align with. Like, they want to be treated like the other people in the gender they most closely align with, is how it seems to me, and so they try to look like girls or even get operated on to be a girl. I find that a significant portion of trans people settle into their real gender once they're an adult, but then there are others that just feel sick of being the gender they are by the time they're an adult.
Reuben Hangerbury - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:41:41 EST ID:Ry/UiP1R No.207272 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is what I think too and I was asked to leave my University's mandated diversity requirement class (related to gender studies of course) because I kept questioning the professor's assertions that biology has nothing to do with gender roles. It all seemed so ridiculous to me.

/pss/ by Zero-Suit Wario - Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:55:46 EST ID:shmK6ute No.207158 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478361346821.jpg -(13427B / 13.11KB, 299x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13427
Where everyone thinks they're better than everyone else and every thread devolves into a pissing contest of who knows more.

Protip: Take some drugs, and no matter how retarded you think the other guy sounds, don't be a dick. Reasoned discourse is a collaborative effort. Whether we succeed or fail, we do so together.
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Albert Geshway - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:53:11 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.207190 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The Fool is definitely a pompous blowhard buffoon, but there are plenty of brilliant people who hold nuanced views that could be described as "religious." There's a lot more to it than the shit you see in a backwater baptist church in the southern US or milquetoast East Coast Catholics or whoever.

Posts like these are part of the problem described in the OP. Don't just piss in the water we're swimming in.
Barnaby Chugglewack - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:35:33 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, if we were actually talking about brilliant people, and not some tripfag who pretends to be all smart on /pss/ and then completely autistically sperges out on /tinfoil/ and /spooky/ maybe I would have made a more nuanced post.

But The Fool is a fool and he doesn't deserve a nuanced post.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:23:02 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I hate people who contribute to this board with philosophies I consider too fantastic to be realistic.
At least they fucking contribute.
Hedda Girryhall - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:30:20 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.207217 Ignore Report Quick Reply


It's just drivel, whichever way you meant that word

And yeah can we talk about actual philosophy now
Archie Simbleman - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:24 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.207275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
tfw OP ironically feels he's too good for discussion nb

Since there isn't any meaning to life by William Sendersture - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:19:30 EST ID:6RZMk6jO No.206985 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475925570684.jpg -(23129B / 22.59KB, 500x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23129
which gives any subjective meaning equal justification, does that mean that no life has been lived without meaning?

The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Albert Nammerridge - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:11:01 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The most interesting thing is, that the meaning could exist in billy after he has "failed it"

Billy could start to see that alot of the meaning was his own, and not look at himself as how appealing he is to others and how much he does make sense in a rational or objective quality as a subjective being. But how appealing it is to see this meaning.

How to make that appeal, and how to have that meaning and how to make it work around him.

Billy could become rich, do something crazy and change social phenomenon forever or for a brief period of time.

He could be one of those people they say is going to hell.

And that confidentially could be because of how he reacted to a pattern outside of that rules based pattern of dogma and how that made him tickle.

If he goes further with that, he might be able to see and experience some interesting things in life.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:24:00 EST ID:vano1wpA No.207131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your parable retrojects the notion of a meaning of life into premodernity. I'd suggest it doesn't even make sense to talk about any kind of "subjective meaning" in the Middle Ages because it presupposes liberal individualism. Meaning in feudal Europe is being a king, a lord, or a peasant, with no possibility of social movement. Everything is laid out in the great chain of being, from rocks and rivers, to grasses and trees, to animals, to humans, to the angels, cherubim, and seraphim, and finally God Himself. Value in this world is stable. Only if you conceive of yourself as an autonomous individual -- separate from your people, your class, your church, etc. -- can you begin to question your personal values. Only if axiology is generally atomized, subject to rational, empirical inquiry, could someone seriously debate whether life has meaning -- it's the only way the question makes sense at all. So there is something inherently deceptive about taking ideas which have arisen in our cultural climate of secular individualism, after all the noise of the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the triumph of scientific empiricism, and trying to find a place for them in the heads of people who precede these developments.

I believe thinking through the problem (of life's meaning) in this way also sheds some light on how to deal with the specter of existential nihilism. To assert
>meaning is just some retarded mindtrick our monkeybrains use to make sense out of the world
depends on so many historically contingent assumptions about the nature and function of the world that there is just as much reason to reject it as to affirm it.
Polly Smallspear - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:22:06 EST ID:nrMZmil1 No.207132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Meaning" is something we abstract from value-experience often with certain social-cultural categorizations. Value-experience will always exist as that's what being is. It's not just that that means each person has their own meaning or whatever though - experience is fundamentally an interaction with an environment and gets its value in large part from it i.e. it's relational.
Isabella Tootspear - Mon, 31 Oct 2016 06:36:01 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The whole point of that post was to inject some modern perspective onto ancient thinking.
Sidney Honeydale - Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:47:53 EST ID:BKJX7E+7 No.207140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1478126873183.jpg -(37272B / 36.40KB, 350x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.

Spiritual and religious meaning can easily be discarded in a universe your question predispose.

So in a world were humans came to be as is, without any guy-in-the-sky or some mystical shittery going on, all that matters is your own view of things right?

Meaning is something which you're gonna have to deal with regardless of the nature of the universe, because you're human. You have a relationship with everything that you perceive, including your life. Now if you were to regard your existence as 'meaningless' that would still require you to make a judgment on value or rather meaning, which means no matter how nihilistic your sorry ass is, you're still gonna have to judge it; meaning it still fucking exist in your monkey brain.

I don't know, I didn't quite get my point across here I think. I mean that to say that 'life has no meaning' means that you have an understanding of meaning and you have decided that your own life means nothing compared to that understanding of 'meaning'.

As fucking owner of an ape-brain, that way of thinking is ridiculous as all that matters is what you experience from that ape-perspective. Do you like to get drunk? Do you like the way the light reflects on the autumn leaves? Do you still wanna see where this absurd existence of yours ends? No? Then why haven't you off'd yourself? Unless, your life has meaning after all and you're just an edgy fag.

coping with being dumb by BorderlineMale28 !NkmH2xeNp2 - Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:31:08 EST ID:j3mZet9D No.207020 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476343868025.jpg -(192752B / 188.23KB, 1024x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 192752
F's from gradeschool until 8th grade when I dropped out. Never learned anything. Kids were mean. I took a psychological exam/IQ test last year and I scored 102. Not the online ones, but the kind a psychologist gives. Takes half a day. I don't have any trade skills.

I just wonder what I am. What I am good for. I like to think about the world, like what is going on, what is the truth. We live like people in a TV show, I know that much. About society. It is really deep, like hard for me or you or anyone to think outside of. Thinking outside of the box is not possible if you don't know what's the box and what's not. But I can't talk about it. People start talking about what I love to think about and they just go over my head. I don't get to share or understand. I can only think about it in my head, and I can't relate to anything anyone says. I think it is philosophy, but I'm dumb.

I feel like a lonely rock sitting in a brain that wants to jump off a bridge. I take meds so I don't kill myself but I want to anyway. I wish someone would hold me.
9 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:26:10 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Meh, you and I aren't in disagreement.
>Maybe you aren't always to blame for their formation, but you're responsible for them all the same.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I know we're responsible for them, but we can't blame ourselves for their existence and for our position in life. We are responsible, and we are to be blamed, but the truth is that it wasn't our decision, it was the universe's decision. I'm just saying I'm a determinist.

Happiness is based on mental health, I say. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, some people create a house of cards, people who live a life full of assumptions and precedents, but me, my foundation is solid steel, it has no errors. If I did find an error in it, which I have before, I'd fix it. Simple as that. My philosophy is entirely based on perfecting the basics.
Fuck Cogglepen - Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:24:08 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207107 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"learned helplessness"

check out that concept it's not what it sounds like but it is a condition that can take place do to your experience of "success" and "failure" and how it relates to self defeating, removal of possibility, and beating yourself before you try.

It can go away and come back in life, but it ties itself to the structure of who you are and what you think you are good at.

It's kind of like the old saying. If you think you can win, you won't neccessarily do so, but if you are already thinking you have lost, you most likely will.

During the engagement you are in trying to "win" or "succeed."

That thought in the back of your mind that says you can't.

Imagine you are tackling something that in theory exists in variables, but you have an x factor that leads you to pursue something certain yet undecided. Undecided only being that it's all about a quality of bringing about something that is taking shape and you are taking shape of it.

When a human applies itself. When you do that in reality you are creating but the potential of mindset is always at risk of being understood by others, self, and aspects of others and the world you have absorbed into yourself through experience.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Phyllis Sucklehood - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:31:02 EST ID:dUlpdtml No.207110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am so depressed after reading about learned helplessness. It means that I programmed myself to be this way and it is my fault that after understanding it, I do nothing to better myself.

I don't want to live anymore, I don't have anyone anyway and I have been so lonely. Learned helplessness is another way of saying that everything is my fault, and it's all true.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:27:04 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well if you were to be aware of the ability to notice something that you knew existed in theory but at this point in your "autobiographical record of flotating consciousness" or what is above you in your opinion as your life, but seemed to not neccesarily hostily but in some way seemed out of access to you.

Like every time you started it you felt a sense of fatigue. That is learned helpessness.

It isn't your fault, it's admitting that the way we learn is faulty. That could be depressing, but in it's own cartwright it's helplessness gets you to admit belief.

You are in a position that is a negative, but the cause of concern is that in learning this should not be, based on a predestination we see in the cartography of the day we enter school.

Or a positive optimism of learning. Why is that in learning, because learning's flaw is also it's potential. The outlet of learning you have learned helplessness is the meta. The metacognitive position of seeing thoughts, thinking about thoughts. When you see that in a structure you see that belief. That's when you know it hasn't been your fault.

It came because you were learning. Have you ever been belief. Chances are as a young child you swallowed a great deal of heart crushing through amazing resilency. That came to be expected in all the social circles around you and you carried yourself nursing your optimism somewhere far away from the place you were learning. And acted in the way you were expected to act.

All that learning because you were in school, came through behavior. Because you had to behave, there wasn't any time to step out of that and try to learn the way you were hoping to. Because that in theory is disruptive, not that in theory not doing that when you had the opportunity would be your fault either.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:28:11 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's not your fault, but what you are seeking is not that vindication, but the end to the nagging. Something that a coach would say is self defeatism. But a teacher might describe as something that exists in psychology itself. Because we are in philosophy in order to assert this, i may have to explain something else. So you see the philosophies are not so kind to a person who has experienced this yet, they have a unique way of relating or finding a person in this condition, because it's about seeking knowing. You have to realize the uncertainty, and self conciousness, eventually is controlled by a locus in you, but yet one that is external.

Perhaps if i were to offer advice i would do all the continuing before reconciling that contradiction. Because philosophy wants to discuss this in a manner through provacation, which will exacerbate it.

If you are in this state you will assume you are all the people that are cast as a subject of critque, especially in the associations that involve in or out groups. Or the ones who are good and the ones who are not.

You in reality have to keep doing it, in order to understand the semi vague and intense significance of what is being lets say "hurt" in you. And that what is often being anchored as controlling it, is in reality disrupting you.

The way people talk about the economy, the world, race, class will make you feel to one side or the other because the opinion is critical. The real assertion is that you are actually what determines it.

But not many people are going to be able to communicate to you, that you are the only thing that is real, without experiencing the same classic sense of regret.

Because that assertion was made often after the kind of cynicism you are experiencing.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

ancient symbols are anathema toLGBT people? by Angelwoman !Y5l541i8x. - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:08:37 EST ID:bl/5SlpY No.207084 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476839317485.jpg -(85394B / 83.39KB, 416x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85394
the duality of man and woman, the penis and vagina and ying and yang. but now we know those symbols were wrong and transgendered and gay people existed all along. how do they fit into our system? are we living in a false system of man and woman and is LGBT breaking barriers (explains the worldwide resistance), basically forcing people give up their comfortale BUT FALSE way of life?
Phoebe Claydock - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:26:11 EST ID:+xn4V4fu No.207085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you're overthinking it.
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:30:01 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The male and female when in esoteric symbols are themselves just symbols of the polar, positive and negative aspects of reality, the active and the passive, the light and the dark, etc. The connection to biological sex is coincidental, and of course LGBT people still participate in and can celebrate the polar quality of reality.

Smarts by Esther Diblingdadge - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:06:03 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206910 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1474639563804.jpg -(121004B / 118.17KB, 625x352) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 121004
Anyone else here feel like they're just smarter than everyone else around them?
Not literally everyone on every subject, but just simply in general, like if you meet someone 9 times out of 10 they'll be sharing ideas with you that you've already climbed over or disproven or something of that sort, and then you're stuck teaching them things they never thought about before or some shit.

Idk, I'm like obsessed with self-education and I can clearly see that not only has our school systems failed the American people in a lot of ways but also most people have no interest in learning about things outside their own careers or interests.
40 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Goodworth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:28:24 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Intelligence is a bit from all the columns.

IIRC, being breastfed up to the point where you start eating solid foods will automatically give you a 10-20 IQ points boost compared to people that drank formula milk. Few diseases and no starvation also will get you some extra IQ points.

Basically the less effort your childhood body has to take to keep you alive and healthy, the smarter you'll become as an adult.

Then there's of course the nature element, if your parents are smart, you're probably going to be smart too, even if you'll become an orphan or adopted.

And finally, nurture. Doesn't matter if you're smart, if no one ever teaches you how to use your brain, you'll never display any signs of meaningful intelligence.
Hannah Shakestock - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:59:05 EST ID:j3mZet9D No.207058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1476568745097.jpg -(94493B / 92.28KB, 750x613) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
took a real IQ test. you can drop or rise in points by misspelling words. it's a pop culture quiz that people take way too seriously. IQ isn't actually something at all. it was invented, and the invention has taken on a life of its own. originally developed to measure idiocy and such, it is now a 'thing' people believe they possess, that their ability to perceive, understand, and interact with the world can be measured from 0-200.

it's a tool, it helps box people in.

>your IQ is permanently raised because mom breastfed you, experts say.

Martha Clemmlehidge - Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:19:15 EST ID:6RZMk6jO No.207061 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Archie Nicklehood - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:21:52 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
IQ doesn't measure anything concrete yes.

But that doesn't mean it's completely useless. Drinking mother milk for a long time will still improve your intelligence in places.

What does the difference in IQ between 100 and 130 mean? Who knows, but statistically speaking it's the difference between... let's Americanize this for you guys, it's the difference between getting C's in school and A's in school. (Remember, IQ's purpose when it got invented was to put a nice easy grade on the performance and intelligence of workers in the early 1900's).
That's not really a big difference, I mean if you're getting C's from just sitting in class, you could put some effort in and get A's too.

But the difference in IQ between 100 and 200, that's a sea of difference. That's noticable. You still won't be able to tell what the difference is, but you can tell there's one.

As you said, IQ is a tool. A very shallow tool with very limited purposes. But it has purposes.

Especially when you want to investigate the effects of beneficial and negative things on the development of intelligence in children.

Mother's milk is good. Car exhausts are bad.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:32:30 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207065 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I think therefore I think by The Boat - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:08:19 EST ID:MRj8fmcP No.207018 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476313699310.jpg -(56237B / 54.92KB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56237
Like if you just athithetically speak in like circles you create the philosophy, I took a philosophy class once and almost every I would raise my hand and be like "so why did this country elect... George... W... Bush... but this was all an elaborate ruse to get them to call me bush man awww yeah! So see even philosophy can be manipulated to serve the hair dawg! Woof woof!

Weekly Classic phillosofical questions! #1 by Jarvis Turveywill - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:50:50 EST ID:aZIQO4pB No.206952 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475365850364.jpg -(2142B / 2.09KB, 93x93) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2142
>does good or/and bad really exist?

I'll try to give once a week a typical, classic question and begin a discussion. Should bring a bit more life to the board and action. don't forget to spam on the other boards
However i won't do it every week because i'm a lazy, forgetting and postponing guy (proscinating? i forgot the word in english....) So every one is invited to put the question at the beginning of a new week.
16 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Sepperwell - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:10:43 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.206989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In the context of this discussion, not much, since they both have the upper hand over the people of each respective nation.
Lydia Pabbletatch - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:40:34 EST ID:FSjrOHi0 No.206997 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The POTUS has a lot more restrictions and is more liable to the people he governs, but is in a much better position than the Supreme Leader due to the power of the people governed, and the social institutions that can be built on that power.

For a more theoretical argument, see Prof. Scott E. Page's diversity prediction theorem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtaaCAJjGr4). Diversity can generate better predicitons that individuals can, so e.g. an investment club of diverse peers can do better than one dominated by a single point of view.
Priscilla Bardwater - Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:08:24 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.207005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes, but what you seem to be forgetting and the point I'm trying to make is that Barack Obama would not have chosen the position if he didn't have the upper hand. Anyway, we're talking about good and bad, not diversity. Diversity is a quantitative measurement of a system. When you try and communicate it as a qualitative thing, you impose your own biased judgement on the matter.

Whether the conclusions derived from this measurement are good or bad is subjective. A person would have to be annointed with godlike power to be able to claim something as "universally good". They might think they have that power, but there will always be something out there that disagrees, and so it really isn't universal after all.
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:21:26 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you still going on about good and bad being subjective? No-one is arguing that they're objective. I already qualified good and bad in the context of goals in

"Good and bad is subjective" also isn't the final word on the topic. We can do better than throw our hands in the air. Every concept exists in the mind, that doesn't invalidate good and bad. We can look at the ontological status of good and bad, the categories it can be applied to, and how they relate to each other. We can compare the judgments over time and at different scales, and discuss whether short-term good/bad corresponds to or contradicts long-term good/bad, and whether individual good/bad is necessarily in line or opposed to collective good/bad.
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:27:25 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207017 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The point of bringing up diversity was to show that an individual may benefit more from being part of a group that isn't dominated by single member, than by dominating the potential members of that group. Families, teams, organizations, cities, nations in general demonstrate the value of group membership. Such arrangements aren't only good for the leaders.

Meaning of white in the United States by James Weffinghidging - Sun, 29 May 2016 19:27:33 EST ID:ryqaNXqr No.206075 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464564453693.jpg -(109777B / 107.20KB, 600x797) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 109777
According to most I've read, white means European caucasian in the U.S. Is that true and if it is, why are non-European caucasians thought to be a different race?
34 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
David Fanman - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 07:09:30 EST ID:3AOFBN19 No.206753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Youre so full of shit. America has bought us almost to extinction roughly 3 or 4 times during the cold war. They dropped charges on russian subs and nuclear holocaust was avoided due to the actions of the sub commander. He disobeyed orders.

Stop acting edgy as if the global human society is some fucking competition where the americans have the right to fuck over the third world because theyre top dogs.

I can assure you that if you start the fight the united states will be wiped off the map very quickly after the first strike.

You fuck heads risk everybodys lives, fuck everything up then wonder why everybody hates you.

The world is turning back on us imperialism because of the information available nowdays. Whatever bullshit youre governments have planned, free trade agreements, foreign policy strategies, state emails and phone calls will be leaked by hackers for all the world to know.

This will be an asian century whether you like it or not. Next recession will fuck americans hard, and with such a short sighted economic strategy, maybe itll be a good thing.
Doris Sablingfield - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:04:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So it has just come to my attention that the word 'Caucasian' in the dictionary can represent all white people, and that the word 'Indian' in the dictionary can represent all Native Americans.

Literally fuck the dictionary and fuck every English speaker who normalizes erroneous speaking. Like those fucking heathens who say stupid sentences like 'But it's only a theory.'
My English is superior to this dictionary English, and I shall not use the word Caucasian to denote anyone outside the caucuses, nor use Indian to denote anyone outside of India, because I'm not furthering these erroneous definitions of words.
Edward Pudgefatch - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:47:54 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm pretty sure that the total amount of times the USA and Russia almost started WW3 numbers in the 10 times. Possibly the true number is 15 or 20. You never know how many close calls are still kept under red tape.
Augustus Pocklock - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:40:05 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what would a non european caucasian be ethnically speaking.

I think the term is nomenclating it's way back to a time when all caucasia was in one place.

Other wise it's us citizens getting out of being called white
Ghengis Dong - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 02:03:48 EST ID:mQSzo9rp No.207034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1476425028680.png -(775823B / 757.64KB, 800x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Armenian, Georgian, Chechen, Ossetian, Balkar, Kabardian, Ingush, Abkhaz, and Azeri people to name a few.

ethics by Plato - Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:32:14 EST ID:6FMjnYNY No.206805 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473888734260.jpg -(32131B / 31.38KB, 600x596) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32131
lets talk ethics

Is it a virtue to throw ham on a cat for the laughs of people on the internet?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Charles Fammerson - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:03:53 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Those would be vices, the opposite of virtues.

>>can anyone really know anything?
Probably not. At best, knowledge is relative.
Martha Siblingfoot - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:23:01 EST ID:km8PyPWR No.206935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know I exist.
Molly Clerrydale - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:05:39 EST ID:Pn8OQSEF No.206936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was a joke friends. It was supposed to be ironic because in the same post where I mention that OP's question of virtue is not one of ethics, I also mistake epistemology for metaphysics. hue hu
Matilda Fellyhall - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:47:31 EST ID:GViFPk9x No.206944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i like cats
Bombastus !uYErosQbLM!!Mybq1UbK - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 17:09:21 EST ID:lJKwg7RK No.206991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm glad this is the first thread I read when I haven't been on /pss/ in 2 months.

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