Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

If Muslims were White

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
49 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Jenny Dungerspear - Mon, 08 May 2017 08:32:51 EST 54PBc7Id No.208126 Reply
>>208097
So kind of you, Syn, to tell both of us to stop fighting when this jagoff just came up to me austistically screeching while I was actively discussion philosophy.
Just lump me, the one philosophizing, in with the "GO BACK TO 4SKIN" thread derailers.

Game of Thrones

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:02:01 EST 54PBc7Id No.207967
File: 1491228121844.jpg -(824344B / 805.02KB, 1400x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Game of Thrones
Let's talk about a subject everyone can understand; Game of Thrones.
Who your favorite GoT characters are, in my opinion, says a lot about who you are as a person.

Of course, my favorite character by far is Cersei Lannister. She truly deserves the Iron Throne. I originally loved Robert Baratheon, Ed Stark and Drogo, but they all died on me very quickly. Now, after all 6 seasons, I have to say that Cersei is truly an amazing character. I also loved Ramsay Bolton very much, as he was the sort of Hannibal Lecter of Westeros. His antics often ended with me proclaiming aloud, 'Oh Ramsay.'
>>
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:05:26 EST 54PBc7Id No.207968 Reply
To tackle this subject from a philosophical point of view, I guess it's just impressive to see how much willpower Cersei has. Cersei is definitely a fearless hedonist with more emotional strength than any of the other characters. She never makes half-hearted moves, and she never tells the truth. Truly, she is a warrior woman like Robert Barathion, only Robert was a warrior on the battlefield while Cersei is a warrior at politics, a titan behind closed-doors.
>>
Walter Donningforth - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:38:31 EST KvXjjDsO No.208006 Reply
My favorite philosophical meaning is between Ned stark and vaerys before ned stark's eventual beheading. Where vaerys tries to explain his understanding of this as preternaturally related to his time in a theatrical troupe. And how he understands power and the realm the same way.
>>
Ian Blythestock - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:42:27 EST Z08uqMmD No.208011 Reply
My favorite character is Tyrion. I guess I find him relateable since I'm more of a behind the scenes type of leader, but he's pragmatic, a tactician, and takes the lead when he has to make difficult decisions for what he believes is the correct reasons.

Cersei is definitely a boss and a half and I have alot of respect for her "no half-measures" approach.

I liked Jon Snow alot in the books, but I feel like he's not been done justice in the show. He's a warrior baptized in fire, never groomed for leadership but assumed it because he was needed, rejecting tradition in favor of survival.

I guess that's what truly connects all of them for me, they were unassuming, thrust into great trials that challenged their lives, and rose above the adversity more powerful and defiant in the face of death.

They are all true survivors.

Danaerys is too emotional for me with her decision making. Which contradicts me support of Jon Snow since he ruined his well entrenched position vs the Bolton's to save his brother, but it's his brother ya know? I mean, I can let that slide. It'd be hard to watch a little sibling be massacred in front of you and doing nothing about it.

Zoroastrianism

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:26:24 EST Vz5f1vq5 No.207599
File: 1484468784066.gif -(617831B / 603.35KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Zoroastrianism
Yo /pss/,

What do you recommend I read if I want to know more about Zoroastrianism? Specifically orthodox but I'm open to any good material on the subject. My limitedresearch so far keeps telling me that the original holy texts are all written in a language that doesn't really translate well, so unlike other religions I can't just go and read their holy book because I've had trouble understanding which texts are the equivalent of canon. I want to get a deeper understanding than just what's in the wikipedia article, Help a dude out?
7 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:20:08 EST mQSzo9rp No.207952 Reply
1490761208047.jpg -(16427B / 16.04KB, 236x238) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207950
>Did you get all that info from the site you linked?

Yup. But when I read over my post, I notice a couple necessary revisions and poorly worded parts which irk the shit out of me:

"Old Avesta" is not a historical term, but commonly refers to the original Gathas.

Our oldest manuscripts that reference them come from Hellenic Era scholars.

During the Arsacid, Seleucid ,and Parthian Empires (reign varied throughout the region, but roughly 3rd century BC to 3rd century AD), long periods of foreign rule and strife led to movements which attempted to reclaim/revive the heritage of the Achaemenid Empire (pre-Hellenic Persia) and its holy texts (the gathas).

The Sasanian Empire rising in the 3rd century AD would enforce a strict codified form of the religion which venerated these texts, the gathas, still preserved in archaic old -Persian from centuries prior (sometimes referred to itself as the old-Avesta).

In addition they would compile the bulk of the "Yasna", hymns and rituals deemed canon, which includes practices developed in the later Parthian period (hence why it differs linguistically and has been informally referred to as the "young-avesta")

Much of this literature would be lost during the muslim conquest of Persia, and later rediscovered by medieval and (eventually) modern scholars, further adding to the confusion.

Sorry it's a lot of information to condense. I swear my next post will actually cover the teachings and practices laid out in these texts. Philology just gets me hard I guess
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:46:48 EST taL6BOqF No.207969 Reply
1491245208202.jpg -(11210B / 10.95KB, 267x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207952
Kay I'll begin with an examination of the original gathas:

In these verses Zoroaster gives devotion to Ahura-Mazda. The supreme being. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahura-mazda

"Some of the words spoken of Ahura Mazdā (aka: Ohrmuzd) in the Avesta have echoes in Vedic celebrations of Mitra and Varuṇa. In one evidently archaic verse (Y. 41.3) his worshippers say to him, “We establish Thee as the god possessing good supernatural power (maya-), zealous, accompanied by aša,” while in the Gāthās Zoroaster hails him as “all-seeing” (Y. 45.4) and “seeing afar” (Y. 33.13), the one “whom none deceives” (Y. 43.6). The prophet also speaks of him as “clad in hardest stone” i.e. the sky (Y. 30.5), although he also uses terms which suggest an anthropomorphic concept, in keeping with general Indo-Iranian religious tradition, e.g. “the tongue of Thy mouth” (Y. 31.3, cf. Y. 28.11), “the hand with which Thou holdest. . .” (Y. 43.4). Zoroaster gave a wholly new dimension to his worship, however, by hailing him as the one uncreated God (Y. 30.3, 45.2), wholly wise, benevolent and good, Creator as well as upholder of aša

aša is Truth and is the highest virtue. It is counterposed by "drug" (sometimes "druj") the Lie. All evil stems from deception. Just as Mazda is the uncreated manifestation of truth and virtue he has an uncreated counterpart or 'twin' in the form of Angra Mainyu (aka: Ahriman).

"This is the Hostile Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Zoroastrian tradition (e.g., Bundahišn 1.3) states plainly what is adumbrated in the Gāthās, that Ahura Mazdā became the Creator (Av. Dadvah, Dātār, Pahl. Dādār)—this being his constant appellation—to destroy Angra Mainyu, and so to achieve a universe that was wholly good. In one Gathic verse he is said to have achieved creation by his “thought” (Y. 31.11), but elsewhere his instrument is said to have been his Holy or Bounteous Spirit, Spənta Mainyu"

The first of Ahura Mazdā’s creative acts was to emanate the six great Beings known from the tradition as the Aməša Spəntas ("ahuras" or Spirits in the original gathas). These along with Spənta Mainyu make 7 divine entities but it's not strictly speaking polytheistic

"The relationship of Ahura Mazdā to the six Aməša Spəntas is again a subtle one, and its closeness is expressed metaphorically by the prophet when he calls Ahura Mazdā the father of Aša and of Vohu Manah... but it is conveyed even more vividly by his addressing Ahura Mazdā now [sic] as “Thou,” now (when he conceives of him together with one or more of the Aməša Spəntas)

The cosmogony is preserved in later Pahlavi texts:
"He (Mazda)first shaped his creations in a spiritual (mēnōg) state, in the form of “bright, white fire” (Bundahišn 1.44). The creations remained in this state for 3,000 years. In the meantime Ahriman made his demonic creatures out of darkness. He then attacked the luminous world. Finally, the two spirits made a treaty (paymānag) to wage war for a limited period of time (a speculative duration of 9,000 or 12,000 years is given) in a well-defined arena: the world. The three stages in the cosmic drama were the (material) creation (bundahišn), which began with the treaty; the mixture (gumēzišn) of good and evil; and the separation (wizārišn) of evil from good. The last stage, however, was to fall outside historical time."

"The period of (material) creation, also to last 3,000 years, began after the treaty, when Mazda recited the Ahunwar (Av. Ahuna Vairiia) prayer, revealing to Ahriman his ultimate defeat and causing him to fall back into the darkness in a stupor, which lasted for the entire period of the creation. During this time Ohrmazd fashioned his creations in material (gētīg) form, by celebrating a “spiritual yasna” (Bundahišn 3.23). He placed each creation under the protection of one of the seven Amahraspands (Av. Aməša Spənta). First he created the sky (protected by Šahrewar, Av. Xšaθra Vairiia), which enclosed the world like the shell of an egg (cf. Bailey, pp. 135-36). The second creation was water (protected by Hordād, Av. Haurvatāt), which filled the lower half of the “egg.” The third creation, earth (protected by Spandārmad, Av. Spənta Ārmaiti), shaped like a flat disk, floated on the primeval waters. On it stood the fourth, fifth, and sixth creations, respectively the single plant or tree (protected by Amurdād; Av. Amərətāt), the uniquely cr…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:04:31 EST taL6BOqF No.207971 Reply
>>207969
sorry for so many problems with the characters/accents. When the thread is expanded it reads as normal.

nb

"Ethics"

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:49:27 EST YXMsMuFM No.207869
File: 1489189767598.jpg -(494515B / 482.92KB, 1152x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. "Ethics"
So, CRISPR is coming into its own. If you don't know about this new gene-engineering technique, then check this link:

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9

Essentially it's a rehash of a natural system found in protists that's now used to make targeted and precise edits in any genome the user wants. It's revolutionizing genetical biology world-wide, but the research into its obvious health implications is stymied by so called ethics in most of the first world.

So I'd like to discuss ethics and science. I'm just not talking about CRISPR, but general modern miracles of science that's hampered by old-world thinking like surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research or replacement of mitochondria in fertilized cells Which can heal an inherited, rare and lethal decease but is outlawed in most of the world because courts decided the resulting child ends up with "three parents", even though the child only share mitochondrial DNA with the donor.


Now obviously I'm on the liberal side of the debate here, but I wanna know what /pss/ think about these new technologies. Should we play "god" in order to save/improve lives, or is there a thin red line Humanity shouldn't cross? Are these ethical concerns really grounds for outlawing certain possible techniques, or are these ethics remnants of a world where life was the realm of religion?
>>
Frederick Chezzlewick - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:44 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207871 Reply
Ignoring personal experiences due to a nephew dying at the age of 7 from a genetic disease, fucking hell yeah we need to play God.

We will need all the tools we can get to ensure that humanity will survive the coming 10,000 years and won't end up as a bunch of fossils.
>>
Cyril Gadgekeg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:13:33 EST 4+oWREai No.207900 Reply
>>207869
Speaking as one that was born with a unique and extremely rare disease, yes. Yes, let's "play god". It's one thing to only give this tech to the elites so they can change their DNA to make them into supreme geniuses and everyone else becomes a slave caste.

It's another thing to cure disease. Imagine reversing down syndrome and these one's can actually lead a life of greater potential.

Only people that disagree with such a thing are religious goobers and or people that have no idea what it's like to live with an illness.

David Pakman recently with Matthew Liao on this very subject: http://philtech.io/class-blog/2016/11/the-crispr-future-might-be-a-little-blurred/ (not the interview. it's currently for members atm. )

The idea of being cured yet having religious morons taking that cure away from me and others infuriates me. It's like those moral turds that go against assisted suicide when someone is dying from terminal cancer. Who are these people? Where did they get their nerve?

Fuck your ethics! Give me the goods, doc!
>>
Nathaniel Trotstock - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:34:27 EST USA6SDn7 No.207956 Reply
Being afraid of "playing god" is for people haunted by spooks.

CRISPR everyone up, fam.

Family

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST 54PBc7Id No.207850
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Family
What's up with family? What's up with heritage?
These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?
Family is a group of people you share genetics with, who you have no choice of selecting, and heritage is people/events that have happened long in the past that you may be connected to genetically.
I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage; you had nothing to do with it. I don't understand the point of being proud of your family; they're not you, nor are they people you've chosen to have in your life. And I don't understand the point of loving people simply because you share a genetic bond; there's nothing special about my genetics or anyone's genetics, really.

So what's up with this stuff? Why is it so significant to people?
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST TZEgBuHq No.207932 Reply
>>207931

I see what you're saying I think. Basically life just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and we're what stuck because it worked well enough.
>>
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:27 EST Ya59RsKY No.207933 Reply
>>207931
It's still a process. Process doesn't necessarily imply intention or thought. The reactions of chemistry are described as processes, and occur as an entropic breakdown in the same way that evolution does, yet are still fantastically complex and multi-staged enough to be described as 'processes.'

Not trying to be a dick but just enthusiasming harder.
>>
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:00:54 EST uRNFOzYS No.207954 Reply
>>207931
I disagree with you too, but not for David's reasons. I think that natural selection can seem like "a lack of a process" in that randomness has a huge effect on it, however on an evolutionary scale, myriad traits have substantial effects on the results of selection. Not trying to be a dick just aiming for max autis

What do you think of a real life vigilante?

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST MTaj+oHu No.207586
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What do you think of a real life vigilante?
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
41 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST Ya59RsKY No.207845 Reply
>>207840
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
>>
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST YXMsMuFM No.207853 Reply
>>207840

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.


>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.

Now that's an interestingly typical American angle. It's ok for the police to act brutally if the perp was being a total asshole in your eyes? Remember, the police is supposed to uphold the law and justice, not dish out what is deserved.

> For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot
>That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremely stupid.

Yes, really idiotic, but it's telling that you imply support to the police's actions in this anecdotal case. It was a little kid ffs. The fact that your police were capable of just shooting him down should scream out to you the kind of dangerous threat-mentality that exist among the police in America.

I'll give you another anecdotal case: I saw a documentary about American police and in one of their ops they were swatting some guy they were sure were selling drugs. They came in in full military gear, with a military grade armored car the district had bought from the army, smashing windows and shit. What they got was 1.5 grams of weed. They found nothing else but a brick-shitting family and their weed-smoking son. Who got 800$ seized btw because they still suspected the house was a drug hive.

Now sure, the son might've well been selling weed and being smart about it, but Jesus Christ. They can just do that, smash windows and doors and seize cash on a mere suspicion? Land of the Free riiiight?
>>
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST hvs4h/ox No.207938 Reply
>>207828
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.

Now imagine that "public" is the entire town or actual public. Not a building or a school.

Now take the police officer who operates by the idea that people would complain the way a white suburban neighborhood would, regardless of if he's racist. Then sees your hair sees you are black, sees condensation on windows. He literally assumes that as the likely result.

He also believes he can read body language.

All in all when he's on camera he looks like he has a james bond complex and the entire situation was a person who was completely un preprared and prepared in a way that was completely unreasonable.

Out of expectations that fit a pattern that hasn't been concrete in the location he is actually in.

Psychoanalysis

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST cpwKmCz1 No.207810
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Psychoanalysis
So I first learned of Lacan and the enduring legacy of that wacky cokester Freud from my well-read friend who is incidentally also a Stalinist, since fringe opinions come in clusters. Now I'm reading more Lacan and Freud, and some Deleuze & Guattari, for a grad seminar on critical theory (so it's from a literary/cultural standpoint rather than a clinical interest). This is the kind of spooky shit I like to study, esoteric and abstract and more about asking questions than getting answers. Who's got opinions? Anyone been analyzed?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST 3OceFGwp No.207824 Reply
I am extremely suspicious of Lacan. In short, I do not believe that behind the curtain there is anything of theoretical value. Positivist dullards like Alan Sokal have said this about almost every postwar French thinker, but let me try to make the case that unlike Jean Baudrillard or Gilles Deleuze, who were entirely capable of lucid prose and whose occasional difficulty is a stylistic choice, Lacan's density is an intellectual smokescreen, expressly designed to disguise his fraudulence.
Watch this video of him reading Proust, or for that matter any of his public lecturing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

What's impossible to miss is how affected and grandiloquent his speaking manner is. I've attended my share of lectures given by professors with a taste for theatricality, but Lacan's affective display extends to almost every dimension of his public personality, down to his outrageously foppish cravates and silk shirts. That he possessed an electrifying manner is not just my opinion, as Elisabeth Roudinesco was inspired to argent revelry in describing him as "[a] sorcerer without magic, a guru without hypnosis, a prophet without god." Even more significantly she noted that "students had the impression that the master was speaking... in a coded message secretly addressed to them alone."

The fact of his virtuosic charisma leads me to believe that Lagan was a malignant narcissist, whose entire intellectual career was a sophisticated strategy to win him praise and adulation. Consider: Nietszche's prose is soaring and possessed of a brilliant wit, while Nietzsche the man was entirely ineffectual and forgettable. This is the way you'd expect it to be; the artist is dwarfed in stature by his work. Lacan is just the opposite. In person he was magnetic, while his writing is unbelievably turgid, almost unreadable. Why is that? When you realize the essential fraudulence of Lacan's personality and oeuvre, it becomes obvious. His writing was intentionally obscurantist so as to allow him to keep the con going. In another time and place he may have ended up a cult leader, but it so happens he became a French psychoanalyst instead.

In fact, the army of disciples and epigones that surrounded him in his later years has much of the appearance of a nascent cult, ended only by his death; when Lacan began to suffer extended aphasic episodes as a result of his deteriorating mental faculties, some students attempted to interpret his silence through the lens of his theory.
>>
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST Ya59RsKY No.207847 Reply
>>207824
I always felt like I was being too pretentious for not liking Lacan simply because of how overblown and pretentious *he* is. I always kinda assumed that there just was something 'behind the curtain' that I just hadn't read or wasn't getting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:35:02 EST 3OceFGwp No.207848 Reply
>>207847
Lacan thrived, even depended, on that uncertainty. When the charismatic narcissist begins speaking he wins over some in an instant, while a few see through him just as quickly. The larger fraction of the audience, though, remains uncommitted, and it is by vigorous exercise of charisma that he convinces them to suspend their disbelief -- "perhaps I just don't understand it, perhaps I'm a philistine; perhaps he really does have it figured out."

The Decline of The West

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST fk7xMmwU No.207331
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Decline of The West
I'm in the process of reading pic related and I've been interested in the idea that the West is in terminal decline and will soon collapse for a while now and I'm fairly convinced that The West is basically done. What do you guys think?
49 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:54:26 EST Ya59RsKY No.207832 Reply
>>207826
I said it was a social construct that is based on philosophical absolutes, which is why its content isn't arbitrary. But please, go ahead and use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions.

Philosophical absolutes are a priori principles. They are absolute because they are not contingent on other phenomena like a posteriori principles. This is a very subtle and abstruse concept which I'm sure you will try to misunderstand, but what I am suggesting is that fundamental conceptions of rights, like 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' emerge from a priori facts about what it means to be a sapient, subjective consciousness. Life is important because we are organisms, liberty is important because we have self-awareness over our own conditions, the freedom to pursue happiness is important because our internal subjectivity produces vast diversity that no one definition of happiness can fit.

My point being that a sapient beings rights aren't random, or arbitrary, or generated purely by consensus. They may be protected or agreed upon by a group reaching consensus, but they emerge from the properties of sapient beings a priori and are merely recognized after the fact a posteriori, in the same way that a group of scientists may have to get together and reach a consensus to publish a paper that declares a new scientific law, but the law already existed as an inherent aspect of reality and was merely waiting to be discovered.

To provide a counter-example to show why rights aren't purely consensus based, imagine a society that by consensus determines everyone has the right to throw people in the volcano. For a long time this might continue, simply because everyone believes that it is so, but eventually there would be someone who would refuse. After a long enough time, someone might refuse loudly enough that someone else heard them before they got chucked in, and people reflecting on their refusal would cause discussion of the event to spread. People would eventually begin to question why the consensus was reached in the first place, and the whole thing would unravel, because the 'right' was not built on any kind of reasonable foundation that stems form the needs of subjective being, and is in fact contrary to a more fundamental, actual right. It might take centuries, especially if the right has a religious justification, but eventually the rights a society offers will progress in the direction of these kind of basic, universal rights (the long arc of justice.) And it almost never goes in the opposite direction, where a society that once offered people say, the right of freedom of movement, to rescind that right, and if it does it almost always leads to a societal collapse. If the social contract were truly arbitrary, we wouldn't expect it to have these properties, we would instead expect societies to have completely random compositions of rights, and for there to be no consistent pattern in their adoption and removal.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:27:02 EST Ya59RsKY No.207846 Reply
>>207841
>>use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions

Well at least I called it ahead of time. As usual, you make inflammatory claims but aren't willing to hang in for the inevitable consequences, and act like you won by harping about definitions.

That the crappy editors at wikipedia equate rights with norms is utterly misleading, and if you actually follow the reference for their use of it you will see that the person copying the textbook made the same error you made regarding the difference between the a priori origins or rights and the fact that we must agree on recognition of them, in understanding the line in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

If a norm is a prescriptive statement about the world of the format 'things ought to be this way,' then either all norms are culturally relative (there are no universal 'ought to's) or some norms arrive from universal ethical principles and some arise from culturally contingent ethical principles. The social structure which enforces the recognition of a right is necessarily a norm, because each culture would enforce rights differently. But precisely what I am saying is that the 'universal, inalienable' rights are not norms, because they are not an 'ought to' we have to enforce but an 'is' that is intrinsic to reality, which is the opposite of what a norm is. Alternatively, one would have to argue that all morality is relative, in which case once again a morality that includes universal, rather than normative conceptions of rights is equally as valid as one that doesn't.

So if you want to actually engage in discussion, defend your links. You told me that I was actually saying the opposite of what I was saying and demanded to know 'what the hell' I was talking about, but apparently me prophetically saying you would be too 'butt hurt' to actually respond was so offensive that you don't want to respond or defend your statements. Imagine that. Once again 54P, I would suggest if you're going to make strong statements, at least have the courage to back them up, instead of running away every time someone actually pushes back with a reasoned argument.

If the Bible is the word of God

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST oxJMfop8 No.201897
File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If the Bible is the word of God
why the fuck doesn't it have anything in it like

  1. Genetics and how all that shit works

2. The laws of physics

3. How to build an environmentally friendly engine

4. How to cure cancer

5. How to prevent the bubonic plague?

I'm serious.

Why didn't God just include all that stuff?
70 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST 4+oWREai No.207831 Reply
>>207829
I recommend looking up Richard Carriers lectures. The Jesus myth people donated him to see if there is any merit to the idea. Think of it as the zeitgeist film but researched by a legitimate ancient historian phd. He changed his mind and realized that there is merit to the ideas. An example, cult of Romulus even had a passion play and its dated older than christianity.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:36:14 EST 54PBc7Id No.207839 Reply
>>207831
Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't matter. I know the stories surrounding Jesus are mostly if not totally false, so, who cares? Teaching lessons via myth is just a normal part of history.
>>
Nigel Sondlespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:02 EST 4+oWREai No.207844 Reply
>>207839
It matters when the alternative is believed as historical fact. Christianity rests on the idea that this all happened in reality to give itself credibility. It matters in the social and political and even psychological sense. It also matters in a scholarly sense. It hampers scholarship to give credence to a thing that does not deserve any and only given throughg enerations of assumptions which carries over from its inception thousands of years ago.

Some atheists argue believers are in some ways victimized by these beliefs that has a strong hold over our government policy making and ways in which societys behaves. I think there is a very good argument to be made that if they are victims then it would ethical to offer help.

We have to talk about louie ck

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 26 Dec 2016 00:52:00 EST ZQywfuGk No.207508
File: 1482731520273.jpg -(18093B / 17.67KB, 640x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. We have to talk about louie ck
Now louie is alright but there is something that he said which got me thinking like a dog stuck in the dog door. You see that guy was on a interview and he comes up with this way of looking where "a little white girl doesn't get to complain". He continues on about how when his kid was sick and he got her flavored medicine which she didn't want. "what do you mean no? People are starving to death and you say no!? You don't get to!"

And it hit me, okay she is not starving and that's better than the alternative but in a way, she resembles what society has sacrificed inorder to not starve. That little girl sick but she still thinking about petty shit like the flavor of her medicine, she forever in this headspace where things like that matter. The sacrifice is a clear mind replaced by that of something like a consumer.
33 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ernest Pablingway - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:50:09 EST YONArVoZ No.207759 Reply
>>207758
This, I just came here by accident and you're all the worst.
>>
Fucking Brocklewick - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:57:11 EST 5T+lpeRC No.207760 Reply
>>207753
>lol I'm smarter than you
>but I"m not stuck up look at this ironic blingee anime gif I'm chill
>I'M SMART FUCK OFF

Stimulant psychosis

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 02 Feb 2017 02:46:38 EST PNxBjttw No.207672
File: 1486021598585.jpg -(1003863B / 980.33KB, 2448x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Stimulant psychosis
Realization of the Individual

An Informal and Incomplete Attempt at Documenting Ramblings of Stimulant Psychosis, as a Less Fucked-Up Freud Would Attempt With Only Anecdotal Evidence and Subjective Observations

Extinguishing Sex in
Delapidated Gender Politics and

A letter to an old and new friend,

Would it be personally irksome to suggest that by rekindling a frienship with the "you" that always existed in my mind, represented through your thoughts and actions, and now modified, complemented, and made whole, in all practical pretenses of recognition, a gendered-persona in my mind, lets me realize the ultimate muteness and insignificance of how I (and certainly others) change behavioral patterns (voluntarily or involuntarily, passively or actively) when attempting to communicate with the opposite gender, as if that particular gendered individual is inherently predisposed to respond a different way, and additionally the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?

The idea of the "transgender" individual is uncomfortable for a large portion of humanity, across sexual orientations even, and this uncomfortability is due to an unwillingness of the ordinary individual to confront their own firstly amorphous and effectively raw Identity as they can illustrate outwardly for others or inward for themselves in any honest confidence without fibbing and cutting corners in important internal dialogues. Even individuals with singular missions through career or personal obligation of manifesting an idea in physical reality through some non-monetary motivation, struggle with the perception of themselves after completion, as their own understanding of their identity even during their 'mission' was not guided by some inherent imperative intrinsic in identity, but rather by a belief maintained by the constructs, irrespective of any moral grounding, that restricted the ability to self-actualize through a mode of self-expression which did not include the creation of art (this working definition of art being the representation of an idea, one's own or collectively amalgamized with others', through a medium unsullied by the self's neccesity to maintain a contrived character in order to survive.

I only preface this realization of mine with the fear of its possible irksomeness to you because its framing implicitly recognizes your transition, which is effectively a masked question of your actual existence, as it questions every others'... However, this only means that you have largely come to terms with the time, space, and reality you inhabit, and from my point of view, have gone further in the never-ending journey in self-actualization toward the ideal of Nietzsche's Ubermensch (as i interpret)

So I see you as a role model in your unapologetic trudging through the sea of time, and the depths of it represented by your mind in coming closer to a singularity of self-expression, and self-expression is the inevitable mandate of human consciousness.

And is a beautiful thing when pursued and manifested in a way that creates instead of destroys.

And I dont even feel an ounce of untruth or embellishment in any of what I said, because I am actualizing my identity further by becoming aware of my subliminal actions and thought processes.

I wont say that I'm proud of you because I feel what follows the emotion of pride is the ideation of some degree of my participation in your 'good' or 'achievement', which further implicates an ide…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:16:30 EST PNxBjttw No.207686 Reply
>>207685

Not saying that individuals attach too much to their biological gender, or thattransgendered individuals place too much value in ehat their biological gender should be, but that the aforementioned is not a part of true identity, but its appendage, "persona"

My idea of identity is neutered. What is presented for external observation is persona, which is what is sexualized.
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:25:23 EST PNxBjttw No.207687 Reply
>>207685
Sexual orientation and Gender is a mechanism of self-expression for the true identity, through the apparatus of persona. It does not neccesarily imply the identity to be one thing or another inherently, but that the persona is neccessitated to engage and immerse itself in the terms of gender and sexuality.
>>
Matilda Doshman - Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:49:04 EST AY3IYDOV No.207688 Reply
>>207672
"I wont say that I'm proud of you because I feel what follows the emotion of pride is the ideation of some degree of my participation in your 'good' or 'achievement', which further implicates an idea of ownership of some portion of your being,"

I really like that. Pretty sound logic to me through and through, but let me double check i'm getting your message.

You write, "the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?"

You mean to say that because of our animal origins, the egoic/lesser mind creates a "normal" or "likeable" facade to attract mates while also adorning qualities that further ensure survival based off environment, and upon discovering their facade,the person realizes their true self, which i gathered from your loose definition to be some amorphous creative force, thereby rendering the awakened individuals identity as both limitless and illusory.

Pretty sure that's what you meant. Either way good read, I really enjoy hifalutin prose. Your style really does reflect the honeymoon phase of amphetamines for me..definitely seemed stimmmmmed

Callout Culture

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:44:07 EST oDJItcGo No.207590
File: 1484369047663.gif -(3204803B / 3.06MB, 320x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Callout Culture
Have y'all ever had the pleasure of being called out? I know the supposed purpose is this is to warn others about "dangerous" people but in practice I don't think I've ever seen it used like that. It's all nothing more than insecure people trying to outshame each other, usually hypocritically. Most fandom drama I've seen is played out exactly like that.

I'd put it on kids being immature, but grown adults do this sort of thing all the time. I think part of it is because people are jealous of other people's talents, so they target creators whose abilities they covert and hide behind the excuse of them drawing porn of children's cartoons of something.

I just wonder what motivates people to get so angry at cartoon drawings they have to attempt to destroy a person's life.
14 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Molly Subberfield - Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:55:39 EST Am93n9Du No.207668 Reply
>>207658
Please, challenge all you like. Yeah I was speaking in general regarding the anti-authoritarian left. Sometimes drama would bubble-up on the internet. Though no specific examples come to mind.
>>
Rebecca Bozzleway - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 05:14:04 EST YONArVoZ No.207684 Reply
Now I remember why I don't come here, /pss/ is the most enthusiasmal board on the site.

nb

There's absolutely no central ethos driving modern thought and this is a good thing

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:57:41 EST /8HhZCXH No.207641
File: 1485478661593.jpg -(73018B / 71.31KB, 940x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. There's absolutely no central ethos driving modern thought and this is a good thing
Every time it's a slow news day for some posh culture zine I see articles crop up about what makes this generation tick. They say we're too detached and ironic one day and then the next they say we're big on sincerity. We either care too much or too little about the world, relationships, religion, everything. They go on and on about what philosophies dominate our youth culture but what they say we think is constantly changing and never really gets it right. There aren't any movements in our culture that take hold of the vast majority of young adults anymore. There aren't any cultural idols or iconoclasts. There are very very famous people but for everyone who worships the ground these celebrities walk on there are as many who would spit in their faces. The Internet and in general the free access to information and quality of our schooling has brought up a generation where almost no one agrees on anything. Everyone has their own ideas about everything because they don't have to get their belief system from either their parents and teachers or counter-cultural movements. People can go online right now and read thousands of pages from the great works of every philosopher who has ever lived and been recorded. They don't have to suffer through learning by a lesson plan that directs their thought by only including the "right" things. And they don't have one single alternative to what's considered the "culture" of the "majority" at the second. Sure, most people don't care about any of this stuff and they just want to eat, sleep, fuck, feel valued and have fun but that's how it's always been. Only recently has the lack of any philosophical guidance brought this to light. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this way of thinking either. It doesn't make them dumb or immoral it just means they don't have any interest in ideology. If 99% of people in the world were like this it would still be better than when people followed a belief system insincerely because that's what they were supposed to or because they wanted to rebel. I think maybe someday this will change, I don't know how it could but it might, maybe by force of some world autocrat or a breakthrough in communication, so I want to enjoy what could be the greatest cultural and philosophical renaissance of all human existence while I can and I urge everyone to do the same. At this point in the West (obviously in less developed parts of the world this has not fully reached them) we by and large have the freedom to express ourselves and express precisely what we actually believe without suffering persecution or risking total social ostracization. There may be the risk of consequences within one's current social group for expressing dissenting opinion but without the pathetic oversentimentality and rigid traditionalism of the past, in dire situations where there is no hope of amends, people are free to travel the world in search of a group which fully accepts them. There is no longer really an emphasis on petty things you can't change like how long you've known someone or where you're from. You can move to a new city tomorrow and in a week someone you've met could consider you their best friend.
>>
Hedda Crommlebury - Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:00 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207646 Reply
I tried to read your post mate, but it's a wall of text in the fullest extent of the word.

Please use spaces between chunks of texts next time ok?
>>
Eugene Dartbanks - Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:42:57 EST wbhmCm0d No.207648 Reply
>>207641
The past wasn't homogeneous either, we just tend to pigeonhole things more when they're further from us.

Existential dread

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:50 EST fxoRXnTe No.207530
File: 1483203050436.jpg -(187800B / 183.40KB, 716x494) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Existential dread
Hey /pss/, sorry for not being more philosophical, but I would like to get some advice from you all. It'll be hard to present my problem in a way that will yield the best results, so bear with me.
My friend has been struggling with finding a meaning to life. He's very intellectual, so he has done a lot of his own research by way of philosophy, and I'm pretty sure he considers himself an Absurdist. But he's not comfortable with the fact that nothing has meaning. Now I've read some Camus and I do agree that there is some quelling of these anxieties in the fact that at least Nothing is real, but this isn't enough for my friend. I've tried to get him to explain his feelings a bit more but I don't want to act like I'm analyzing him by writing things down as he explains. So again, I apologize if none of this is very clear.

That being said, I'll share some of the things I can recall him saying. He says he's bored with everything, and a lot of things that once gave him joy fail to excite him any longer. Some of these things are simple, such as video games, and he says he dislikes activities like this because they're not beneficial over time. So I ask why he doesn't do something that is beneficial, such as reading a book or learning something new. He does a lot of reading and learning, but again argues that even all this knowledge he acquires has no benefit because it will all die with him. Another thing I noticed when he talks about this is that he often says 'nothing matters on a cosmic level'. I tried saying that everything serves a purpose, using the example I read on here how a table is more than the sum of its parts, it serves a purpose for us to use it to rest things on. He then said that everything is nothing but atoms, and atoms have no purpose and that they simply exist.

I don't know. He finds no purpose in anything. I want to help him find a purpose for at least some things. Science can't really prove that there is a meaning for things, so I'm at a loss for what to tell him.
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phoebe Berrypag - Thu, 05 Jan 2017 03:31:32 EST M2a7S9cl No.207548 Reply
1483605092998.jpg -(98624B / 96.31KB, 800x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207547 (continued)
However the examination of the question and of the negation has given us all that it can. We have been referred by it to empirical freedom as the nihilation of man in the heart of temporality and as the necessary condition for the transcending apprehension of negatites. It remains to found this empirical freedom. It can not be both the original nihilation and the ground of all nihilation. Actually it contributes to constituting transcendences in immanence which condition all negative transcendences. But the very fact that the transcendences of empirical freedom are constituted in immanence as transcendence shows us that we are dealing with secondary nihilations which suppose the existence of an original nothingness. They are only a stage in the analytical regression which leads us from the examples of transcendence called "negatites" to the being which is its own nothingness. Evidently it is necessary to find the foundation of all negation in a nihilation which is exercised in the very heart of immanence; in absolute immanence, in the pure subjectivity of the instantaneous cogito we must discover the original act by which man is to himself his own nothingness. What must be the nature of consciousness in order that man in consciousness and in terms of consciousness should arise in the world as the being who is his own nothingness and by whom nothingness comes into the world?

We seem to lack here the instrument to permit us to resolve this new problem; negation directly engages only freedom. We must find in freedom itself the conduct which will permit us to push further. Now this conduct, which will lead us to the threshold of immanence and which remains still sufficiently objective so that we can objectively disengage its conditions of possibility--this we have already encountered. Have we not remarked earlier that in bad faith, we are-anguish-in-order-to-flee-anguish within the unity of a single consciousness? If bad faith is to be possible, we should be able within the same consciousness to meet with the unity of being and non-being--the being-in-order-not-to-be. Bad faith is going to be the next object of our investigation. For man to be able to question, he must be capable of being his own nothingness; that is, he can be at the origin of non-being in being only if his being--in himself and by himself--is paralyzed with nothingness. Thus the transcendences of past and future appear in the temporal being of human reality. But bad faith is instantaneous. What then are we to say that consciousness must be in the instantaneity of the pre-reflective cogito--if the human being is to be capable of bad faith? (pg. 45)

unrelated pic from Self as Other: Reconsidering Self-Care
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:32:51 EST vano1wpA No.207570 Reply
1484123571568.jpg -(461279B / 450.47KB, 2000x1394) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207567
>All the contents of the average human life is a salad bowl of circumstantial, transitory desires that do more to obliterate one's connection to their will to live than to advance any endeavor they may want to undertake before death.
Gotta be honest, this is a pretty bad sentence homie.
>>
Reuben Wirrystock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:49:47 EST Kyyd6tev No.207581 Reply
>>207570
>one grammatical error
>pretty bad
fo you i fix
>All the contents of the average human life are a salad bowl of circumstantial, transitory desires that do more to wear down their will to live than to advance any endeavor that one may want to undertake in life.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.