Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2017, 05:39 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

What a sanctimonious, self-satisfied, patronising opinion!

How dare you presume to know what others are choosing to think?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2017 09:53 AM by mordant.)
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 05:39 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?
What a sanctimonious, self-satisfied, patronising opinion!
Self-ratifying, too.

It's not even a question of knowledge, it's a question of application vs mental masturbation. Knowledge is useless if not applied. Waiting around to act until you can be 100% certain you're correct, when 100% certainty isn't even obtainable, is a fool's errand.

One of the best ways to vet the utility of an idea is to see if it actually works.

Not that I blame a 17 year old for such notions. Back then, I had my own list of pet illusions that I insisted that life conform itself to; now over 40 years on, I have found life uncooperative on ALL of them. I wish I had paid way more attention way sooner to how reality actually plays out in the world rather than how it plays out in between my ears. Or in between other people's ears for that matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
19-02-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 07:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  ...
I wish I had paid way more attention way sooner to how reality actually plays out in the world
...

Yeah! But how do you know that (or which) reality is real, man?

Smokin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-02-2017, 10:02 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 10:48 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If I'd been taught the objective theory of concepts and the objective theory of ethics Instead of "you can't be certain of anything" and "the good is to live for others, not for your own sake" my life would have been greatly improved. For one thing I wouldn't have wasted over 30 years of my life with Christianity.
Well I believe you can't be certain of anything in the sense that you would be able to demonstrate 100% objectively and beyond the slightest doubt that it is so.

Not if existence exists, and it does. If you'd like to argue that it doesn't I'm willing to listen but watch the stolen concepts if you do.
(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  I think postmodern thought is a classic example of overthinking. It is true that we can't be absolutely certain of anything; it also doesn't matter. What matters is what has utility in achieving one's goals in a sustainable and organic way, which means, in a way that balances your needs against the needs of others and of society as a whole so that society doesn't become a miserable place for most people to exist. It matters in what helps me to be more rather than less content, even if I can't achieve the state of unmitigated bliss that some feel depressed that they can't constantly have despite it being biologically impossible.

I think postmodern thought is a classic example of rationalism and the primacy of consciousness view of reality. I think the only thing that matters in the realm of ideas is are they true or not. Man requires truth in order to live.

(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 10:48 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Would you say that Humanism supports the welfare state, socialized medicine, food stamps and subsidized housing? Would Humanism be in favor of laissez faire Capitalism? Are these things compatible with Humanism as you inform it?
I think that humanism doesn't inherently dictate methods or politics anymore than atheism does. It promotes a certain ethical and compassionate stance that many try to fulfill via progressive politics, but I don't see it as requiring a particular approach, only a desired outcome.

Humanism simply ascribes importance to human needs and values rather than imagined divine needs and values. It affirms that humans have much in common. It seeks rational ways to solve human problems. Nothing about that dictates particular methods.

Well if Humanists adopt so-called Progressive politics, then they endorse all of those things that I mentioned and then some that are violations of individual rights. In my mind "progressive" means progress on the road to socialism. So you've confirmed what I already knew and I'm glad I'm not a Humanist.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 08:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-02-2017 07:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  ...
I wish I had paid way more attention way sooner to how reality actually plays out in the world
...

Yeah! But how do you know that (or which) reality is real, man?

Smokin
Lol. One might say, "reality [is that which] bites". It is that which gets in the way of your pet ideas. You might believe you can fly, right up to the moment you contact the pavement 10 stories below your jumping-point. This is why people under the age of about 25, who most often have not been completely wired up in the cause-and-effect department, are well advised to avoid compulsive, risky experiments. But our Naiellis, in a sense, goes the opposite direction, avoiding empirical observation until he imagines he has his philosophical underpinnings properly arranged, when basically no one in human history has succeeded in definitively doing so, even after entire lifetimes of philosophical inquiry. Or maybe he is simply placing his risky bets on the unlikely notion that he will be the first. I have great empathy for him, because back in my salad days I certainly thought my ideas were original and that I was immune to failure, that in fact my ultimate triumph over what had befuddled countless generations before me, was inevitable. Such is the hubris of youth. It (usually) passes.

And who knows, he may advance philosophy in some meaningful way in the end, even if he has to accept imperfect / inconclusive results.

There is ultimately only one sort of person I cannot respect, and that is an incurious person. Whatever his faults or however annoying he can be, Naillis is NOT incurious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
19-02-2017, 11:02 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 02:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 01:10 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Obviously Humanism places the standard of value with the group, not the individual. This is collectivism.
...

Isn't a human just cells working as a collective?

Angel

Hitler and Stalin certainly thought so.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 01:34 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 10:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  Well I believe you can't be certain of anything in the sense that you would be able to demonstrate 100% objectively and beyond the slightest doubt that it is so.

Not if existence exists, and it does. If you'd like to argue that it doesn't I'm willing to listen but watch the stolen concepts if you do.
Existence "is", but that doesn't mean everyone has the same perceptions / understandings of it as it registers in their field of awareness. The problem isn't existence, it is the very sloppy operation of the human mind, the incomplete coverage of the five senses, and the need to decide what to pay attention to and when. The uncertainty comes from imperfect minds and limited perceptual equipment. Beyond all that, we can't properly understand a particular matter until we have a conceptual framework around it. And even then, there's no certainty that it's the correct or best possible framework.

An example that comes to mind is the concept of "childhood". Some hundreds of years ago there was no modern concept of childhood that currently frames such assumptions as that children have innocence, that it should be protected, that children need to develop into adults in a relatively carefree environment free from having to earn a living, that there is something morally wrong with child labor, and a host of other things. Presumably our concept of childhood as a developmental state is better than what came before, but it may well be regarded as barbaric or otherwise wrong, 500 years from now.

It is the conceit of every generation that its learning and science represents the pinnacle of human development; it's always wrong. That alone should tell us that absolute certitude is unobtanium.
(19-02-2017 10:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  I think postmodern thought is a classic example of overthinking. It is true that we can't be absolutely certain of anything; it also doesn't matter. What matters is what has utility in achieving one's goals in a sustainable and organic way, which means, in a way that balances your needs against the needs of others and of society as a whole so that society doesn't become a miserable place for most people to exist. It matters in what helps me to be more rather than less content, even if I can't achieve the state of unmitigated bliss that some feel depressed that they can't constantly have despite it being biologically impossible.
I think postmodern thought is a classic example of rationalism and the primacy of consciousness view of reality. I think the only thing that matters in the realm of ideas is are they true or not. Man requires truth in order to live.
We can only approach capital-T Truth, and even that is contextual. I don't like that any more than you appear to (I was, at one time, an evangelical, after all) but it is what it is. That doesn't mean truth is useless, or that 100% certainty is needed for one's beliefs to have utility.
(19-02-2017 10:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 04:52 PM)mordant Wrote:  I think that humanism doesn't inherently dictate methods or politics anymore than atheism does. It promotes a certain ethical and compassionate stance that many try to fulfill via progressive politics, but I don't see it as requiring a particular approach, only a desired outcome.

Humanism simply ascribes importance to human needs and values rather than imagined divine needs and values. It affirms that humans have much in common. It seeks rational ways to solve human problems. Nothing about that dictates particular methods.

Well if Humanists adopt so-called Progressive politics, then they endorse all of those things that I mentioned and then some that are violations of individual rights. In my mind "progressive" means progress on the road to socialism. So you've confirmed what I already knew and I'm glad I'm not a Humanist.
I said that some humanists use progressive ideals, but humanism as a concept doesn't dictate it. You could just as well use libertarian or conservative principles without violating humanism's value system. To the extent there was a problem with that, it would be because your understanding of (say) conservatism was not humane and contained extraneous assumptions about human value and human nature. You don't have to see the world as full of "takers" trying to relieve you of your private property to be a conservative. You just have to be more rather than less cautious about change.

You seem as confused about humanism as some theists are about atheism. Atheism doesn't dictate that you be liberal, angry, rebellious, anti-theist, or communist. It just describes you as lacking belief in any gods. That is actually the first step in the general direction of humanism, which at root, simply says, there are no gods to save us, we must save ourselves and each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2017 05:44 PM by Astreja.)
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 03:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I don't have to show it.

I choose to live it instead.

(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

*very heavy sigh*

There you go again, you insufferable little brat, reducing ever fucking thing in the human experience to black-and-white thinking and looking for absolutes and The Truth™ under every goddamn rock.

Anyone who knows me in real life would probably slap you silly for calling me ignorant, and you would bloody well deserve every slap. As I almost certainly have a non-infinite number of days to spend here on this cute little planet, I am rather selective as to how I use those days.

Here is a short list containing just a few of things that I consider more valuable, interesting, challenging and/or enjoyable, and far more deserving of my time and attention, than worrying about philosophical problems:

Exchanging greetings with a neighbour's cat
Chocolate
Driving through a rainstorm to get to band practice
Typing a colonoscopy report
Peeling potatoes and carrots to make stew
Doing squats and bench presses at the gym
Sitting at the mall with a cup of coffee, just watching people go by
Conjugating Icelandic verbs
Wandering through the aisles at a fabric store, looking for just the right material
An armload of dryer-warm laundry
A snoot of single malt Scotch
Teddy bears
Singing along with a Beatles tune
Working a problem in a calculus book
Running into a friend I haven't seen in a long time
Painting something I just finished building
Trying to figure out how cross-country skis work
Buying a new power tool
Recognizing perennial plants as they come back to life after the winter.

...and I've barely scratched the surface. I could go on for pages and pages.

Life is for living. Philosophy is an interesting thought experiment about life, but it will never be the real thing.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Astreja's post
19-02-2017, 08:05 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 05:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 03:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I don't have to show it.

I choose to live it instead.

(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

*very heavy sigh*

There you go again, you insufferable little brat, reducing ever fucking thing in the human experience to black-and-white thinking and looking for absolutes and The Truth™ under every goddamn rock.

Anyone who knows me in real life would probably slap you silly for calling me ignorant, and you would bloody well deserve every slap. As I almost certainly have a non-infinite number of days to spend here on this cute little planet, I am rather selective as to how I use those days.

Here is a short list containing just a few of things that I consider more valuable, interesting, challenging and/or enjoyable, and far more deserving of my time and attention, than worrying about philosophical problems:

Exchanging greetings with a neighbour's cat
Chocolate
Driving through a rainstorm to get to band practice
Typing a colonoscopy report
Peeling potatoes and carrots to make stew
Doing squats and bench presses at the gym
Sitting at the mall with a cup of coffee, just watching people go by
Conjugating Icelandic verbs
Wandering through the aisles at a fabric store, looking for just the right material
An armload of dryer-warm laundry
A snoot of single malt Scotch
Teddy bears
Singing along with a Beatles tune
Working a problem in a calculus book
Running into a friend I haven't seen in a long time
Painting something I just finished building
Trying to figure out how cross-country skis work
Buying a new power tool
Recognizing perennial plants as they come back to life after the winter.

...and I've barely scratched the surface. I could go on for pages and pages.

Life is for living. Philosophy is an interesting thought experiment about life, but it will never be the real thing.

The conversation is over. You've admitted you will gladly take irrationality over logic. You've admitted emotion is more relevant to you than fact. You embed this in your epistemology (if you can even call it that with your malformed worldview). Calling me a brat and saying your acquaintances would slap me is just boring. You lost and now you're lashing out. Want to give actual substance, I'd be more than happy to engage. But all you've done so far is throw ad hominems and emotional drivel about your priorities in life. What a moronic approach to the acquisition of knowledge.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 05:39 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

What a sanctimonious, self-satisfied, patronising opinion!

How dare you presume to know what others are choosing to think?

What? I don't think you understand. When someone willingly ignores and rejects philosophy, they have abandoned logic and reason. They open the door to presuppositions that can't be justified or grounded. It's all emotion. And this was evident in every response I got from her. Of course, it's evident in every response from any pragmatist. They don't care about truth. Many delude themselves into thinking they can get close to the truth. Others openly appeal to emotion. This is what she did. I stand by my original statement.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: