• Sleeping Beauty Problem
    They ask her one question after each time she awakens, however: What is the probability that the coin shows heads?

    Seems like a trick question.

    The probability remains the same every time they flip the coin after she wakes.

    But if she wrote the tally down, then she'll see heads written for the tally 100% of the time. But since it's the coin toss that's all that matters.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology


    You’re right that to say “truth is a maintenance project of cognition” is itself an epistemic claim. But that doesn’t undermine my point... it reinforces it. The fact that I can’t step outside the framework of justification to make my claim is precisely what I mean when I call truth a “maintenance project.” To describe truth is always to participate in it, never to stand above it.

    When I point to dementia or schizophrenia, I’m not saying they reveal “the essence of knowledge” from some Archimedean standpoint. I’m saying their breakdowns highlight the contingency of the boundaries we ordinarily take for granted. You call this “confusing the breakdown of knowledge with the nature of knowledge.” I’d say: the breakdown discloses the nature. Knowledge is not a mirror of eternal structures; it’s the fragile activity of maintaining categories against the ever-present possibility of their collapse. We can never stand outside the scaffolding of the framework and measure it. We can only ever uphold it from within, patching and justifying where need be.

    In that sense, I’m not dismissing epistemology but radicalizing it: epistemology is not the neutral arbiter between “distorted” and “genuine,” but itself part of the scaffolding, an instrument of maintenance that only works for as long as the categories hold. Our claims about knowledge are bound up in the same fragile maintenance they describe.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    The deepest conceit of philosophy: that metaphysics and epistemology are about the world as it is.

    Every epistemology carries within it a metaphysics, just as every metaphysics presupposes an epistemology. Philosophy often speaks of metaphysics as if it were an eternal architecture of reality, but “disorders” such as dementia or schizophrenia reveal that both epistemology and metaphysics rest on fragile, human scaffolding. When the mind deteriorates, the capacity to know and the categories of what is known collapse together: soap and marinara no longer belong to distinct orders, voices leak from thought into the world, self and other lose their boundary. What this shows is that metaphysics is not an independent order of being, nor epistemology a neutral method of knowing, but two faces of the same fragile ordering principle — a set of boundaries the mind must uphold to make sense of experience. When those boundaries dissolve, what we call “absurd” is simply lived reality; what we call “truth” is revealed as a maintenance project of cognition itself.

    Yet epistemology and metaphysics both are really about the world as the mind can sustain. Consequently not about the world as is.
  • The Members of TPF Exist
    Whereas I may not completely agree with your take... I know that what you experience in a dream has very real consequences upon your own muscle memory even while awake. To not take dreams seriously is mostly a failure of self awareness. They don't fit into the rigid Dawgma of the Bruh who beholds and subsequently denies them.
  • What is an idea's nature?
    mostly playing devil's advocate with the stuff I'm stuffing into muscle memory.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    We don’t need epistemology to know; epistemology is an after-the-fact rationalization of what life already does. Epistemology is like a priest arriving after the festival, declaring rules for the dancing that already happened.

    We knew long before we invented epistemology. Epistemology is only the fevered dream of a mind that cannot trust its own eyes, its own blood, its own joy.

    Epistemology is a conceptual retrojection. Epistemology is the dualistic philosopher’s revenge on life: he invents rules for knowing after the fact, then declares life itself illegitimate without them.
  • First vs Third person: Where's the mystery?
    The so-called “problem” only arises if you think consciousness is a thing-in-itself, via divorcing mind from body, rather than a function of life. It's a "hard problem" because the people who think this way are literally trying to make sense of what Camus details as "the absurd."

    "This divorce between man and this life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity." Page 3 MoS.

    The “hard problem” is not consciousness, but the philosopher’s estrangement from life.
  • Hume and legitimate beliefs
    One can simply create a way of thinking, and affirm it by living by that method. It's legitimate because it's a way of life that works for many. It's like religion, in that sense. Doesn't make it a very worthwhile way of thinking though... that whole inner outer world thing has lead so many thinkers astray, from Plato to Kant, and even still more beyond them like Dennet.
  • What is an idea's nature?
    I don’t think I would trust Plato's realm of ideas. It was cute thing to suppose we are a recession of internalizations apart from an externalized world... but this is merely all of Plato's reification of his own Allegory of the Cave.

    Once you posit that “we” are minds looking out at a separate “external world,” you already presuppose the very dualism Plato needed for his argument. He built a metaphysics out of a psychological stance (our experience of being conscious, reflective, and mediated). And everyone bought into it, just as they bought into Kant, for the very same reasons (mostly).

    You yourself are skirting around the fallacy of conceptual retrojection in using modern ideas to express something we have observed long beforehand. Though it doesn't make you "wrong" but perhaps there is a better, more primative way of detail what an idea is? Something along the lines of inspiration?

    Inspiration doesn’t presuppose a two-world ontology. It’s not “a copy of a transcendent Form.” It’s closer to breath (in-spirare = to breathe into), a surge of force or affect that wells up and gives shape to thought or creation.
  • Jokes
    Comedy: the New "Way to Slay."

    How many Platonists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    None... lightbulbs in the world of appearance are but dim shadows of the eternal form of the Lightbulb, which always shines perfectly in the realm of ideas. All they do is argue about whether you're seeing a bulb or not.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    Justified True Beliefs, isn't that mostly rhetorical clothing for our instincts? Reasons are post-hoc rationalizations of our drives. A life-preserving fiction that looks backwards at that which has already been done. And doesn't change that fact whether justified or not. Who needs to believe when one can simply create and affirm that which is created?
  • Laidback but not stupid philosophy threads
    isn't this whole forum armchair philosophers? The main problem here is everyone is stuck on Platonism. Which makes for that boring pretentious armchair philosophy of metaphysicians. You know, the ones that like to consider the "brain in a vat," without rolling their eyes at such a weak thought experiment. Epistemological philosophy is practiced by those peacocks who like to hide their peacock feathers from view while they call that their pride.

    You're gonna have to make what you want in life.
  • Against Cause
    a simple way to imagine it is as if your body is filled with millions of broadcasting stations. But reduce the wording however you want?
  • Against Cause
    Causality seems to me to be something that is multifaceted. Causality in humans is different than say when heat causes water to boil. In humans, causality is more like gradations of transversely communicating probabilities across a multitude of drives and physiological mechanisms. This is ola key concept of Quine's inscrutability of reference... that no two humans share a homology of receptors that "shared stimulus" doesn't reslly exist, so "causality" in you would have different stimulus pathways.
  • Nietzsche, the Immoralist...
    Banno, it's a bit obvious that Badenusthra came to engage with a poorly developed rhetoric in lieu of Nietzsche's writings. And certainly while not in any alignment with the topic or Nietzsche's thoughts, but in a manner seeking to discredit the man as not very careful with intellectual integrity. Reciprocating in kind is showing an active suffering with others from themselves. A bridge to one's love.
  • Nietzsche, the Immoralist...
    An absolute gold fragment of Nietzsche's...

    Ζοννυξος (= Διονῡσος in the Lesbian-Aeolian dialect. Originally probably Dionysus). This leads to a stem nek i.e. nekyς, νεκρος, etc. — neco.

    Dionysus is Hades according to Heraclitus.

    Curet cult of Zeus originally.

    Ζοννυξος ist "der todte Zeus" oder der "tödtende Zeus" — Zeusjäger = Ζαγρευς und ὡμηστής.
    — NF: 1869, 3[82]

    Which fits with Dionysus' myth, the myth of death, dismemberment, sacrifice, and rebirth. And another version of overcoming one self in their opposite. This is also why Nietzsche even subsumes a certain framework of the psychology of Christ into his "Noble" type. Because Christ is Dionysus too.

    We can see these sentiments in AC 33 and AC 39, which the sentiments in AC 39 even arise directly in the preface of AC.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    I don't think you need other people to justify your actions for you.
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?

    Although he critiqued Christianity, one of the lesser understood aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy is that he was a bit of a "fan" of the primative Christianity of Christ, prior to the church and the disciples take. In fact Nietzsche subsumes the framework of Christ into the detaila of his noble time. Not the teachings of Christ but the way he operated. We can see from AC 33 and 39 what he subsumes from Christ's framework. Which allows for one to "feel blessed," in the moment.
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy


    An 1881 Fragment of Nietzsche's:

    The society [die Gesellschaft] first educates the single being [das Einzelwesen], forms him into a half or full individual [Individuum]; it does NOT form itself from single beings, not from contracts of such beings! At most an individual is necessary as a central point [Kernpunkt] (a leader), and this individual is only "free" in relation to the lower or higher level of the others. So: the state [der Staat] does not originally suppress individuals: they do not yet exist! The state makes it possible for humans [Menschen] to exist in the first place, as herd animals [Heerdenthieren]. We are only then taught our drives and affects: they are not original [Ursprüngliches]! There is no "state of nature" [Naturzustand] for them! As parts of a whole, we participate in its living conditions [Existenzbedingungen] and its functions, and incorporate the experiences and judgments we have gained in the process.These later come into conflict [Kampf] and relationship [Relation] with one another when the bonds of the society disintegrate: within himself he must bear out [ausleiden] the after-effects of the social organism, he must atone [abbüßen] for the unsuitability of judgments, experiences, and living conditions that were suitable for a whole, and finally he comes to create his possibility of existence as an individual [Existenzmöglichkeit als Individuum] through reorganization and assimilation (excretion) of the drives within himself.
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    , I should point out that Nietzsche's philosophy was quite a balancing act, and there are all sorts of aphorisms about living in the here and now, in the "gateway of this moment," by understanding the riddle of eternal recurrence and Amor Fati. One could make several tomes on this from his works and fragments. That's why her refers to systematizers as backworlds men.
  • Nietzsche, the Immoralist...
    still toying with Platontic representations of a "True Nietzschean?" Cute, hehe.

    Where as I do enjoy a good joust with Nietzsche's philosophy, I also don't desire to leave an overly bitter aftertaste with Badenusthra on the lesson Nietzsche teaches in the 65th Aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil... that is that "the charm of knowledge would be slight were there not so much embarrassment to overcome on the route to knowledge!"

    But if you desire...
  • Hate speech - a rhetorical pickaxe
    Banning "Hate Speech" is just another version of "woke." Banning Hate Speech means the government ought to ban most religious denominations too.
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    It’s more of a metaphor I suppose ...
    Humans have a wide range of instincts. Left unchecked many of these more aggressive instincts could destroy you like the scorpion that stings itself—recklessness, violence, generalized hostility, pride, domination etc. Though to be certain so too can many of the "selfless" instincts, by giving too much of you away such that you have nothing.

    Let's put that aside for a moment, because I want to bring up a point... men like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, have it all wrong. There is no individual before society. Society crestes the individuals. There is no such thing as self-contained individual who come together to form society. Humans always have been social animals.

    Organized society/the state doesn't start out with the conception or aim to supress the individual because there simply aren't any individuals. A state produces herd mentality from the get go, humans who can live together, coordinate, and share values and practices. We are not born with fully original drives, but rather we learn them socially. When the bonds of society come into conflict with each other, they begin to disintegrate, this is when individuals become possible through inheriting contradictory impulses, judgements, and experiences that were once coherent in the larger social body. This could be due to various reasons, like witnessing something from another culture/society/nation that seems profound to you, books from other cultures, though also there could be an inclination born of strength, something like skepticism that keeps you from fully integrated within society... these days there is so much "bleeding" through the boundaries with technology this is why some nations attempt to put up a national filter on certain technologies that requires a VPN to bypass. This is why many Americans want that border wall so badly for example to stop the "corruption" that occurs from this culture "bleed through."

    Since no culture is really pure-bred anymore we begin to see more and more individuals appearimg on the stage with a variety of values that come from all over the world. But this process of differentiation is a painful process, it creates a certain style of suffering within the individual through the internalized conflict. One either attempts to integrate back into societ and quiet the war within, or one takes to the task of reorganizing and reassimilating to their new individual drives. One who loves freedom, is a warrior. Freedom is the will to be responsible for our "idios." To be ready and willing to sacrifice one’s self for one's "idios." Even at the expense of happiness.

    What I mean by the tyrant within are those inexorable and terrible instincts of an individual which challenges the authority of the state/society through their own great discipline. The tyrant, although terrible, like the uncouth barbarian, reigns in their most destructive instincts.

    As to the "eternal" consider this passage from Julian Jaynes book on the origin of consciousness, which details this Tyrant within across different ages:

    The deep voice was so loud and so clear, everyone must have heard it. He got up and walked slowly away, down the stairs of the boardwalk to the stretch of sand below. He waited to see if the voice came back. It did, its words pounding in this time, not the way you hear any words, but deeper,

    . . . as though all parts of me had become ears, with my fingers hearing the words, and my legs, and my head too. “You’re no good,” the voice said slowly, in the same deep tones. “You’ve never been any good or use on earth. There is the ocean. You might just as well drown yourself. Just walk in, and keep walking.” As soon as the voice was through, I knew by its cold command, I had to obey it. . .

    The patient walking the pounded sands of Coney Island heard his pounding voices as clearly as Achilles heard Thetis along the misted shores of the Aegean. And even as Agamemnon “had to obey” the “cold command” of Zeus, or Paul the command of Jesus before Damascus, so Mr. Jayson waded into the Atlantic Ocean to drown.
    — Julian Jaynes, Origin of Consciousness

    Speaking from my own experience with this tyramt within, the most effed up part about it all is that the free man, in the here and now, is always a few steps shy of being possessed by this tyrant within. One wars against the tyrant within from allowing it to take completely control, but utilizes him to control and organize the chaos within. In this way, we always are our own worst enemy. But these are the very instincts which creates a warrior, and molds and shapes the free individual. How does this free individual fight what he loves and what he hates (the tyrant)? By accepting all of who he is, in all of his beauty and in all of his horror, by overcoming one's self in their opposite...

    I suppose that's enough to answer your question, at least from my perspective.
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    there is a tyrant within you...that in todays world is seen as despicable...but I say embrace who you are in all of your beauty and in all of your horror, accept yourself wholly. But obviously dont give in to the tyrant. But rather channel that mother effr into your passions.
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    I don’t disagree with you to a certain point I suppose what you're getting at is that there are a large number of certain things determined about us that are out of our control. Though, dare I say that, simply on account of you being here, and engaging with philosophy, that there is some inclination born of strength, to ask forbidden questions, and to know yourself, to understand, and to overcome certain traits about yourself that you may not agree with outright, but that you could find a way to sublimate any of those "evils" you find within yourself into something less destructive, and into your own more creative drives that you do agree with? As a way of accepting all of who you are?
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    All your thoughts are your own responsibility, and thus due to you.

    This "Science of Happiness" seems like a petty book written by an ignorant author who cannot understand that they simply hate who they are... Like Paul Ree.

    1st: All production within the body is product of our desire.

    2nd: Happiness is achieved as a byproduct from overcoming that which prevents us from achieving our desires.

    3rd: Killing off ones desires causes a low strength of will, as the drives at the summit of ones rank ordering of drives have that many less desires to overcome. Thus they're not very strong desires.

    4th: There is no right or wrong action in the gateway of this moment even if it be looking back or looking forward. Not doing either or would be a folly, and only Fortune's fool would benefit from such a life style.

    5th: We can always step back and not make it a chronic habit to stagnate and languish in the past or be anxious over our future. And although aiming at a goal is often ineffective, as @Outlander points out in a recent shoutbox comment. One can still aim at the future by DOING in the here and now. Find something you enjoy doing, throw yourself into it, and build a habit into the muscle memory. Whether or not you're recognized in life, posthumously, or never at all, well, so be it. But there's no harm in aspiring to be something you're not currently. Transfigure suffering through sublation into a higher affirmation of life, where the very negation becomes the motor of creation.
  • Nietzsche, the Immoralist...
    Ye be a necromancer, reviving dead threads! Or perhaps you're a God?(Which I will come to address after rubutting Baden's posthumous betrayal in slighting and slandering Nietzsche as only a literary artist, something very common for Platonists to do as they cannot go beyond their generic representations of what a philosopher is)

    Your quite dated, and common all too common, veiled insult aside: Nietzsche was a philosopher, but more importantly, Nietzsche was a psychologist, the first modern psychologist before Freud. This is what differentiates Nietzsche above and beyond all other philosophers before him.

    Nietzsche understood that the desolation of the real world offers little to no consolation to man. He details this fact quite succinctly in the opening aphorisms of Birth of Tragedy where man is confronted by the Titans, aka those titanic forces of nature that reign hell down upon a people before they have developed a way to contest these titanic forces. This contesting of the titanic forces of nature was achieved through the very same impulses which calls art into being. This allowed the Greeks to overturn that life denying Silenian wisdom that they suffered from for so long. Furthermore, we see this time and again throughout Nietzsche's philosophy that it is through suffering and long obedience in the same direction that one begins to transfigure nihilism into something always worth living for:

    that out of the original Titan thearchy of terror the Olympian thearchy of joy was evolved, by slow transitions, through the Apollonian impulse to beauty, even as roses break forth from thorny bushes. How else could this so sensitive people, so vehement in its desires, so singularly qualified for sufferings have endured existence, if it had not been exhibited to them in their gods, surrounded with a higher glory? The same impulse which calls art into being, as the complement and consummation of existence, seducing to a continuation of life, caused also the Olympian world to arise, in which the Hellenic "will" held up before itself a transfiguring mirror. Thus do the gods justify the life of man, in that they themselves live it—the only satisfactory Theodicy! Existence under the bright sunshine of such gods is regarded as that which is desirable in itself, and the real grief of the Homeric men has reference to parting from it, especially to early parting: so that we might now say of them, with a reversion of the Silenian wisdom, that "to die early is worst of all for them, the second worst is—some day to die at all." — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 3

    Reflect the above passage with the below passage and you'll come to understand why Nietzsche actually lamented the concept that "Gott ist tot."

    The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living; for instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality—anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or divine. The long bondage of the spirit, the distrustful constraint in the communicability of ideas, the discipline which the thinker imposed on himself to think in accordance with the rules of a church or a court, or conformable to Aristotelian premises, the persistent spiritual will to interpret everything that happened according to a Christian scheme, and in every occurrence to rediscover and justify the Christian God:—all this violence, arbitrariness, severity, dreadfulness, and unreasonableness, has proved itself the disciplinary means whereby the European spirit has attained its strength, its remorseless curiosity and subtle mobility; granted also that much irrecoverable strength and spirit had to be stifled, suffocated, and spoilt in the process (for here, as everywhere, "nature" shows herself as she is, in all her extravagant and INDIFFERENT magnificence, which is shocking, but nevertheless noble). — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil § 188

    That said, what this means is that man turns away from the world, to find consolation and comfort within their systematic modalities which merely occult the world and betrays it.

    If one gives philosophy and philosophers half a chance, they almost invariably tend toward the worst excesses. More specifically, the probability is very high that they will devise an approach to reality and the world which in fact turns away from the world, occults it, and replaces it with a representation that supplants it and supposedly expresses its higher truth. This is a betrayal of the real world. — David F. Bell, Translator's Intro to Clément Rosset's Joyful Cruelty

    Nietzsche was interested in the approbation of life OUTISDE of these systems, that's why Birth of Tragedy details that ART is the proper metaphysical activity of man. Because art springs forth from nature itself....

    It was through psychology that Nietzsche discovered that all philosophers and priests before him had it ass backwards (except maybe Spinoza, and Montaigne [yeah, I know I know, "Montainge only wrote essays!" :nerd: —settle down]).

    Nietzsche shows this fatal error in their thinking by detailing man creates the values of opposition and is inextricably intertwined with and fundamentally one in the same as any two heterogeneous and parallel values that bridge over their mutual term. When we apply this to the archaic psychology of yestermillenias the value of the Beast and the value of Gods is bridged over by their mutual term "man." Because they come from man's valuations which are all internalizations; God(s) being an ideal version of man's desires. However, the fatality occurs with the archaic psychology that projects God(s) outwardly and demands subordination to their ideal(s). In this sense, man creates a false antithesis of values by destroying the bridge for one to cross over into "becoming."

    But for Nietzsche, as stated a moment ago, the opposition of values comes from within, this is why "man is the rope between the animal and the superman" and is fundamentally one in the same as these two values. Nietzsche's new psychology brings God inside of us such that we may now aim towards our ideal self without the idolatry of "whorshipping" ourselves out to external values that necessarily deny the fundamental condition of life: perspective.

    It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps! — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil § 2

    This is why the Noble typeology for Nietzsche doesn't whore themselves out to others. Because all noble types affirm the demands of their life, rather than play a subordinate back seat role that sickens on lazy peace and cowardly compromise. The Noble type understands that freedom comes at the cost of laying down their own lives for their own cause.

    Wagner contributes to nihilism by advancing the motif of the death of God, hence Nietzsche slaps a B. Wagner also whores himself out to ascetic values because he himself hated who he was in his later years. His ascetic ideals were idolatry in worshipping the antithesis to himself, "the antithesis to ruined swine."



    All humans experience resentment, Nietzsche details this. The Noble type simply doesn't dwell within their resentment to the point of it becoming venomous and turning around on the self.

    When the resentment of the noble type manifests itself, it fulfils and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction, and consequently instills no venom: on the other hand, it never manifests itself at all in countless instances, when in the case of the feeble and weak it would be inevitable. An inability to take seriously for any length of time their enemies, their disasters, their misdeeds—that is the sign of the full strong natures who possess a superfluity of moulding plastic force, that heals completely and produces forgetfulness: a good example of this in the modern world is Mirabeau, who had no memory for any insults and meannesses which were practised on him, and who was only incapable of forgiving because he forgot. Such a man indeed shakes off with a shrug many a worm which would have buried itself in another; it is only in characters like these that we see the possibility (supposing, of course, that there is such a possibility in the world) of the real "love of one's enemies." What respect for his enemies is found, forsooth, in an aristocratic man—and such a reverence is already a bridge to love! He insists on having his enemy to himself as his distinction. He tolerates no other enemy but a man in whose character there is nothing to despise and much to honour! On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

    11

    The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality
    — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 10, First Essay

    Keep up lads, I know it's hard to follow along when you're so used to being told how you ought to think in straightforward, but ever so awkward, platonic representations. And to be fair, our language is used in such a way that it is irreducibly platonic. So I get why you're so glued to Platonism. But Nietzsche's not a Platonist so you'll have to scrap that method of thinking to see beyond your Mayan veil and into Nietzsche's.

    That is, after all, one of the great powers of the Dionysian: to be able to don the masks of other great minds.
  • What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?
    Other people would never of had the pleasure or displeasure of meeting me! What a shame that would be. :cool: I wear sunglasses even inside, cause when you're cool the sun shines on you 24 hours a day!
  • The End of the Western Metadiscourse?
    Well, it tends to be hot in your part of the world, which increases pore size, which allows more dirt to get in and cause boils. It is a cheap and effective way to protect health which means it's a cheap and effective way to protect beauty and serves to highlight beauty also. Changing genders is mostly people listening to their instincts (thus may not be a completely intelligible thing) combined with a certain need for autonomy over themselves.
  • The End of the Western Metadiscourse?
    Funny thing about hijabs is your people forget why it's worn, and it's not for religious reasons. The girl saying "this is how I express myself, was a defense mechanism because she knew no other way, and no other expression. Everyone loses sight of meta over time. Because the ontological is more potent. They realize that the values don't match their expectations, they find more likeness online, or they stick closer to their nationalism. In the past 10-15 internet has exploded in your part of the world. So the complacent "dream" is distorted back into the desolation of the real.
  • Why is beauty seen as one of the most highly valued attributes in Western society?
    to that, I'd say that the subjective has always been the objectivity of the subject in question.

    I find asymmetry even in the human to be beautiful at times, especially when it's worn well. I even prefer it over symmetry as far as fashion details.
    Example:
    https://www.demobaza.com/pages/collections

    I have a few pieces of art I enjoy wearing from this designer.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    it would seem the majoroty need such a dream. That doesn't mean it has to be your truth(s).
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    Shakespeare was based at times. You know what is bad by understanding what is injurious to you. You know what is good by understanding what revitalizes you.
  • Why is beauty seen as one of the most highly valued attributes in Western society?
    proof for my own personal opinions? I think that's baked into me spewing them out.

    Beauty is the great stimulus to life affirmation that transfigures suffering into meaning. Without beauty there is only nihilism.

    Beauty is subjective, not objective.
  • Why is beauty seen as one of the most highly valued attributes in Western society?
    the absence of beauty is never important honestly lol. Surgery makes them all look the same, that doesn't really equate to beauty.
  • The End of Woke

    Common Knowledge is generally a granted...

    https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/#:~:text=Press%20Press%20Releases-,Transgender%20people%20over%20four%20times%20more%20likely%20than%20cisgender%20people,Key%20Findings

    Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households. — From above.
  • The End of Woke
    The very heart of the problem of Euripides that ended up in Aesthetic Socratism, which idolizes only the intelligible as "Good."

    Though to be certain Joy too is inchoate. In that one cannot fully place a finger on what it is that brings someone to such a state of ecstasy.

    The most decisive word, however, for this new and unprecedented esteem of knowledge and insight was spoken by Socrates when he found that he was the only one who acknowledged to himself that he knew nothing while in his critical pilgrimage through Athens, and calling on the greatest statesmen, orators, poets, and artists, he discovered everywhere the conceit of knowledge. He perceived, to his astonishment, that all these celebrities were without a proper and accurate insight, even with regard to their own callings, and practised them only by instinct. "Only by instinct": with this phrase we touch upon the heart and core of the Socratic tendency. Socratism condemns therewith existing art as well as existing ethics; wherever Socratism turns its searching eyes it beholds the lack of insight and the power of illusion; and from this lack infers the inner perversity and objectionableness of existing conditions. From this point onwards, Socrates believed that he was called upon to, correct existence; and, with an air of disregard and superiority, as the precursor of an altogether different culture, art, and morality, he enters single-handed into a world, of which, if we reverently touched the hem, we should count it our greatest happiness. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 13
  • The End of Woke
    I couldn't determine that for others. That's all up to the individual and whatever forces drive them. What I know is that whatever is injurious to me, is injurious period.
  • The End of Woke
    it does not seem to follow from this alone that it is necessarily betterCount Timothy von Icarus

    It's not about better or worse, it's just simply how one becomes who they are, by following what drives them. If one chooses to sublimate a destructive drive through the reconciliation of it's inverse drive then you're getting into Nietzsche's self overcoming... the resentful type choose the onslaught of what is different than itself through defending objective morality. There is no reconciliation, no bridge to their love. That is the problem with binding oneself to objective external values.

DifferentiatingEgg

Start FollowingSend a Message