• Classical theism
    What is the semantic difference you're denoting via a capital versus a lower-case "b" there? — Terrapin Station
    being refers to any existing thing
    Being refers to the existence of the thing.

    And just as a note of trivial curiosity, what do you do when you want to begin a sentence with whatever the lower-case "being" denotes? — Terrapin Station
    The reader understands from the context.
  • Classical theism
    Think about what in ordinary speech are called 'beings'. (It's quite a small list). — Wayfarer
    Perhaps - but what does this distinction have to do with the point that I was making, or really the point of this thread? Thorongil understood what I meant by being. I didn't mean what is in common language understood by being, but rather what is, as Jamalrob put it, philosophically meant by it (and Thorongil got this - in fact, your distinction did nothing to help or prevent his understanding - it was simply irrelevant). Yes your distinction is a valid one. So? It has nothing to do with either the point I was trying to convey to Thorongil or the subject of this thread.
  • Classical theism
    I see a fundamental distinction between objects and beings; because beings are subjects of experience whereas chairs (etc) are not. Which is why in classical theology material things are more 'distant' from the source of being than are beings. — Wayfarer
    Yes but that distinction isn't necessary to see the distinction I was making above. Subjects of experience are transcendental to the objects of experience - and thus we can intuit the Being of beings, while chairs can't.
  • Classical theism
    Being itself clearly could not be said to not exist, so if God is being itself, then he ipso facto exists. — Thorongil
    Words move and have their being (and meaning) within the context they are used. A chair is a being, and it exists because it is found within Being. But Being itself isn't found within Being. Rather, it is Being. Thus, in what sense can the Being of beings exist? The beings exist, surely, but to say their Being also exists in the same sense that the beings exist would be a category error. But this sense of existence - the one in which beings exist - is the only sense of existence that we have. Thus when we talk of God existing we talk merely analogically (and flawed) - as I have told you, we don't know what we mean and what we say when we say God exists. We are like the blind man who says the sky is blue - he is right, but doesn't really know what he's saying. We don't really know what we're saying, it's part of the finitude of being human. And there we go - there's a reason I call Wittgenstein the greatest philosopher :P
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    From the Stoic perspective, I think the fact that there are people different from us (other than we are) is not in our control; what is in our control is how we react to it. — Ciceronianus the White
    Certainly. But I'm not referring to people different than us, simply to the state of society. Otherness isn't necessarily other people who happen to have different beliefs and so forth. It's also social organisation, cultural values, etc. which we may wish to alter or make better or improve.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    I think you're demonising. Certainly there are people like that, but I'm not addressing them - what would be the use? My aims are a lot more modest. Sure, I'm a traditionalist - I'm interested in the 'dialectic of the enlightenment' and other subjects. — Wayfarer
    :-}
  • Tao Te Ching appreciation thread
    The Chinese strategic brain is the greatest in the world. Greater than the American! You watch and see how modern politics plays out. China will be great even in 400 years. America won't. China's already the biggest economy. It won't be long until China's people are also the most prosperous. That's the difference between the American and the Chinese. The Chinese will bear 1-2 hundred years of suffering and poverty for greatness, Americans won't even bear 25 years of suffering and poverty for greatness. They want it now!

    And let's not forget that China has been dominating most of history, economically:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/

  • Tao Te Ching appreciation thread
    ↪0 thru 9
    The Art of War should be read, and notes taken on every page.

    He who advances without seeking fame — 0 thru 9
    To seek fame is to be attached to a goal which doesn't have practical value - fame isn't going to make you win, nor help you rule over the realms.

    Who retreats without escaping blame — 0 thru 9
    To escape blame is to never learn from your mistakes, and the moment you stop learning defeat becomes certain.

    He whose one aim is to protect his people and serve his lord — 0 thru 9
    Your goal has to be driven by something greater than yourself - you can't do it for yourself, you must do it for a grander ambition, for a much greater purpose, which will rally you and everyone else around a common target - which will give you the motivation to do anything - even risk your own life, for its achievement.

    The man is a jewel of the Realm — 0 thru 9
    To this man shall be handed all the kingdoms, and he shall rule over all of them, because only he deserves.

    If those who are sent to draw water begin by drinking themselves, the army is suffering from thirst — 0 thru 9
    The cause before the person.

    (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; — 0 thru 9
    The reckless general does not plan and have the patience to wait for the right conditions to launch his attack and thus sends his troops to perish.

    (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; — 0 thru 9
    The coward does not have the cojones to stand his own ground and fight, and the moment things get rough, he would rather surrender than keep going. He has no dignity.

    (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; — 0 thru 9
    Your enemy will use any means necessary to get you to make a mistake. Thus even your so called hasty temper has to be controlled. Fake a hasty temper, in truth be controlled, and be capable any moment to put an end to it.

    (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; — 0 thru 9
    A man who wants honor, doesn't really want victory.

    (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.” — 0 thru 9
    Do not over-extend, do not ask for more than can be currently given. Patience will win the day. Win slowly, but surely.

    “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” — 0 thru 9
    Only in chaos is there a chance to be great. In stable times, there is no greatness. All greatness, and all heroes, are born out of disaster. The hero thirsts for disaster, so that he may put it right.

    Watch or read The Three Kingdoms. Make notes on both Liu Bei and Cao Cao. Identify what strengths and weaknesses each have, and why Cao Cao wins at first, and why Liu Bei inevitably wins in the end. See, for example, how Liu Bei, even though he's losing battle after battle, is actually winning. Understand why. The difference between him and Cao Cao is that Cao Cao is fighting for his own glory and power - he has no larger mission. His men follow him out of fear - the moment they find a better master who is likely to win, they will all leave. But Liu Bei is losing - and yet, he builds an array of people, across the entire realm, who know that he is righteous, who know that he will fight for them, who know that he will govern with sincerity and integrity. And these people - when they shall be called - will be willing to go to their graves like beds for him. Whereas Cao Cao will be betrayed when the situation looks bad for him, Liu Bei will be obeyed and followed, even if it means death. So while outwardly it seems like he's losing, the truth is that he is acquiring capital, building up the most important resource in war - loyalty and a team - whereas Cao Cao impatiently hurries towards victory, Liu Bei is like the cunning serpent, waiting and waiting and waiting, because he knows that the more time passes, the more certain his victory shall be.
  • Life is insane/absurd/bizzare/incomprehensible
    Anyway, hope I don't sound too psychotic. Does anyone else experience this? And if so, do you think there's something philosophically significant going on here, or is it just a psychiatric 'symptom' you might say, a manifestation of extreme anxiety? — dukkha
    Yes, I did. What you're experiencing is the power of your mind in constructing reality. The power of your mind in determining reality. Reality isn't only out there. You participate in its creation. The terror is your creation, you are its father, and it is your child. You are the dreamer of demons, and the moment you realise that, that's the moment you realise that you have power over the demons. You dreamed them up - they weren't there to begin with. You don't have to let them become your masters - you are the boss.

    Imagine this. You're looking at a vase and it is yellow. Suddenly it changes color to red. That's the switch that happens in the mind. It's exactly that. There's no logic in it. There's no logic between the world being full of terror now, and looking normal the next second or in the past. It's simply a different experience - or better said, a different way of experiencing the world.

    So that's all there is to it. You're seeing the world red. You WANT to see it yellow, because presumably you don't like it red. I mean who likes feeling pure terror? No one right? You have to find a way - in your own mind - to flip that switch. Do something. Wash the dishes. Watch a movie. Read a book. Write. Get absorbed in the doing instead of in your thoughts. Ignore the thoughts - they are liars. See what happens if you ignore them and get immersed in an activity. I think you'll notice that the switch flips, and suddenly the world is yellow. Once that happens, even once, and you see it happen, you'll see for yourself that the thoughts are liars, and they say nothing about the nature of the world, they are purely the creation of your mind.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    ↪Ciceronianus the White
    But Ciceronianus, I feel that otherness is in many regards in our control. The state of our society, the state of the world, is due to people who are just like us, they don't have more than two hands, more than one head, and more than two legs. And we can change it. We can work to make it different. That's eminently within our power. It's not within our immediate power - perhaps - but that doesn't mean that it's forever outside of our grasp. Now orienting yourself this way towards a large goal doesn't lead to suffering, what can lead to suffering is attachement to such a goal in the face of the progression of reality. We can fight for what we believe in, and we can seek to make the world a better place, without increasing our psychological suffering. We don't have to sit down in our desks and accept it, as if it wasn't human beings like us who have created the world.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    So. only the oppressed, even while remaining outwardly repressed, can win their own freedom. The oppressor can never achieve this without first willingly becoming the oppressed. — John
    Thus spoke the slave :P Nietzsche didn't call it slave morality for no reason.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    that view will inevitably lead to commodifying people, an element in the Western consumerism you're so critical of, Augustino. — Noble Dust
    How so?

    equality I'm talking about is spiritual — Noble Dust
    Does this mean moral equality amongst people? Or?

    How can a new inner spiritual life be brought about in the West in order to enact these concepts? It's a dizzying prospect, but tying in Barfield's concept of the evolution of consciousness actually might bring a sense of hope to the situation; it's almost a superseding of progressive humanism in that it comes out of the godforsaken age we're in and reunites with God, reaches out the hand to God's outstretched hand. — Noble Dust
    I'm highly highly skeptic of historical narratives which have direction. Human history, I am quite convinced, has no direction. We're not "heading" towards anything. Have you ever read anything by Eric Voegelin?
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Bitter Crank
    That's kind of disgusting you know BC >:O Wasn't Freud the fella who taught that illusions are good? They help us remain sane? :P Now if that's the truth, may we not at least choose our chains (and illusions) you know what I'm sayin' bruv? >:O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    No gay with me please :-O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    And what's with this Agu?? Do you think I'm like this guy:
    Aku.png
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Yeah I was thinking about it. I'm an immigrant and I'm supporting the folks who want to kick my ass out - at least I'm doing something original.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    Have you even met a black person before, Agu? — Heister Eggcart
    Oh yes, I even have many black friends/acquaintances. You forget I've lived and worked in the West for quite some time.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    Who says I'm forcing you, though? You forget, Agustino, that I still believe in the powar of luv, brah. — Heister Eggcart
    Okay bruv, you'll fuck me till I love you I get it man
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    Absolutely, because then you'll be sterile. — Heister Eggcart
    Okay Hitler >:O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    You are culturally oppressing me with your opinion, please refrain, sir. — Heister Eggcart
    If I go have a sex change, can I not refrain then? Will I be permitted and indulged? ;)
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    Could it be that women are "more religiously [or spiritually] oriented because it fits their material/maternal circumstances? — Bitter Crank
    I agree entirely to this.

    In any case, men dominated the field of religion (as "men are naturally wont to do". Here, Miss, let us manage the church -- keep praying, just stay out of the important meetings. And don't get any big ideas either. — Bitter Crank
    I disagree that men were superior to women through history. Now that's just revisionism and it's just false. You say that, and it kinda assumes that men kept women by design in those positions. That men were in charge, and they allocated the woman the position they should have, and they allocated themselves the position they should have. But this is precisely false. The positions were allocated by the biological and natural differences that exist between the sexes in combination with the material circumstances.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    >:O It's not the humanities as such - only postmodernism that annoys you ;)
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Oh no, disaster! How does nonexistance feel like? Is it lonely, do you want to be born again? >:O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    It wasn't god who made honky tonk angels
    As you wrote in the words of you're song
    Too many times married men think they're still single
    That has caused many good girls to go wrong.

    It's a shame that all the blame is on us women
    It's not true that only you men feel the same
    From the start most every heart that's ever been broken
    Was because there always was a man to blame.     — Bitter Crank
    Is this Professor a feminazi? :P The curious thing BC, is that women actually treat us men like beasts of the field who can't control themselves - at least that's the attitude I've encountered. So if a man were to cheat, very often the woman won't be as mad at the man (unless he persists in it, or when confronted refuses to do anything about it) but she will be fucking mad at the other woman, and will go after her >:O This underlies the common thought (which is I have to admit, for many men) quite often true: men are often unable to control their sexual impulses and can be very easily seduced. But for us men, if our wife or girlfriend cheats - then we don't go after the other guy, we have a problem with her as well - because we assume, just like she would assume about the woman we cheated with, that she seduced the guy, who just couldn't control himself. So it's interesting - by receiving the blame, women are actually playing a game in which they are superior, they are the ones who can control themselves, unlike men who are weak and fall for every little bit of skin they can see.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    What's happened, did you get triggered? >:O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    ↪Ciceronianus the White
    But I like to view women as angels, that's why I hate those who aren't ;)
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    ↪Bitter Crank
    I think that much rather than that, is that their minds are continuously focused on dirty intentions, and so they think everyone else is like that. Hence they seek to cover themselves (to protect themselves from people like them), etc. Folks are too immoral, they think all of us are also like that, and they don't respect certain places like saunas, locker rooms, and so forth - where people are meant to be naked, and there's meant to be no fucking sex or sexual activities going on.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    Women 'more at peace with themselves'. lol. — Emptyheady
    That so called insecurity is merely a trick they use to get attention.

    I will look at the links soon, I'm a bit busy atm.
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    I don't want to get too personal, but maybe this reflects more about you than the alleged excessively social people you have encountered. We who are socially dull witted may find that the socially adept run circles around us, which is likely to seem like negative behavior. — Bitter Crank
    That's not true. The very social people I have met aren't consciously immoral, they just simply don't have a brain! They get themselves into so much trouble, and they have small passions, like sex and drinking. They have a strong group mentality and always have to be around someone, if you force them to be alone they go crazy... They're very all over the place, and not focused at all, don't really have clear goals or plans.
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    You'll need to live with them all the same and after you telling them to fuck them(selves) that will be harder. If you don't like how people think or about what they think, instead of dismissing them you could try engaging them in a way that will get them interested. Seems more productive to me. — Benkei
    You are right boss. It is a negative tendency that I have to disparage unintellectual people, which I should keep more in check. It just angers me, their self-righteousness, and the fact that they don't respect intelligence. As for making living with them harder - not really, one thing about the masses is that they're quick to forget - that's what I've learned. But it is immoral and should be avoided. Afterall I think it stems from some sense of inferiority. As in if you really are superior, what's the need to show it and rub it in their faces? Certainly you only do that if somewhere deep inside you think that you should be superior and yet perceive yourself as inferior.
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    "Cover" is a normal social thing. It's not the same as "undercover". There is nothing Machiavellian in what I said about cover. Another example: A bunch of straight guys in the YMCA shower and locker room can stand the forced naked proximity if they can "cover" the situation with small talk about sports, their work out, running shoes, and the like. Just standing there, silently, is a bit too "exposed". Maybe it's a way of keeping everybody's gaze pitched upward. "Hey, I'm up here." Gay men generally like the naked closeness of the YMCA, talk or no talk,, but a lot of straight guys don't. — Bitter Crank
    Why? I've always found these social "covers" as you call them hypocritical and absurd. I never had such inhibition for example - if I'm naked in a public shower / locker room / sauna etc. - I never understood why anyone would find it strange. It's not like you're in there to have sex with them are you?? Say you're naked with other men. Why is small talk needed? Why does anyone presume that I will look for their phallus if they don't talk? I found the same happening in saunas with both men and women. But the human body is the human body, no big deal in that setting. It's not like I'm walking naked in the street is it? I'm supposed to be naked in the shower, sauna, locker room.
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    I'm pretty sure that feminists are trying to combat the actual unfair treatment of women, not whatever the above is supposed to mean. — Michael
    Are you sure that you're not living 1-2 centuries ago? :D
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    Small talk serves several functions, as indicated. Society depends on it, because it enables us (sans telephone or keyboard) to stand in close proximity for a while. Between strangers, small talk is a cover for closer examination. (Close examination without a cover is a bit too intrusive, especially for Anglo Saxons who usually maintain at least an arm's length margin.) — Bitter Crank
    And can I know why we need to act like Machiavellian undercover manipulators? Does that make you feel good about yourself or what? You like being like that?

    Between friends, small talk allows for reaffirmation of the relationship, it's a friendly activity. Sharing a bit of food, a drink, is an extension of 'small talk'. It's small actions. Small actions can serve the same function as small talk. — Bitter Crank
    Yes, agreed.

    Small talk is the way we groom each other. We could go through each others' hair looking for fleas, lice, detritus, and so on, but we gave that up a million years ago. Maybe we should have preserved the practice. We could be discussing Schopenhauer while we pick lint off each other's clothing. — Bitter Crank
    Yes too.
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk
    To which the masses will say: who are you? What do we care? Whatever! — Benkei
    Fuck the masses! Why should we bother with what people with 2mm brains say? >:O
  • Women are more spiritual and religious
    In terms of behavioral indicators of religiousness, 22% of women and 18% of men were deeply engaged in religious practices; — Emptyheady
    That's a non-significant difference - 22% vs 18%.

    Similar to the differences on the religious measures, women scored higher than men did on dimensions related to spirituality, spiritual quest, and self-rated spiritual/religious growth; — Emptyheady
    Probably.

    An outward extension of their inner spiritual sensitivities, women also tended to be more involved in charitable activities, concerned with social activism, and more likely than men to perceive themselves as compassionate individuals; — Emptyheady
    Yes.

    Why are women more spiritual than men? — Emptyheady
    Because there are biological, physical and spiritual differences between the sexes. So women are generally more attuned to their bodies, more at peace with themselves, focused on compassion, love and care, whereas men are more competitive and conflictual and focused on the mind. But these are generalities, you can always find exceptions. Why it's like this? Because men and women have played different roles historically, and each has become adapted to play their specific role better than the other. Men will generally for example be physically stronger - they usually had to fight, to defend, to hunt. Women on the other hand will be emotionally attuned, focused on others' well-being and comfort, focused on conflict resolution and unity. Both are required, for example, in a successful family. If it's just the man, then the family is like a military, there is no love and compassion, or care between the members beyond mere utility. If it's just the woman then the family has no direction, no strength and no vigour.

    But the modern day feminazis want to erase all the differences because somehow, the fact that women are attuned to deal better with a different set of matters than men, that to them means that women are oppressed and inferior (because despite what they profess to think, they really act as if women were inferior - as if, somehow, being able to deal with the situations they are able to deal somehow makes them "inferior").
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    That's why I specified strongman oppression-- the oppression of the Western culture you despise is not made on those terms. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    So you admit, freely and openly, that there is oppression in society that isn't the "strongman oppression".

    The lesbian black female doesn't seek to subdue white men beneath her greatness. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Yes she does, she wants to do precisely this. She's not interested in just living her life the way she is. She wants to impose her way of life over everyone else, and get lauded and applauded for it. She wants to get the job instead of the white heterosexual male, not because she's more capable, but because of her gender, skin color, and sexual orientation. That is oppression.

    The modern equality movements are a reaction to this, to the superiority of men of women in culture, to heterosexuals over gay people, to the virgin over the person who's had multiple partners, white people over black people etc.,etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    They're largely a reaction to imagined problems. Men weren't superior to women by and large in most societies. They just had different roles to play. Difference isn't always of the comparable kind where you can name one as superior to another. It seems to me that you postmodernists remember that only when it's useful for you.

    The oppression of inequality — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Inequality isn't oppression. I'm not talking about moral inequality. Morally, there should be equality. Da Vinci shouldn't get to beat people up just because he's a genius and a great man. He shouldn't get to steal someone's wife, or to oppress others to be his slaves, because he's a genius. Morally there should be equality. But every other way, there should be inequality, which is the natural state of being.

    To avoid strongman oppression, where you are valued above others for your greatness, is utterly revolting to you. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Why is this about me? I believe people like Da Vinci for example should be valued and respected by society for their creative capabilities - moreso than others, yes. But they should be on the same moral standing with everyone else.

    Living with the greatness others is something you cannot stand. To you, it means no-one can be great. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No living with greatness is something that YOU cannot do, that's why you want to cut everyone's wings, and make them your equals - equally low. You hate that some are naturally greater than others, you don't want to respect them, you want to keep them on the ground, under your control. How dare they be better than you?! That's outrageous! I'm not outraged that there's people better than me - people like Da Vinci for example. I'm happy that there are such people, I look to them with admiration and respect, and have always desired to be like them. If I meet one, I'd treat them with the utmost respect, because they deserve it. I'm for justice - for each receiving according to what they deserve.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    That it sounds a bit close to religious fundamentalism for my liking! — Wayfarer
    >:O Okay, but why do you think it's not true? (by the way I appreciate the honest talk, I take no offence from it, I always appreciate honesty)

    Actually the conflict between science and religion in post-Enlightenment Europe is very well documented. You will find a Wikipedia entry called 'the conflict thesis' that lays it out in detail. — Wayfarer
    You mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis where I find this:

    A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa — "Wikipedia

    See this is what I mean Wayfarer. It seems to me that you are stuck in time, you are stuck in your young days when people were worried about a conflict between science and religion and that's why they were dissatisfied with the religion in which they were born (Christianity) and seeking after something different. But this isn't the world anymore. You're playing an old game, where no one is playing anymore, the stakes aren't there. And no one seems to be telling you this, but I for one find it disappointing that your knowledge and talents (both which could be of much greater help to people in the world) are being spent along such directions. Maybe today this game is still being played amongst some intellectuals. But the public at large doesn't care! They really don't care about the science-religion conflict, at least from my experience, and referring mainly to the younger folks now. (and the Wiki seems to support this too)

    You are still there fighting against modernism and the Enlightenment reductionism, but the battle ain't there. Post-modernism is the game in town, Post-modernism has created and shaped this decadent society to be what it is, and you're not saying a word about it. You're fighting with modernism - which post-modernism has already discarded! You will defeat modernism, and then the Great Willow of Darkness will laugh in your face, because the stakes aren't there anymore. By the time you defeat modernism the shadow will have befallen upon the world. Nihilism, atheism and materialism aren't supported by scientific reductionism, except for a few intellectuals which are of no significance anymore.

    Postmodernism doesn't believe in truth anymore - and that means any kind of truth, whether it's religious or scientific - doesn't matter. Postmodernism is pure politics, and metaphysics and the rest of philosophy become purely weapons to be wielded as a distraction from their goal - and their goal isn't a certain philosophy, but the reshaping of society as you and I know it. Their denial of truth is precisely this - it's them telling you I don't give a damn what the truth is (so proving them otherwise won't do any good), the world has to be this way, and that's that. Postmodernism represents quite possibly the most dangerous ideological virus that has infected the human mind. And the source of it isn't some success of science or anything of this sort - the source of it is an attitude which comes from within the human heart. The post-modernist sees that science has succeeded in changing some of our physical circumstances. Now that success has aroused and awakened the worm from his heart. And the worm wants to make all the decadence that was in the past impossible - because, for example, from fear of disease - he wants to make ALL of that possible. In the past people couldn't or wouldn't be sexually promiscuous for example, because of the dangers of pregnancy, disease, and so forth. The post-modernist wants to use science, wield it as a weapon, in order to reshape society such that pregnancy, disease, and so forth don't stand in the way of his desire. But the motivation for this is the desire itself, its the worm from his heart. In the past he couldn't do anything about it, but now science permits him to do. This technological power has awakened him the dragon that lay dormant in his heart. It has given him the idea that truth can be manipulated and used as a means of getting what you want. Science isn't a quest of truth for him - no no no - it's a club with which to reshape the world. Philosophy also - not a quest for truth, not a search for what is Truth, Beauty and so forth - no. It's a quest for power over the world.

    That's why I'm in the opposite business from postmodernism. I am for shaping the world in accordance with Truth, Beauty, and so forth. This is to counteract their ambition to shape the world according to their pure and naked selfish desire. See Wayfarer, the battle isn't over what Truth is anymore. The Postmodernist has realised, that if they were going to fight for what the truth is, they would have lost, they would never have been able to get their world. But instead they have to sideline truth, they have to render it a social construct, unimportant and insignificant, and all truth has to be so sidestepped. When you are talking with them as if they were searching for truth, you are falling in a trap. They aren't like you. They don't give a damn about the truth. You care about Beauty, Truth and so forth, but don't assume they have the same noble passions driving them, because the truth is they unfortunately don't. But you should realise that the battle isn't over Truth anymore - it's over how to reshape the world - should we do it according to Truth, or according to our selfish and naked desire? Shall we orient ourselves towards the heights, or shall we make the low equal to the high as Willow slyly proposes?

    In fact, look at the WillowOfDarkness. Notice that when you speak metaphysics with him, he's just playing around, he's enjoying it. But suddenly, what irks him the most, it's politics. Just see how he denounces you - look how he denounces me in this thread - when I attack based on politics. Why? Because when we discuss Truth, we forget that he's not after that. And when we forget that, we give him free reign over the world, and that's good for him, he's winning.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    Do you live in the East somewhere? — Noble Dust
    Yes, I'm from Eastern Europe, but I lived in the West as well.
  • Otherness, Forgiveness, And the Cycle of Human Oppression
    Anyone, including your nonexistent unborn child. — Heister Eggcart
    Then let me answer it. NO! Now why are you asking rhetorical questions? >:O
Home » Agustino