Agriculture linked to hypocrisy? — Raul

The human being - Homo Sapiens - evolved to live in a nomadic society and not in a completely sedentary one. The fact that we fought against our nature for something that would benefit few - beginning of the concept of hierarchy with the advent of sedentarism - and would denigrate - in the long run - many. I can only categorize the advent of agriculture as the greatest hypocrisy of all...

Good article. :up: :up: — Raul

Thank you.

Actually communism was the major expression of human hypocrisy in politics. — Raul

I would argue that:

1º Advent of Agriculture;
2º Christianity;
3º Communism.

Your Ego can die, there are meds for that and not to mention dozens or religions that do it too. Also you will perish. Your legacy won’t live on, you’ll be quickly forgotten in about 100 years. Nothing that is you will live on.

Also for the record I found Neitzsche to be an idiot who could not cope with issue of death. All that you listed aren’t reasons to live but rather are consequences of living. That said neitzsche couldn’t deal with nihilism and ended up with a cop out just like the rest of the existential philosophers. None of them could take nihilism head on and just danced around it. — Darkneos

Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand. My participation in this discussion is finished.

Even as an egoist this seems rather foolish, for aren't their political opinions more concerned with the sacrifices of others instead of their own? — Tzeentch

The point is that, in essence, all the actions taken by an individual, are performed - consciously and unconsciously - for his own sake. They're not "declared egoists" but, inconscient, "involuntary", egoists.

(I liked your post, by the way) — Tzeentch

Thank you.

It's great to be one of the few people in the world who really know the lie that Communism was and still is...

If I may, you said, "when you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem.:" Raul wasn't taking it as a problem and neither was I. That leaves only you. — Pantagruel

I honestly don't know why you are meddling in a matter between me and Raul. Not wanting to be disrespectful, but I see no reason why you should continue to pursue a subject in which you were not even - initially - mentioned.

Think a bit more about it, — Raul

The point is that the concept of "Translatio Studii" is based on the movement of the "substance of knowledge" geographically, that is, attached to planet Earth and its continents.

You are not proposing a shift of knowledge horizontally, but vertically. You probably believe humans will colonize the galaxy, I don't. That's where we are disagreeing...

And I would even add, you just reminded me that Simone de Beauvoir would have a lot of to say about this. It is a very interesting topic actually: gender and philosophy! — Raul

Gender/Sex in philosophy is one thing;
Gender/Sex research in a philosophy forum is another.

If you had genuine questions about the topic, why don't you create a new thread then?
It seems to me that your research here, simply serves for people as one more argument against the forum - you know, the thought police is everywhere -.

You may see it as "just a research", but people may distort it to "how the forum is unequal in its men/women proportions"...

Right, so why would people not answer then? — Raul

your gender/sex doesn't mean anything when you're talking about philosophy — Gus Lamarch

Maybe, from a philosophical forum, I was expecting these prejudices would not be there... — Raul

Maybe, from a philosophical forum, I was expecting these prejudices would not be there... — Raul

It's not prejudice, it is just that your gender/sex doesn't mean anything when you're talking about philosophy - at least it shouldn't -.

When you say that you would rather 'know rather unknown' I am not sure what you mean exactly. — Jack Cummins

I am referring to knowing what is currently unknown. The concept of "death" is so frightening and encompasses so many strands of human life, that if we knew what death really is - or, what comes after death - we would no longer find ourselves trapped and fatigued by the anguish of fear and of concern. If so, we would be one step closer to the complete freedom of existence - as, having one less problem in the way to creating the purpose of egoism... -.

In what sense do you think that the ego continues. — Jack Cummins

Through its legacy and substance.

Legacy: Material inheritance - as in, money, proprieties, objects, etc... -;
Substance: Metaphysical inheritance - as in, ideas, thoughts, abstractions, memories, concepts, etc... -.

I don't know about you but I am not sure that I think that I would have a legacy. I am not exactly Kurt Cobain or Richie from the Manic Street Preachers, or Van Gogh. — Jack Cummins

The problem with your view of "legacy" is that you are putting "prestige" and "recognition" as belonging to the concept of legacy, which they are not.

Your material legacy can be only an "atom" as your metaphysical legacy can be only a "happy instance".

Both, in turn, create the "Egoistic Eternization".

What is interesting is that your view is the complete contrast to the Eastern thinkers. They suggest that the ego dies and the more subtle bodies, including the astral live on. — Jack Cummins

Thank you for pointing that out.

To be honest, I am not sure what happens at death. — Jack Cummins

No one knows. Some may say that it's better that way. I myself would still prefer to know than unknown...

Where's the insult? I didn't call you anything, I said you act like a denigrating asshole and then apparently feel it's necessary to whine about it when you're called out on your obnoxious behaviour. Get a spine. — Benkei

I love it when someone makes himself owned by me. To everyone on the forum, "Benkei" is an excellent example of how a "negative-egoist" acts:

Where's the insult? I didn't call you anything, — Benkei

Doublethink + Denial of past statement

I said you act like a denigrating asshole — Benkei

Specific focus in the meaning - subjectivity - of the pejorative term + verbal aggression - subjected to hyperbole - justified by the previous formula

then apparently feel it's necessary to whine about it — Benkei

Outsourcing of guilt through the victim

Thank you for proving me right...

I thought that you believed that death was the end of all existence. — Jack Cummins

Jack, you well know that death - in my philosophy of positive egoism - is just another step in the eternalization of the individual's "Ego".

You - as a being during existence - will perish, however, your existence will still remain through your legacy and its substance in time - memories, feelings, sensations, changes, etc... -.

"I" can die, but my "Ego" can't, as it was born with and within existence - remember the bit "the purpose is the craving for the craving" -.

Yet despite Buddhism knowing life is suffering and craving they claim that isn't why they stick around. — Darkneos

Nietzsche has already made it clear to us that ascetic religions and philosophies, that is, that "seek to extinguish suffering by the complete and total absence of conscience" - such as Buddhism, or even Schopenhauer's philosophy - simply renounce the declaration that they need and choose death, while practicing it during life.

If you don't live to feel pain, love, pleasure, and suffering, or to feel at all, to be realized and to realize others, and to fail and fail others, it would only make sense for you to be dead.

.

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos

Often, they do not choose to continue, because they are so stuck and inert to reality and its suffering, that they end up fearing absolute peace - death.

The fear of the unknown is completely metaphysical, as it is a mental preoccupation - and often, expressed physically - of what is yet to come and its "unknowledgeableness".

- But what about those who choose to continue? You ask me.

Oh! I'm talking about all of them. The "Own" is the beginning, the cause, the middle and the end. Therefore, even those who have decided not to "continue" are just taking another step in their eternalizations in existence.

"The purpose of existence, is the craving for the craving"

Your comment was at least as insulting as his. — Baden

act like a denigrating asshole if you like. — Benkei

Well, excuse me, but this discussion - at least on this topic about "reality" - cannot go on since you don't even have knowledge about the theory you defend. Good day/night. — Gus Lamarch

No, it was not.

But sure, act like a denigrating asshole if you like. — Benkei

@Baden These are the kind of people that you differ the powers of managing the forum.

Why a finite Universe would imply singularity impossible to achieve? — Raul

Singularities are based on the belief of "exponential growth" - that is, they tend to infinity -. Therefore, it is physically impossible to be reached in a Universe of finite resources, space, time, and matter.

Infinity + Finite = 0

I don't see where Raul says it is a problem. Statistical populations are a basic fact of reality. Sounds perhaps like you are somehow offended by the question? Surveys don't bother me. — Pantagruel

My observation only states that only when touched on such an issue, it can become a problem - when one becomes aware of such an issue -.

Sounds perhaps like you are somehow offended by the question? Surveys don't bother me. — Pantagruel

This polarizes and divides a group - the forum - that already has its purposes and reasons for coming together - study and discuss philosophy -. This type of "research" only serves to the detriment of such intellectual homogeneity.

Nietzsche is anti-nilhism. — TheWillowOfDarkness

"I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" - Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Gay Science"

It is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.

Nihilism against itself! Genius!

This could trigger a good discussion on: are man more attracted to philosophy than woman, the other way around? Is there still a strong cultural gender-bias? — Raul

When you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem.

I couldn't care less what your biology says you are or with what you identify with. As long as you can debate and expatiate profoundly about philosophy, I'm good with it...

This is a philosophy forum. Nothing more, nothing less...

"You can go
And fight the fall
But you're hanging
On a lie"

Whoops, really meant for ↪fleamont — schopenhauer1

:up:

I'm unfortunately not very well versed in the theory behind it but I do know it exists — Benkei

Well, excuse me, but this discussion - at least on this topic about "reality" - cannot go on since you don't even have knowledge about the theory you defend. Good day/night.

“is nihilism is an inherently pessimistic philosophy?” — fleamont

I think we can all agree that Nietzsche has already proved this point being wrong...

I don't get your conclusion based on what I said. Why don't you walk me through the argument? You know, legitimise your reaction. — Benkei

The names we give to numbers are ours but even without names nature doesn't change in such a way that I can ever add 2 apples together and get 3. — Benkei

Here you state that reality is based on an absolute, solid existence, and that it intrinsically contains its own substance, that we can perceive and analyse, yet, we can't change it - because that would break the legitimacy of what's real, therefore, absolute -. Example of a calculation in a "full" reality:

"1 + 1 = 2"

So some people consider numbers and even wider mathematics as embedded in nature. — Benkei

However, immediately afterwards you contradict yourself by claiming that the legitimacy of the absolute of reality can be questioned - in the point where "some people claim that mathematics is within nature" -. Your contradictory reasoning - even if it was not what you meant - therefore, agrees and strengthens my point that the legitimacy of something is simply created by the subjectivity of the individual, even, of reality, and that "legitimacy" is a void concept.

It is not an arduous task to understand, for those who seek to abstract knowledge. Yet, it doesn't seem to be your case...

You know, legitimise your reaction. — Benkei

This will not be necessary, since it was your answers that did it for me.

In conclusion:

"1 + 1 = You choose..."

Kurzweil's Singularity?.. so it will end up that all the energy of the universe will be invested-itself in knowing itself. Something like that. — Raul

Concepts of "singularity" don't make sense and are impossible to achieve in a Universe with finite time and matter. So the most probable answer to your guess is no.

It’s already here in California, with stops scheduled for Alaska, Hawaii, Midway, Kiribati, and New Zealand. — Pfhorrest

Other nations laid claim to the mantle, most notably Russia, which would involve a retrograde motion and rupture in the westerly direction.

I doubt that this metaphorical concept is still in America. The most plausible hypothesis in the context of the metaphor of this concept, is that no inhabited land of great influence is currently under the light of knowledge, as it is in the Pacific.

The concept itself is a way of studying the movement of knowledge throughout time and geographical space.

So I am god, because I am omnipotent. — god must be atheist

Using the primary principle:

Your argument doesn't make sense at the point where you, being an omnipotent God, would create a paradox with the already established monotheistic "God".

And well, humanity has been worshiping this "God" for over 4,000 years for what I studied. Long before you were born, therefore, the chances of you being God = 0.

I don't see that at all. Being all powerful means being able to do anything. How does talking about what such a being has actually done or is doing or whatever, 'introduce a deficiency'? — Bartricks

Plotinus talks about the human perception and conception of concepts. If we try to perceive the absolute, it will be, by rule, not the most absolute of all. So:

If God is All-Powerful and wills itself to become existent, then it Is while Being;
If God is All-Powerful and we will it to exist, then it is not God but something else.

What I am doing is exploring what it means to be all powerful. — Bartricks

"The One" of Plotinus is your God then... The problem is not Omnipotence, but if it can be limited... and here, I'll quote Plotinus himself:

"Once you have uttered 'The One' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

I am not sure what you're saying. — Bartricks

People are ignorant and free, because they're free, and ignorant. That's why they make statements like:

"God can be not Omnipotent, while being God"

In resume...

Any sane mind today will realize that theistic views - even more theistic views on monotheism - where God, even though, Unique and Eternal, may not be Omnipotent, is purely the symptoms of a nihilistic and decadent society, where even the respect for the figure of the West's highest authority can be disagreed.

They don't know what they say, because they don't know why they say it...

hat I find interesting about this piece is that its tone seems simultaneously critical and exalting. I can't tell if the lines that follow "Stirner full of dignity proclaims..." have a sense of overt admiration, reluctant admiration, or strong contempt delivered via irony. — Rosie

It is not surprising - for those who are already familiar with the relationship between Engels and Stirner - that Engels, in his poem - taken from the unpublished work, "The German Ideology", which was written by the duet, Engels and Marx, where they focused completely on the refutation of Stirner and his theories about egoism in "The Ego and Its Own" - would demonstrate his admiration for Stirner, since both were, for a period of 10 years, friends, in a setting of young philosophers, journalists and intellectuals of the time known as "Die Freien" - The Free -, and philosophical rivals - where Engels and Marx were declared socialists, Stirner was "Egoist" -.

Stirner directly and indirectly greatly influenced the communist philosophy that was to be developed by Marx in the decades after Stirner's death - 1856 -.

Stirner wrote and said what Marx and Engels were so eager to express, but which, having cowardly spirits, ended up hiding in a false altruistic and utopian rhetoric.

While Stirner would have the courage to project the true image of Man:

"Where the world comes in my way — and it comes in my way everywhere — I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but — my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it.”

Marx and Engels, with their resentment, would end up saying:

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!"

It is a tremendous sadness for the world that Stirner did not have enough time to refute both Marx and Engels...

I assume they quite disagreed with each other. — Rosie

I can assure you that they both agreed pretty much in everything. The only difference between the two, was that, while Stirner demonstrated what he, as being an individual, truly was, Engels didn't accept that and tried to hide it. That caused ressentment - by part of Engels - which in turn became a philosophical try at refuting Stirner - aka "Communism" -.

Enlighten me? — Rosie

Read the above.

But worst of all, after I gave an example of one of Aristotle‘s opinions that might, today, be considered offensive, Mr. Baden suggested he would have banned Aristotle from the “philosophy“ forum had he posted such scandalous material here! Wouldn’t that be sort of like kicking Michael Jordan off the basketball team because his play was too antiquated?

Mr. Baden said that we don’t live in Ancient Greece, that times have moved on. Well, we don’t live in Ancient Rome either, nor Machiavelli’s Italy, nor Locke’s or Shakespeare’s (an obvious anti-Semite’s) England, nor Rousseau’s France, who said he didn’t believe a woman could be unwillingly raped. It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition. — Todd Martin

:ok:

The names we give to numbers are ours but even without names nature doesn't change in such a way that I can ever add 2 apples together and get 3. — Benkei

So some people consider numbers and even wider mathematics as embedded in nature. — Benkei

Egoistic subjectivity at its peak... I'm again, correct!

What it's the title supposing to means? — bert1

"What Its Legitimacy" was a way of demonstrating that the legitimacy of something - even the vocabulary that we deem to be the "standard" - can be completely revealed to be empty by the simple misplacement of some letters, for it needs the subjective statement of others, and how the realization of the same can raise the fear of many when their truths are pointed out as wrong.

And I proved to be correct when they decided to "re-legitimize" their views on the vocabulary's own legitimacy, by changing the title without any respect for the discussion and my freedom of expression.

I'm not going to do that unilaterally right now, there are different opinions among the mods on levels of censorship, but there are limits we'll adhere to. — Baden

:up:

"Look at Stirner, look at him,
the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
soon he will be drinking blood
as though it were water.
When others cry savagely
«Down with the kings»
Stirner immediately supplements
«Down with the laws too».
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
you bend your will power,
and you dare to call yourselves free,
You become accustomed to slavery;
Down with dogmatism, down with law." - Friedrich Engels