Ok, but why does the person’s wants the narcissist encounters trump his own? The narcissist demands X (ass kissing), the other person demands Y (respect), but only Y is honored.

Rules are meant for everyone. The narcissist who wants people to bow before faer and kiss faer ass must consider the fact that other people don't want to bow to faer or kiss faer ass. Thus, a narcissist shouldn't demand such things. — TheMadFool

This doesn’t seem to jive with the Diamond Rule though, at least as you’ve described it, or perhaps as I’ve (mis)understood it.

If we’re to let others define our actions, that holds us accountable for treating them the way they want to be treated independent of how we actually want to treat them. I don’t see where the obligation of the narcissist to consider others wants when he decides how he wants to be treated is derived from.

2. The Diamond Rule: Do unto others as others would like to do unto themselves (Others define your actions. You do what others want you to do to them. Others are the measure of your actions] — TheMadFool

If taken to extremes this creates problems as well. What if I would like you to have sex with me? Are you duty bound to do so? Or perhaps I’m narcissistic and think you should greet me by bowing when I enter the room, and bid me farewell by kissing my ass on the way out. Is that acceptable?

As an alternative, let’s try the Platinum Rule: Treat others however you want, but adjust your behavior when asked to do so (trial and error).

I use my phone only, so couldn’t see it either. But if you turn your phone sideways you’ll see more options. If that’s the issue.

Anyway… everyone’s favorite song in California.

My guess would be something to do with evolution. Females are responsible for birth, in a manner of speaking, and are therefore inherently more valuable. The typical hourglass shape coveted by men is a sign of good reproductive health; wider hips allow childbirth to be easier, for example.

I saw this earlier today :cry:

(I always wanted my own club called "Have Mercy" :naughty:) — 180 Proof

Rev. Gibbons beat you to it. Hot Sauce

Here’s one with Dusty’s vocals:

:up: Glad the song resonated with you.

[Verse 1]
You got a fast car
I want a ticket to anywhere
Maybe we make a deal
Maybe together we can get somewhere
Any place is better
Starting from zero, got nothing to lose
Maybe we'll make something
Me, myself, I got nothing to prove

[Verse 2]
You got a fast car
I got a plan to get us outta here
I been working at the convenience store
Managed to save just a little bit of money
Won't have to drive too far
Just 'cross the border and into the city
You and I can both get jobs
Finally see what it means to be living

[Verse 3]
See, my old man's got a problem
He lives with a bottle, that's the way it is
He says his body's too old for working
His body's too young to look like his
When momma went off and left him
She wanted more from life than he could give
I said "Somebody's gotta take care of him"
So I quit school, and that's what I did

[Refrain]
You got a fast car
Is it fast enough so we can fly away?
We gotta make a decision
Leave tonight, or live and die this way

[Chorus]
So I remember when we were driving
Driving in your car
Speed so fast it felt like I was drunk
City lights lay out before us
And your arm felt nice wrapped 'round my shoulder
And I-I had a feeling that I belonged
I-I had a feeling I could be someone, be someone, be someone

[Verse 4]
You got a fast car
We go cruising, entertain ourselves
You still ain't got a job
And I work in a market as a checkout girl
I know things will get better
You'll find work and I'll get promoted
We'll move out of the shelter
Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs

[Chorus]
So I remember when we were driving
Driving in your car
Speed so fast it felt like I was drunk
City lights lay out before us
And your arm felt nice wrapped round my shoulder
And I-I had a feeling that I belonged
I-I had a feeling I could be someone, be someone, be someone

[Verse 5]
You got a fast car
I got a job that pays all our bills
You stay out drinkin' late at the bar
See more of your friends than you do your kids
I'd always hoped for better
Thought maybe together you and me'd find it
I got no plans, I ain't going nowhere
So take your fast car and keep on driving

[Chorus]
So I remember when we were driving
Driving in your car
Speed so fast it felt like I was drunk
City lights lay out before us
And your arm felt nice wrapped around my shoulder
And I-I had a feeling that I belonged
I-I had a feeling I could be someone, be someone, be someone

[Refrain]
You got a fast car
Is it fast enough so you can fly away?
You gotta make a decision
Leave tonight or live and die this way

Haters gonna haaaaa — Noble Dust

I actually don’t mind Coldplay. One of my favorites of theirs:

Portal 2 was really great, but my favorites would be the Metal Gear Solid series. The storyline is amazing. Also really like the Elder Scrolls series. I’m also into football, so I really like Madden as well. The Shining Force series is really good too for a classic game.

I would hope you realize that’s a little ridiculous. Your view has to be more nuanced than that. Vaccines cause suffering (getting stuck with needles hurt), and doing anything you don’t want to do causes mental distress (paying taxes, going to school/work, etc.), cognitive dissonance is also unpleasant, but surely you wouldn’t consider all these things evil? If this post happens to rub you the wrong way and makes you upset, does that make me evil?

Even aside from these issues there’s the issue of who’s suffering to consider. I think we would be surprised at the amount of suffering we cause others just by going about our daily lives. Virtually all products we consume rely on exploitation. If your goal is to make everyone appear evil, then you’ve accomplished it.

Well, yeah, but just because I think doesn’t mean it’s fundamental to reality. It’s fundamental to comprehension, and possibly even experience, but there’s nothing to suggest without “thought” reality wouldn’t exist. In fact, wouldn’t something have to of existed prior to thought?

I definitely believe that it is important to separate the nature of 'evil' acts from the people who have committed them. I have worked in some forensic settings with people who have committed very serious crimes and I found that this separation of the act from the actor was essential . It can be difficult to suspend judgements on people, especially if they seem to show the worst possible tendencies. But, I think that many people find some psychological reassurance by projecting evil onto those who reveal the worst side of human nature. But, I do think that it is worthwhile going beyond labelling certain people as 'evil' because they are just people, even if they do behave in extreme ways which we view as being monstrous. — Jack Cummins

I agree strongly with this. I used to work in a drug testing facility and found the majority of the participants easy to get along with and friendly. Some of these people were pedophiles, wife beaters, neglectful/abusive to their children, etc.

When I first started getting interested in philosophy/psychology I wondered a lot about my own capacity to commit horrible actions. I wondered what environmental circumstances could cause me to do X. More often than not I could imagine some scenario where I felt like I could have become a X if A,B, and C would have happened to me.

It’s a bit macabre, but it actually allowed me to become more empathetic, and feel a broader sense of humanity. Now I’m at the point where I don’t feel like anyone is better than me, but I’m also no better than anyone else, at least that’s what I strive for. Anyway, just thought I’d share. :smile:

Mary Midgley wrote a book called “Wickedness” that discusses what you’re asking. Her conclusion was that evil should be thought of as a negative, rather than positive, act; evil is the inability to refrain from causing harm, or the inability to basically “do the right thing.”

Personally, I’m not sure “evil” should ever be used as a noun. It’s purely descriptive, in my opinion. So, my best definition would be that evil is a description of an intention, act, and/or consequence (thanks @TheMadFool) that the speaker abhors. I suppose if one is inclined to superstition, then things like natural disasters could also be considered evil, but that seems silly to me. Nature is indifferent.

Not sure where you’re trying to go, or if I’m understanding you correctly, but I’ll say no, it isn’t. I can conceive of a world (reality) that doesn’t include thought, but comprehension requires thought, so you may be right depending on how you meant the last sentence. Without thinking we cannot comprehend anything, but we can imagine a reality where thought didn’t exist (I.e. Earth pre-life, post apocalyptical Earth, etc.).

This one hit me differently today for some reason…



[Intro: Lady Jaye Breyer P-Orridge & Trent Reznor]
I'm— I'm limited by— by time, by— by gravity
Um, by all these physical forces
When really I just uh, I wish my consciousness would be liberated completely free
To go everywhere, to be everywhere
To do everything, to be— to be everyone that I ever dreamed of being
Only thing I've ever done
Closest I have ever come

[Verse 1: Trent Reznor with Genesis Breyer P-Orridge]
Only thing I've ever done
Ticking time is running out
Closest I have ever come
Ticking time is running out
Oh, so tired on my own
Ticking time is running out
Best days I have ever known
Ticking time is running out

[Pre-Chorus: Trent Reznor]
Yesterday I found out the world was ending
Yesterday I found out the world was ending

[Chorus 1: Trent Reznor]
A little more
Every day
Falls apart and
Slips away
I don't mind
I'm okay
Wish it didn't have to end this way

[Verse 2: Trent Reznor with Genesis Breyer P-Orridge]
These four walls are closing in
Ticking time is running out
Oh, all the things that might have been
Ticking time is running out
Watch young lovers walking by
Ticking time is running out
God forgive me if I cry
Ticking time is running out

[Chorus 2: Trent Reznor]
A little more
Every day
Falls apart and
Slips away
I don't mind
I'm okay
Nothing ever
Stays the same
While we can
Remember when
Always were, yeah
Even then
Stay with me
Hold me near
While I'm still here

[Interlude: Genesis Breyer P-Orridge]
We do not believe in human feelings
Nor in human senses
Nor human needs, human values, human fears or even human hopes
The only purpose or believe is the path from the mind to the brain
Path from the mind to the brain
Mind to the brain

[Outro: Genesis Breyer P-Orridge & Lady Jaye Breyer P-Orridge]
This is a preset world, there are no secrets
I feel as though I found my soulmate
Um, I never feel— I never feel alone or lonely
That's just something I don't experience— kind of feeling of alienation
No matter how strange the world outside gets
I know that there is someone that understands me

From Ministry’s upcoming album featuring Arabian Prince (NWA) and Paul D’amour (Tool).

Psychology certainly does repeated experiments following the scientific method. Things like the Stroop Effect and Change Blindness qualify as scientific phenomena/facts, no?

I think @Olivier5 is right. Also, I heard about experiments that seem to indicate that we react to pheromones subconsciously. For example, one of the experiments showed that given the choice of any seat in a room you’re more likely to sit in the exact seat, or near the exact seat, your significant other chose. So, your significant other goes into the room and chooses a seat to sit in. I’m guessing they remain seated for a certain amount of time, and then leave. Then you’re asked to choose any seat, and more often than not you’ll sit close to wherever they sat.

Funny that you took notice.

This:

Possibly the most unique record I've heard in a long time: — Noble Dust

is what made me think of SGM. :grin:

If you're happy or content with who you are, I think that's what's important. No one is going to live your life for you. — Manuel

:up:

Interesting for me to see others’ takes on this. — javra

It is interesting to see how we apply different meanings to the same word. :smile:

Would you feel that still if you tried and succeeded? — Pfhorrest

No, not really. I’d just be glad to be out of the situation. And my anxiety is geared more to social situations; public speaking, participating in meetings, interviews, etc. So it’s more that I try to avoid jobs that require this type of work. Ironically enough, I’m a social worker. :rofl:



Yeah, it’s kinda weird because the “nothing to lose” attitude is sort of how I keep my anxiety in check. I remind myself that, being a nihilist, none of this shit matters. Also, success to me means happiness, which for me equates to lots of mindless entertainment and self indulgence. I just never really bought into a lot of these unspoken social norms, like making small talk or trying to impress people. I’m much closer to a Diogenes at heart. Something about the idea that our “lesser” or “animalistic” impulses and urges should be suppressed, or things we’re ashamed/embarrassed of never set right with me.

Well, not sure why you’re talking about souls, but my only point is that we can’t prevent our emotion from occurring. We will feel angry, sad, etc. no matter what. But definitely we have some control over whatever actions come next.

They don't have meaning. Meaning is generated in and provided by the person who views the symbols. Meaning does not exist outside any human being. We can't understand a foreign language just by listening to it, for example. We must learn what the words mean and learn to associate them with the sounds and symbols, and forever be ready to provide meaning to them. — NOS4A2

Same difference. The point is that we recognize and accept words to mean something, whereas we don’t with unintelligible scribbles.

I do not deny their suffering. — NOS4A2

Ok, do you deny that their suffering is caused by the words said to/about them? If so, then words have power; the power to affect our emotions.

It is only through training—whether through cognitive therapy or meditation, perhaps medication—that it can readjust and be undone. — NOS4A2

Therapy also works because of the power of words.

In ordinary life I have virtually no tendency to speak about such issues with other people, unless they happen to be interested in philosophy, which as some of you may know, is very rare. — Manuel

Same.

When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure". — Manuel

Also same. I find it very hard to say I “believe” something. Rather, I say I “think.” But I’m also really indecisive, so it may just be a personality quirk. I’m usually just too apathetic to make up my mind.

Interesting attitude of "what do you have to lose". I suppose I have the opposite disposition because most of the time I'm satisfied. But yours is a good view to adopt as it's sensible. — Manuel

Yep, me too. And to add to @Pfhorrest’s comment, I’m a shy, anxious person, but I don’t give up because I’m afraid of failing. I don’t try because I’m afraid of the anxiety/embarrassment/shame I would experience if I did try.

You live in more 'civilized' parts than i do. Religious belief is the aesthetics of custom around these parts (US southeast). — 180 Proof

I’m about 1,000 miles North of you in upper Appalachia, and it’s no better. Christianity is always the default assumption, and the first question asked upon discovering someone is an atheist is “then how do you explain [insert version of creation mystery].” It seems most people are just not suited to be able to live with doubt or uncertainty.

How many of you actually live any philosophy? — jgill

Yeah, I have hodgepodge nihilistic/existentialistic lifestyle. Also a bit of an hedonist/egoist, in that I try to eliminate whatever causes me distress, and do whatever I want as often as I can, which usually results in other “duties” being neglected.

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally. — Book273

I don’t entirely agree with this. If that were the case, then why would we ever “allow” another’s words to upset us? At best, I would say that the effect of other’s words can decrease due to either desensitization from prolonged exposure to such comments, or something like a tolerance being built up over time, but I believe (although I could be mistaken) that physiologically all sense data is processed emotionally prior to cognitively. That’s why our first reaction to some stimuli is usually an emotional one. So, I’m not sure how you could make the case that somehow we have control over our emotional reactions. That would seemingly require some sort of thought, which doesn’t occur until after our emotional reaction. Now, we certainly can control our actions after we’ve had whatever emotional response, but that’s entirely separate. Although, there is some evidence that our behavior also affects our mood, so suffice to say it’s more complex than I’m making it out to be, but regardless I think our emotions are somewhat involuntary.

What I want to know is what makes speech and words more powerful. — NOS4A2

They have meaning, which unintelligible sounds/scribbles lack.

That some people beg to differ with my view is not compelling enough to change my mind, and I could not follow the argument much further. — NOS4A2

The argument was that speech does have power; hence the ability to suffer as a result of it, which victims of verbal abuse is an example of. Do you deny that these victims truly suffer? If not, then how do you explain their suffering?

Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? — NOS4A2

It is physical. Spoken words are heard via physical vibrations. Written words are obviously written on something physical. BTW, are you intentionally leaving my post regarding emotional abuse unanswered?

See @Protagoras’s reply…

Yeah, any woman that’s offended by the term “fireman” needs to grow a pair! :rofl:

:up:

Have there ever been any media outlets that started with absolute freedom of speech? — baker

I really don’t know, but I think theoretically (philosophically?) the default position is the state of nature, meaning only the restrictions imposed by nature apply (physical limitations basically). Then in an effort to domesticate ourselves we create self-imposed restrictions. These restrictions now seem to be taken as a given, a starting point, rather than something that requires justification. Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified?

This quote always stood out to me from The Anti-Christ:

What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power, not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virth, virtue free of moralic acid.) The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak — Christianity …. — Nietzsche

Why should they accomodate you? Can you explain? — baker

So, the way I view things is that absolute freedom is the default position, and from there any laws, restrictions, etc. need to be justified. I see it the same way in this case. Whichever media outlet starts with absolute freedom of speech, and then needs to justify their reasons for excluding certain types of speech.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s what happens in the real world. Instead, it seems like every outlet is more focused on pushing some ideological agenda, and would rather be a massive echo chamber. We see where this type of approach has gotten us. The increasing polarization and distrust in the media in general has led to a distrust in facts and truth itself. But anyway, that’s enough rambling. The point is that there is now very few, or perhaps no, outlets for true free expression of ideas. Perhaps the idea of relatively unbiased news/media outlets is a myth, I don’t know, but there certainly don’t seem to be any now.