Ive already read it, I was following along. You were more than voicing your opinion on what he said, you made an implicit call for moderator intervention. — DingoJones

I really don't see why this is becoming a personalized attack towards my taste on the matter of Charles Manson being quoted in a meme that got deleted. The only reason why I'm so vocal about this is that had Charles Manson invited his family to attack a house 2 blocks away from my own at the time, my parents would be dead.

I didnt say that, I offered no opinion about his statements at all. — DingoJones

And, if I may be so bold, why shouldn't we shouldn't voice opinions towards a position that is untenable?

Go read the post I quoted. It's pretty clear, that tolerance towards intolerance was violated deeply, due to guarding one's self from scrutiny by an appeal to "free speech".

Ya, his opinions. You wanted Baden to intervene because you didnt like his opinions. — DingoJones

Well, I'm sorry if you found his comments insightful. Can we get a show of hands, to this matter?

Have at his last posts, which I found alarming:

personally i would want manson to be free simply because of freedom of speach. he has a right to say or do anything he wants as long as he is not physically commiting violence against others himself. if people are being influenced by him then they are ignorant. it would be better to punish and educate them then to blame manson. otherwise its injustice against manson.

same goes for hitler. did hitler even kill a single person himself? mind you this case might be different because he had power over others. he could command someone to be killed for not listening to him.

the level of power matters. if someone has nothing but words and no power then they should not be punished for inciting. because its just freedom of speach — OmniscientNihilist

Injustice against Manson? Yeah, that's some Helter-Skelter, racial wars, end of the world poop.

Someone turn the lights on, it's getting really dark in here, fast.

You mean like rhis Wallows ?
How can I not give you credit for all the inspiration, huh ?
They should join our questions and make us as One :wink: — Amity

Yes, I suppose our mental/intellectual profiles are meshing in some sense. Eeeek.

Easy on the mentions @Amity. I just posted some quasi-philosophical questions. Heh.

Really? A quote by Manson? Seems we're getting helter-skelter. And, I don't see how he was in any way an advocate for the sanctity of life.

But, you know shitposting is fun and all, right?

personally i would want manson to be free simply because of freedom of speach. he has a right to say or do anything he wants as long as he is not physically commiting violence against others himself. if people are being influenced by him then they are ignorant. it would be better to punish and educate them then to blame manson. otherwise its injustice against manson.

same goes for hitler. did hitler even kill a single person himself? mind you this case might be different because he had power over others. he could command someone to be killed for not listening to him. — OmniscientNihilist

Yeah, I'll leave this to the mods. @Baden?

I'm pretty sure, that if we accept the problem of existence, as paramount of existential ethics, then we ought to treat life as sacred.

Even getting that far will be a success IMO, if only as a symbolic gesture to American's and the rest of the democratic world. — VagabondSpectre

Getting there:

Yeah, I think I'm gonna fold my chair and go somewhere else now.

Can't you see the difference between these two questions:

"What will make me happy?"

"what is happiness?" — Bartricks

OK, but pragmatically I see no reason why a philosopher can't in principle answer a question purportedly exclusive to a therapist. And, I mean no disrespect to either or both professions.

Have you ever been to therapy, may I ask?

He literally told me to be "More like me" earlier. You are wasting your time with him. You are a philosopher, he is a subversive. Don't stoop my friend. — Mark Dennis

Just trying to burn down this straw man that he set out hereabouts.

Why do you think psychology and philosophy are distinct disciplines? — Bartricks

Well, there's WAY more overlap between the two rather than the superficial differences your trying to 'create'...

The post starts out OK; but, then we have this profound non sequitur:

It is precisely because the philosopher's questions can only be answered by careful reasoned reflection, whereas the therapist's questions require detailed empirical investigation, that we have separate disciplines dedicated to answering them. — Bartricks

Says who?

At this point I don't think you know what both of us are even talking about. I'm certainly lost hereabouts.

Of all the examples you took Buddhism as one to represent the astonishingly fine line between what one can call a philosophy or way of life that addresses in the extreme the suffering of an individual.

Go figure.

Well, I think to be deserving of the title 'Stoic' one surely has to have a body of views that bear a strong resemblance to those of the historical Stoics, otherwise it would be a misleading thing to call oneself. So I think attacking the views traditionally associated with that title is fair enough, as anyone who is currently calling themselves a Stoic should either be able to explain why they do not believe such things yet can still be fairly called one, or should be able to defend those views. — Bartricks

Wow, this is quite obtuse, please elaborate on what you think is the difference between a Stoic and therapist, if you don't mind?

EDIT: And, I hope this isn't like, I want to be happy, therefore I see a therapist or how ought I be happy, being a question reserved for the philosopher.

It isn't a straw man. If you're unhappy and want to be happy, you see a therapist, not a philosopher. — Bartricks

I'd say see both, as a pragmatic method or thing...

Now, if you want, you can say that Stoicism is about what emotions we feel and how to get rid or them (or control them). And you can say that, as such, it is a psychological thesis, but as psychology is really a branch of philosophy, it is therefore a philosophical thesis. — Bartricks

OK, well first, this isn't even what Stoicism is about. Second, do you only think in a pejorative (stereotypical) manner?

OK, you added more content to that post, but, does it apply to modern-day Stoicism?

Well, the whole thread's premise is based on straw-manning psychology as if something separate from the ethos of neo-Stoical philosophy as self-help and personal development, no?

No, you're not listening. I patiently explained, for instance, why simply making claims about psychological states - their causes and regulation - is not philosophy, but psychology. — Bartricks

Yes, but, it goes both ways. Many modern psychologists have actually claimed that Stoicism was an inspiration of sorts towards treating attitudes and mental states as subject to therapy. REBT, CBT, logotherapy...

That's what this thread is about. — Banno

And, thus, I have demonstrated that, in at least an epistemological sense, that linguistic relativity is true?

I see this is a derivative of the Curse Thread, way back in the good ol' days.

In a nutshell, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which I've been bragging about hereabouts, somewhat earlier.

I don't quite grasp how Davidson overcomes linguistic relativity. Has this been demonstrated yet?

truth vs pleasure
truth vs bias
logic vs emotions — OmniscientNihilist

Truth and logic are good friends. :halo:

I think we should strive to be more logical, then?

he would use the socratic method because it avoid ego — OmniscientNihilist

truth vs power

the eternal war — OmniscientNihilist

Lot's of seemingly joint discontinuities here... Care to connect the dots for me?

he would use the socratic method because it avoid ego

if you directly challenge peoples beliefs it triggers ego which puts up defensive walls

otherwise you can just walk poeple into seeing their own contradictions — OmniscientNihilist

He seemingly failed at this task, with the judgement passed over him leading him to drink the hemlock...

Why do you think he failed at this?

i just wanted to test my conclusions, against masses, to see if they would hold up — OmniscientNihilist

I suppose Socrates wasn't Buddha in trying to alleviate the suffering of individuals by engaging with them. Arguably, so?

when youve been debating philosophy for 20 years you hear the same things over and over and over. which is why i have a thousand memes ready as responses. it saved me time. — OmniscientNihilist

Cool beans, though, there's an element to philosophy that seems to encourage a selfless desire to engage with the hoi polloi, don't you think?

memes can be very effective for morons — OmniscientNihilist

Well, that's quite the overgeneralization. I'd think FB encourages the hyping up of concepts, as pictures tend to attract more attention than well thought out contemplative posts.

I suppose I'm just glad this isn't Facebook.

1- develop better counter arguments to their positions. simpler, stronger, smarter. — OmniscientNihilist

on FB i wouldnt even type responses to alot of poeple. i would just respond in memes only haha. — OmniscientNihilist

I sense a disturbance in the force...

Millions of Americans struggle to pay for medical bills and hundreds of thousands go bankrupt from it, but sure yeah they aren't that bad, in fact owning more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans is great. — Maw

Yes, well can't argue with that, apart from the fact that once you dip below the poverty line, there is always Medicare to rely on. Though, that doesn't console much in regards to the matter.

In regards to inequality, that's a thorny topic within economic circles. I believe Krugman (Stiglitz) touched on this issue in his The Price of Inequality, which I have on my bookshelf; but, haven't gotten around to reading.

Banned myself, for wallowing too much. But, that can't be helped.

The American government has always been a regressive and moralistic cess post of control, prohibition, sexual morality rooted in judeo-christianity ect. all just about control. — Grre

Yep, people or governments will get high on whatever they choose... Be it control (profound power trips) or something else.

Explorers run risks, often with the hope of bringing something home to the tribe. — Eee

Yeah, them meeting with the monolith at the start of the film must have been quite an experience, eh?

It's Kubrick's film. But my point wasn't about any message of the film but simply to connect space exploration with the exploration of rare mental states. Outer space and inner space. — Eee

Kubrick and Spielberg were the closest of friends, and since Kubrick is dead, I'm going to take Spielberg's view on the matter that the film wasn't all about altered states. In fact, the protagonist of the film being HAL, couldn't really be puffing on marijuana, sipping on mescaline, or taking LSD, whether he/she/it liked it or not.

That's a good point. How many people have been high when watching 2001? And consider the term psychonauts. — Eee

That's a misunderstanding of the film. Sure it was released in the 60's, and you had the audience at the time either high or inebriated in some sense. But, according to what I've seen in regards to commentary about the film by Spielberg, that wasn't the intended message.