Now, one must answer: Why would one want to reach empty "reality" without story or muthos? It is an artificial production of the technology of manipulating the human being as thing. However, it is not cogent that it exists, some say it does, some the reverse, of those serious persons who have carried out an examination of the issue. — InternetStranger

Because it leads to less suffering, anguish and pain.

It's not patently cogent to say that sex is not psychological, if that's the kind of issue you mean. — InternetStranger

I'm not talking about sex. But since you raised the issue, male virgins are viewed as queers, even moreso than homosexuals, why is that? Can't a man enjoy life without sex? Why has it been defined as a psychological need instead of a want? It boggles my mind.

Put another way, if I judge something has happened, I drink water, my psychology is the ground of certainty. Think of the phrase "an enviable lunatic", i.e., someone who takes the greatest pleasure from gaping thoughtfully at a wall, e.g., Leonardo de Vinci. — InternetStranger

Oh, well then fantasies are more real than reality, I know where this is going to end, in need of psychotherapy and intensive reality checks by the patient.

What question? — InternetStranger

This:

Can we overcome the pretense to only satisfy psychological needs and wants? — Posty McPostface

Well you seem to be making an equivalent status of these parades, ceremonies, and habitual rituals with what is actual and normal. Is that not a type of fallacy if I am not mistaken?

So you want me to specify what's wrong with it? Your assumption that it is wrong is what I wonder. Yet you failed to address my only question in the post which elucidates the matter. Will you address it?

The point I was getting at is whether we can think collectively instead of this artificial role playing game we are brought up to participate in and is perpetuated by such ritualistic happenings like the weddings of the elite or other ceremonies...

Can we overcome the pretense to only satisfy psychological needs and wants?

Would you say the current POTUS possibly reminds one more of Nero or Marcus Aurealius, the philosopher-king? :snicker: Or other? Julius or Augustus Caeser? — 0 thru 9

What would @Ciceronianus the White say, I wonder...

Perhaps he might know an answer to this troubling question.

Viva la Revolution!

Oh wait, that won't happen in America, will it?

You haven't even addressed the thread...?

Do all roads really lead to Rome? — 0 thru 9

Yes, indeed, do they?

Even backwards in time? — 0 thru 9

Or into the future?

Are they still lined with the followers of Spartacus on the Cross-roads we still ride? — 0 thru 9

Spartacus, the poor soul.

Quo vadis?

So, then it isn't all about Trump after all. Now what?

What a tragedy.

:ok:

Not *meh* from me. Just more of a cynical fart from me. What can I do, I'm not gonna get depressed over evil scummy shit like that.

I stand corrected. Boy o boy what a thing to say.

It's not the same, even Madeleine Albright wouldn't go that far.

It's the media who made promiscuous sex more acceptable after all. — Agustino

You say that as if that were an argument, but it ain't one.

Not sure what you mean, but I digress.

Let's give Tiff some credit for standing up for someone so disliked on this forum.

Hurray Tiff!

What makes waking life tyrannical as opposed to the gentleness of the sleep-state (sans nightmares, I guess)? — schopenhauer1

It's hard to put this concept out without generalizing it; but, reality is seen as tyranny in contrast with the dream world. One doesn't need anything in a dream world and hence reality becomes moot, vacuous, and irrelevant.

One becomes entirely self sufficient, and entertained without imposed constraints, at least until the REM phase is over.

Congratulations Tiff!

Sometimes I'll wallow a little and then go to sleep. Wallowing helps.

What does it say when sleep is preferred more than awake? — schopenhauer1

That the lack of agency and awareness of oneself in a dream is a respite from the tyranny of waking life. Yes?

Yeah, but think about it from the perspective of an individual. They're hopelessly confounded to.their own feelings and biases. Utilitarianism overcomes these issues by being able to formalize ethical conduct into a calculus.

Pretty much. And that's why utilitarianism is in my view better than deontological ethical theories. Because the calculus can always be worked on collectively, where deontologists are bound by what 'feels' right or are trapped in the is/ought problem.

It would be considered as an accidental moral act. Good intent or the desire to obey or abide by the utilitarian calculus also matters in consequentialist moral theories as far as I'm aware...

If you treat the utilitarian calculus as a rulebook to abide by, then the differences between deontologists and consequentialists kind of gets blurry. A little.

So, the complexity and flexibility of the utilitarian calculus can be viewed as an advantage over categorical imperatives of deontological ethical based theories.

Yes, but utilitarianism is more practical or flexible than kantian imperatives. So, under such an assumption it seems like utilitarianism is superior to categorical imperative moral decision making.

Yes, but Kant's categorical imperative doesn't deal well with morally contextually bound decisions. So, utilitarianism has the upper hand here.

Morality in utilitarianism is defined by the calculus used to derive moral outcomes or the greatest good principle. There is one problem with that though...

Namely how do you devise such an awesome calculus to define what is moral? There are so many things to factor in that decisions made by such a calculus are hopelessly complex and impractical.

Maybe when computers become sufficiently complex to factor in all the possibilities of said calculus in the real world, then maybe we could have some impartial arbitration of decision making also.

I don't understand why "prosaic" means "poetry"? Your lack of acumen in language comprehension surprises me. It is, at least clear: the Anglo-Saxon tongue is not your forte! — InternetStranger

@Marcus de Brun has a phenomenal grasp of English. Do not be mistaken for you are in the presence of a genius.

I'll have to get back to you in a while Srap, that's a lot to cover, and really hope someone else can chime in also...

=]

We should all strive to sleep as much as possible. — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is the absolute truth. Sleep is my favorite activity or rather inactivity. I get to relinquish any form of agency, in a safe and controlled manner.

Sleep anytime you can.

Although IQ is only one of a vast range of traits that vary among individuals and consistently among certain groups, it's probably the most important as a marker for overall success and prosperity, partly because high IQ is related to the the ability to time-bind and delay gratification, and that's very much related to the "middle class" traits that make for success. — gurugeorge

That sounds backwards. Traits don't emerge from high IQ, lol.

What's not to like? — gurugeorge

Being trolled by a die hard fan?

Returning back to this, there seems to be a sort of Sorites paradox when trying to delineate where does 'Sufficiency' in the Principle derive from... Where does epistemic closure occur for any material conditional under sufficiency of a reason? I mean, you can keep on splitting things into infinity until you arrive at some form of logical atomism or monadology no?

Hope that's not too vague.

Waiting on you @Srap Tasmaner, if you have any thoughts about the above or moving onto proposition 2.1 and so on...

Tarski deserves a mention too.

How about:

Meaning is what it ought to be.

Ohh, then that settles it. Comprende, Senior Akanthinos.