I asked, "And how do you distinguish between who a person is and who you think said person is?"
Replying, "Okay, seriously, by spending time with them" is below one would expect at a philosophy forum. — baker

:grin: I was lazy to elaborate. I'm sorry.

Judging from what I experienced, there are things they say that give away how they feel about certain issues.

"My wife is a Karen." I heard this uttered by a man. Though I cannot divulge what led to his statement, what he was revealing about himself is that he is an easy man to deal with and expect no issues with him. He wouldn't cause any drama.

I've never noticed this. It makes perfect sense though. — Tom Storm

To me, it's the default. To me, relationships are dynamic, mutually conditioning two-way streets. Normal relationships, that is.

But I also understand that for some, perhaps most people, the normal way to go about relationships with others is to define the relationship at some early point after meeting the other person, and then keeping it that way until either of the persons dies; or else, if it changes, blame the other person.

is this a 'constant conjunction' thing? My experience has been the inverse.. — AmadeusD

Not constant conjuction in a Humean sense because it is not really constant. But for me it is a rule whose exceptions don't matter; not because I am not trying to achieve truth but because it is about practicality.

By fucking them — L'éléphant

This but for real.

To me, relationships are dynamic, mutually conditioning two-way streets. Normal relationships, that is. — baker

I'm not really sure what I am trying to say. I recognize that relationships evolve over time. Or devolve. My original point was that I find people don't really seem to change much over time. In as much as they are always recognizable as variations of themselves. But this is sounding vague and pointless, so I will contemplate the matter some more.

Antifa mugshots. It seems that outside ugliness does seem to motivate inside ugliness — I don't see how the inverse is so much the case, especially when so many of these people are deformed.

Antifa mugshots. It seems that outside ugliness does seem to motivate inside ugliness — I don't see how the inverse is so much the case, especially when so many of these people are deformed. — Lionino

Damn, you've gone and busted my irony meter.

Amazing thread though.

I'm curious, are you short? You come across to me like a short guy.

No, I am 188cm tall with a five pack, the top two blocks of my abs fuse into one. Sorry for posting a picture of one of your flatmates.

No, I am 188cm tall with a five pack, the top two blocks of my abs fuse into one. Sorry for posting a picture of one of your flatmates. — Lionino

:monkey:

I was just testing out my hypothesis, that you really didn't know what you were talking about when you said:

This is the very last post I ever write in reply to you. — Lionino

Thanks for playing. :lol:

I was just testing out my hypothesis, that you really didn't know what you were talking about when you said: — wonderer1

If you had attended school in a civilised nation and developed reading skills, you would know that is not a case of "knowing what you are talking about", but rather a case of me completely forgetting about you and your complete lack of philosophical knowledge to contribute.

Thanks for playing. :lol: — wonderer1

A fellow gamer?! Does your wife's boyfriend also let you play Nintendo Switch past midnight?

Does Nietzsche teach us how to shave a patchy beard?

I don't see how the inverse is so much the case, especially when so many of these people are deformed. — Lionino

Any one of those pictured could have craniums the size and shape of a watermelon and jawlines reminiscent of the same, flesh literally rotting off even, and they would still be a welcome reprieve, an oasis-like vision, from the wretched abomination that is your soul, revealed by your course of conduct here.

And you can quote that and take it to the bank.

But isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? Or is there such a thing as universally objective beauty?

“It is disgraceful for a philosopher to say: the good and the beautiful are one; if he adds 'also the true', one ought to beat him. Truth is ugly. We possess art lest we perish of the truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

But Orchid doesn't mind. To Orchid, death just means a course of nature.

:cool: :ok:

It is about repeatedly (though not always) confirmed personal experience

An excellent example of recall bias.

Unfortunately for your opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, alas.

Though your posting illustrates why conmen (and women) can make a comfortable living.

The Orchid does mind truth. — Vaskane

The Orchid is synonymous with "Woman" in Nietzsche's eyes. "Woman" isn't the same as woman/women. — Vaskane

In fact, could you elaborate on these statements with more details, viz. in what sense the orchid does mind truths, and the orchid is synonymous with "Woman" rather than woman/women? Thanks.

Unfortunately for your opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, alas. — LuckyR

Your Hitchens debato-bro phraseology unfortunately does not make sense. No claim of matters-of-fact have been made, only claims of personal experience, which is not an "extraordinary" claim, whatever that means.

The replies here validate my belief. By pointing out the relationship between outter beauty and inner beauty, the ugly ones retaliate — despite never being personally named — by, ironicaly, showing their inner ugliness. Perhaps greasy skin and unkept hair reveal a greasy character and unkept spirit.

The Orchid relies upon deception in order to mate with other orchids. — Vaskane

Does it then imply Nietzsche's idea was that a living agent cannot overcome / transcend its biological foundation i.e. DNA, inherent characters, features, natures and destinies within its physical and biological build of body, no matter what the mental makeups might be?

In this perspective, freedom for each individual agent in the society or nature wouldn't be possible. Would it be kind of a determinism? What does Nietzsche say about freedom and determinism?

Appearances are nice, but even supposing that nobody cares about themselves, having lost all sense of self, I cannot see it. Earlier, I test ran looking at myself in the mirror and saying "I love you". I would naturally link the question to tennis and the will to self annihilation, as peak capitalist decadence. This looks interesting

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/contagion.21.2014.0131

I know nothing about Bataille beyond his name!

Yes - you write. But as is your nickname is Wittgenstein - and he said that: all problems: philosophical and psychological are problems and imperfections of language.

Yes, appearance matters. In an industrial state. In capitalism. And as Nietzsche said: the last man, the little man is a derived existence. First value others and only then yourself. It's a "competition". I see it, for example, in the work and personal fields. For example, muscles provide men with greater self-confidence, clothes fit better and they have a better non-verbal effect on the opponent in communication. So if the person is intelligent and good at communication. And clothes. Sure If a person wears a jacket, the dress looks more serious when he comes to the meeting than if he comes in sweatpants and a shabby t-shirt.

However, we must ask philosophically. When someone puts something to admire, to the eye - what is he hiding?

When someone puts something to admire, to the eye - what is he hiding? — MorningStar

If someone paints a painting and hangs it by the sidewalk, is there something to hide or something to show?