Interesting read, I had fun!

For me, philosophy is how I become aware of how my mind works. I guess that makes it a psychological tool. As I told Judaka — T Clark

That's awesome! For me it was how people work; And well, how the whole world works; From that it got to the same premise as yours somehow. Guess there's something which drags one to such path lol.
Cognitive mate, however you see it, however you like it: Both seeing it only as a logical tool or only as a psychological tool, or both, or none are totally valid; After all, philosophy is something a bit different to all consumers and producers of it! Just try to do the best with it and have a little fun

I am working on a clever name for you, but nothing I've come up with works. All I've got so far is "anime urchin," which doesn't work for me, in spite of the semi-alliteration. — T Clark

Usually I just get all the big things about one's character, and then try to combine them;
She's Konata Izumi from Lucky Star, so you were going on a good path with the "urchin" (tbh I actually really like it lol ); Maybe you could try something with "sea star" maybe; Kostar? I just do dad puns to be honest. Try using my name maybe too it is literally a country;
Pro tip just search her online and find the most relevant things about her if you don't have anythin' in mind!



And mymy I am flattered!

alright alright i'll do i'll do; Thank you bird cultist!

and an eufemism for poision, don't know which is tastier!

Helloo @Benj96 ,nice name

And this begs the question, if it never changes, then did it always exist as such?/quote] Nothing right?[/b] — Benj96

Well, when you say that it "always existed as such" you compare it with time, and how we see time, and how we count time;
I believe:
Short answer: if always is forever, then yes! If always is finite, maybe cyclical or just somehow started.. by.. itself while there beeing nothing in that void to start it all.. Uhh.. Then you would not be able to compare it with time, with something - So it won't be that it "always was" or "It was for this period of time", but that it simply just "was" without any period of time attached to it.
Long answer: Insanity

What can change or influence or act upon the unchanged? — Benj96

Mostly you, persay how one views it; You could change the idea of it.. Orr if you meant for it to be unchangable neighter in the idea (that's a bit harsh) Then no;
But then comes the dylemas of "Hey if we die, then the view of it changes too; So the human species couldn't really die then." and "Hey, if we have a though about the though that we can't really have a though over the unchangable; Then that one must remain the same too as it does change the unchangable through the power of correlation."This will have a matrioska effect, and it could go till the point where we don't really have a choice in what we do based on how interconnected our thoughs are.
So if you really want the worst, and most interesting if you'd ask me situationfrom all of them then: If it does affect all our ideas about it , and our ideas are too very interconnected, the whole world itself would not be able to change - as everything that would affect us (pretty much anything tangable and not tangable) would need to freeze as in a way to continue the unchanging nature of the unchangable - Becoming itself the unchangable!.. If that isn't a change in itself?..I don't really know.
Or hey! We might've not have any free will from the start, moving on;

A curiosity here is that the speed of light is fixed. And yet it is tha fastest rate at which something can "change" location (velocity). Could this mean there's some strange union between that which remains constant and that which changes the most rapidly? — Benj96

I don't have any right to comment onto this, but from what I know:
We strongly believe that the speed of light is a constant, not surely know; And that's kinda it. Hope it helps! And again, I feel we should consult math and science itself with this one.

So's most human behaviour. — Vera Mont

Well .. If you actively think of what you'll do; I don't think it really is
And even if it is, I feel that would not be really in the opposition for the argument of "Psychological Egoism"

But ehh I don't really care about that tbh, just hope ya have a good day
And oh, thank you! You too, Cheers! lol

Thank you for the critique!

Probably my whole respounse is biased because the

Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn — Italy

but it would still be fun.. soo-

A couple of thoughts. First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact. — T Clark

First, even if it is (while it wasn't my intent lol) more psychology; I am a firm believer that human psychology is strongly bonded with philosophy itself, it is a great 'tool' just put in a vacuum, and I also believe that in many cases it can be used for a better answer - as in many cases the problem itself arises not because we don't understand something, but because of something human made;
And I do also believe, that philosophy itself was made and is right now how it is because of that human psyche, be it more or less; But that's just my opinion!

At some abstract level, I guess you could say that, since it's a factor that provides evolutionary benefit that makes it selfish. That doesn't make any sense. It would be as though I said "Boy, you have a fast car," and you responded "No, it's not fast, they just built it with a big engine so it could win races." — T Clark

Again, as i said to @Judaka even if this is a totally valid argument; I felt it was better to use the one from my post!
Well, hope you have a great day, maybe not magical neighter talkative, but very dexterous and cognitive able crow! Be your seeds and fruits plentiful

thank you for the critique!

While I don't subscribe to the views of psychological egoism, I don't think that selfishness is the same as self-interest, and this conflation might undermine your argument for me. — Judaka

I do neighter; The idea of self-interest and selfishness in Psychological egoism is that they are usually seen as one and the same; I know this idea is pretty debated, so I did acknowledge it through the concept of "Moral selfishness" - Though I haven't indulged into it more because that argument is already pretty used, I usually use the argument from this post when I disagree with any idea of "Pshychological Egoism", I don't really see the argument that I use elsewhere so +points on that,", I literally made the argument in question, and finally it works in both of the situation, where self-interest and selfishness are or not one and the same;

There would exist/ exist some other arguments too, but I wanted to use this one as this one is what I usually use! — Italy

Well, I hope this inconsistancy in our understandings haven't accured because of:

Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn — Italy

Haha!

Really now, the "Prieview" and the "Post (something)" buttons are ironircally and deviously litteraly next to eachother and in the same colour scheme;
Eh no biggy it happens sometime, but oh my god I would love if the post button is put somewhere, like up in the right corner tab for example, mymy

Thank you for the critique! Hope you have a good day!

Not this again!
Think about the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. The firefighter who charges into a burning building to rescue a stranger's child. The casual stroller who sees someone fall into a river and jumps in to rescue him. The passer-by who burns his hands pulling an accident victim out out of a burning car. All these things have happened. All these people could as easily have died - and two of them did - as become badly injured heroes. Thing is, they didn't think. They acted on an impulse which doesn't calculate cost/benefit ratios; it just impels a social animal to react in the interest of its species. — Vera Mont

Indeed, such actions are impulsory; And as you said, these people didn't calculate the costs or benefits of such action.
Though, as one does not calculate the costs or benefits, such action is neighter moral or immoral, it is in a gray area. Now, Psychological egoism comes, and says that:
Such action, even if it was done to help somebody, the instinct itself is in actuality comming from us gaining something - be it from an evolutionary standpoint (group evolutionary theory) or ideal standpoint (for love, for country, for this specific idea, etc) which innately go back to the animal itself; (mostly a combination of the two though); And those bleed into though itself too, more or less depending on the situation. Thus, and for some other reasons too, which I hope I tackled lol; Both involuntary and voluntary actions, both actions for the good of somebody, and for the whole porpouse of themself's are 'selfish'.

Now though, I litteraly tackled this subject into my critique part; Where I said almost the same thing about this case in the idea of "There is a difference between acting selfless but evolutionary selfish, and then acting selfish on all fronts; We do not actually act the same as evolution intended for us, as yes the tools of evolution may be "selfish", but how we'll use them is the actual important part" ; I do understand this hypothesis is like saying "One will be happy to be eternally tortured because they'll be alive, as pain is a tool to keep us alive." , and that was what I wanted to say ; Is this a critique for me, or of the same subject I am critiquing? I don't really understand, sorry.

Did you understood the terms "consciously selfish" and "unconsciously selfish" as "consciously selfish" and "instinctivly selfish"? I meant for them to be as "I done this act of selfishness with my full mind" and "I done this good did, or been neutral; Though because of the evolutionary standpoint, it was at its core selfish".
If this is the case, understood! I'll try to explain it more; maybe I could add some examples? Maybe quotes? Well who knows, but thank you!

No, it just says we're all self-centered. We are, but it's not an all-or-nothing condition. There may be a whiff of automatonism as well: the implication that we act in predetermined ways - that, too, may be true, but as long as we are unaware of it, we make decisions. — Vera Mont

I am sorry, but I literally stated that;
The part which you quoted was were I stated "how it is commonly used", not "What it is"; And well, from my experiance and what I've read, usually people do use it like that -(which I do feel is a shame as the core idea I find pretty interesting. B( )

Ayn Rand certainly didn't. We're taught by the Christian-based cultural mores that we ought to be selfless; abnegation of the self and of worldly desire is a touchstone of spirituality. I suppose the reason Jesus - or whatever real and/or fictional and/or composite person(s) - made up that doctrine is as a counterbalance to a money- and advantage-driven culture, not unlike our present one. — Vera Mont

Excuse me.. what? What does this.. Okey! Alright, as you say

Nothing is innately immoral; since morality is a social convention, it is subject to consrant, ongoing change. — Vera Mont

I have stated that I find morality to be: Part taught, and part ingrained; To say more on that, I believe that we are born with some innate ideas of morality, and/or that we are obligated by the circumstances of our existance for some moral ideas to exist (For example, to understand the possibility of other beings existing than yourself; Or self morality, as "I think therefore I am" - Ideas which are impossible to get rid of as long as we exist) and we build over them with our interpretation. But I feel that's more semantics than anything.


Had some of your critique-parts been writed before I have edited my post? Aww, and I thought I was fast!
Or is my english that bad? mymy
Sorry If what I wrote was hard to read, I am not the best in english my english classes.

Well, nonetheless thank you! I feel grateful for this comment, and I had fun writing this!

Nothing could be simpler. It boils down to a mere invention to perceive something aesthetically. You can either naturally accept or deny this invention, or deliberately choose to perceive it this way if it doesn’t come naturally. What is too complex can be seen simpler. What is too simple can be enriched by our own imagination. Meaning is everywhere. — praxis

Yea ikik, as you say so, I was explaing after all a feeling from anxiety; Something that isn't really that much ingrained into our logic, I believe; So it will have some answers, each which floats one's boat and understandings! And sorry, I sadly neighter can't deny or confirm that I agree with your statement or not, as I feel it would ruin the whole magic of it a bit, and that would be pretty sad if you ask me.

Cults tend to be underrated these days. Ever since Jonestown everyone’s like “ew, a cult!” Cults aren’t so bad once you get the swing of things. The Kool-Aid is sweet here, trust me. — praxis

Oh sorry but I already have a cult back at home actually! It is so coool, we have biscuits, special exclusive book reading time; It even has it's own homegrown beliefs and syste- am I doing a germany again?

I'm still having trouble interpreting your meaning or point, but I'm intrigued. — praxis

You know the idea of flight, fight, or freeze? Well, when somebody is shown with a pletera of complexity, a pletera of art - that somebody feels like they need to indulge in each a substantial ammount of time; One will act in these three ways;
What I was trying to talk more about in here is the "freeze" respounse; The longing of "why art can't just be more simpler?" , which i'll say again; It's aa pretty interesting feeling. I can understand how you may be intrigued lol
Or something in those lines, just think of it as "the burden of making a choice between your two favorite flavours of icecream" if it's kinda hard to figure out through the "fight, flight, or freeze" idea.
Hope I helped making it clearer!

Jamal, the owner of this website, is a famous birder. Rumor has it that he's rediscovered several species that were thought to be extinct and some of us have adopted bird avatars to honor that achievement, and perhaps garner his favor in a subtle unobtrusive way. I suggest you do the same. — praxis

Oh so a cult cool cool

Whoops I accidently pressed "Post Discussion" rather than "Preview" againn

Oh, sorry to hear that! In what I wrote, I tried to talk more about the anxiety to "start liking the art", but this too is a pretty prevalent feeling under the same umbrella of "a saturation in something"; Hope atleast you now enjoy art a little bit nicer!

The thing I want to ask though, and sorry if my question is too outrageous, but why ya'll are birds/demi birds in here?

Hey, I don't know if this was already said; But I want to say these as I think they might help! So, In my opinion:
What is a man?
A person, a being; Which usually (but doesn't need to always) checks with most of the traits a man has in that culture. Mostly, it is an identity that the person who is identified chooses. Mostly a mix of already put traits and what the person "chooses" to see themself as. As something one identifies as, it can be a bit wonky and with fuzzy-lines at times.

What is masculinity?
Masculinity is something that is only a human idea; Something we corelate only because we were though to corelate, as these traits can be way different from culture to culture.
Again masculinity may have other traits, depending on the culture; But also might apply to anybody;
As masculinity is usually a set of moral/personality based traits, so they can be associated with any gender.

Hope you have a good day!

I haven't respected a decision more in my life.

Oh, you're welcomed! Happy I did!

And I couldn't say it better myself.

You will not regret it. If you don't have access to an art museum, just find an object, whether in nature or something man made, and do the same thing. Observe it for at least 20 minutes.

On the idea of beauty; I myself am of the belief that beauty itself it's not found, but rather more made; Indeed, beauty will have a huge technical side; But in this case of "just scrolling" I believe the other side, the beauty "which you make" is just lost.
One shall then try to engage with that side as that one is still needed, and hey, from that side: one will still be able to enjoy art, to learn from art, and to get meaning from art.

So the valuing of that side too is important (even from just those two standpoints), and where I wanted to go at: doing such exercise is great for waking it up! So really, thank you for sharing! They sound cool

Forgot to say - welcome to the forum. — T Clark

Thank you thank you, magical talking crow; I indeed see myself in you too, eerier, I enjoy myself designing things, and I kinda have a similar process to yours too lol;
Well, well, I am just so happy you found a way of going through that feeling, too.
I , for myself, I just hope you have a good day too!

how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it?

If we are - we are scared of mortality not for death's sake, but for the idea of "stop living".

"stop living" is a scary idea, it is so because:
a)It fights with some of our core beliefs; even if it's natural, death for our consciousnesses is something so unfamiliar, that it can't even be processed;

Asking consciousness "Hey, how does it feel to be dead?" is like asking a person if they're asleep.

Our brains tie consciousness and comprehension togheter:
If to understanding something you need feel it - to comprehend it, then what's non-comprehension and what's non-felt?
It's paradoxical, we can think of death itself only as the causation of it, in the terms of our and other's experiences.
..And well,
death isn't that.; We can't think how being dead is or feels like, because death is literally the absence of feeling and comprehension .
So why be scared of death, if the things you are actually scared about aren't even death itself?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Even if death is biologically natural, for our brains it might be the most unatural thing to ever exist.. or.. to not exist.
Hahahhah
ha..
ah..
Continuing:
b)It causes pain; Being scared is an instinctive thing; it is linked to the avoidance of pain, and the wanting for avoiding pain is linked to, you guessed it! Death!

...W-Wait ...what? ..

UH..

well actually that's not really it, we aren't scared of death itself; We are scared of something that comes from it: the non perpetuation of the species.

Thing is, a species is not worse or better than an other if they avoid death - It's just that the species which were avoiding (or atleast not indiferent) to it, are the ones which can actually tell the story.
So death isn't something inherently bad, it is only bad because there exist feelings, and well, why be scared of something that isn't tied to any feelings you might feel? Why think of death when you're alive if it's so? Think of death only when you're dead!
I mean, if you c-can..?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

on a personal level I deal with these hibby jibbies with the ideas of:
"Hey, we don't really know if there's anything after life; Maybe there could be something."
and
"Eh be what it is, I am not really living life if I proceed to be terrified of death, and why die faster? Less life for me?! My my , greedy me, would never."
and the biggest "and" from all of these it's that I don't really think about it lol