I say we be as barbaric as possible with regard to the punishment of those found guilty of heinous crimes!

Vengeance! Reciprocity! What they inflicted, the torture and the pain, should be exactly mirrored and given back to them.

That is the only ethical solution.

An eye for an eye?

Rofl and in "not being a depraved Savage" you negate your human-ness for something greater and better. Oh you noble stoic!
In this you would rather protect those who brutally murder people and rape them! And whom rape children!

Bwaahahahahahaha

They would have to determine whether or not someone is guilty.

The legal system simply needs an upgrade in its determinations of whom are innocent or guilty.

Lol really?

I am a brute now because I am personally involved with someone whom has been raped and abused and I believe whole heartedly (call it my Jungian shadow or whatever) that that person should be tortured.

Vengeance is not an illusion. It is not inconsequential either. And I am merely reciprocating, cancelling it out.

How don't you get it?

Experience and consciousness created these understandings of what could possibly amount to it's transphenomenality. There is absolutely no solid connection between neural activity and consciousness. Consciousness is. It is experiencing. Neural activity is a representation that consciousness has created in order to metaphorically understand itself, because it itself is the most truthful, adamantine reference point.

How on Earth could a representation that consciousness has created and understood to be therefore replace the authenticity of consciousness and be 'The True Consciousness' or The True Experience or 'the definition' or the truth?

Neural activity is a metaphor of consciousness as it relates to a completely incommensurable paradigm.

If you want to say that trans people have a higher rate of suicide or depression... Obviously you would be asserting that there is a correlation between being transgender and experiencing mental illness. This is a logical pre-observation of a potentiality.

I am gay. In being gay I have been told that 'my condition,' as if who I am is some sort of definable, psychiatric quality that needs to be tested in a lab for the purpose of intrusive pontification, makes me more susceptible to mental illness. This relates to gender very well, as it is completely non-sequitur. It is a metaphor.

The reason homosexuals and transgendered people have a higher risk of mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, etc is not because of some deterministic, fatalism of their genetic coding... This has not been proven and nor will it ever be proved.

The conditions of a trans or homosexual life, in relation to a populace and interaction with others whom are different in this extremely meaningful aspect become a source of serious alienation. Depression and anxiety is most often the result of the environment, namely the environment disagreeing with the conditions of the personality; the ideal mode which would allow what Jung calls individuation, or a full apprehension of the self and its integration into the world.

I myself have depression and have been diagnosed. The aetiology of my conditions, PTSD and major depression, are not related to being a homosexual.

In terms of gender, there is no absolute causal relationship capable of being logically adamantine between sex and gender. It is a metaphor.

I apologize for insulting you but it seems that you are intransigent and do not want to take into consideration psychological dispositions that 'science' cannot adequately explain with recourse to biology. This irritates me because I have friends who are transgendered and they are not defined by the biological determinants, i.e. their facticity.

Right now, we are taking steps backward rather than forward because we are accepting an illness as 'normal'. — Terran Imperium

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.

Many people have mental health concerns from time to time. But a mental health concern becomes a mental illness when ongoing signs and symptoms cause frequent stress and affect your ability to function. (Mayo Clinic)

The only definition of an illness you could be referring to is a psychiatric illness, and I recently gave you an analysis of gender based on the thought of the most important psychiatrists of all time. You reject this.

Trans people function just fine. There is absolutely no correlation between their being transgender and frequent stress or inability to function. There is absolutely no aetiological correlation. If you say there is... You are lying.

Gender is assimilated and understood as a result of psychical activities. It is related to sex in a very peripheral way. Furthermore, gender relates very much to sexuality, namely how one relates to themselves and to another in terms of the libido, which is the energy of expression, commitment in relationships and, in a sense, empathy.

There is a reason MDMA was given to couples for couples therapy. There is a chemical aspect, namely serotonin and oxytocin, of an emotional relationship between two people, but these chemicals, namely the ones released by a female in sex and by a male in sex, do not determine a healthy sexuality nor a sexual relationship. These chemicals cannot define us, they are rather a correlated mediation, an objectivation of what perhaps could amount to a conception of what we are. Resorting to a representation replacing the real is a seriously fallacious way to understand human life and human relationships, and furthermore an understanding of the self and the personality.

The personality is fluid. It contains all sorts of potentialities. Consciousness is potentiality. Consciousness consists of it's relation to its potentialities. A consciousness and furthermore a personality is not defined by the expressed. The authenticity of an individual is between the expressing and the expressed. A person expressing themselves to be a certain way is in a sense based upon an appeal to the willing of an inapprehendable object; however, it is this relationality in terms of the object that defines the mode of consciousness associated. Therefore gender, of the transgender, which means literally 'to go beyond gender,' implies that willing of an inapprehendable object, which would be the being of the will, the exhausting of the will to be something. Nobody is something. The meaning of reaching a goal will inevitably not be the apprehension of that which is desired but the reaching of the goal itself. In this case the meaning of life in relation to the most inevitable possibility of consciousness, death, will be the time in which one approaches death. One is reminded of Leo Tolstoy's The Death Of Ivan Ilych. In the end he is dying, and finally says to himself 'DEATH IS FINISHED!'
Death is thus not in dying, when the lights go out, but the time in which dying is defined, that is, the experience of dying, which is not atemporal.

In relation to gender, this is the same. When you close your eyes you realize that everything you claim to be is contingent on what you think defines you, in relation to others. But the single fact is that, aside from all of this, you are something greater and that you yourself contain every identifyable condition or potentiality, and with this one can identify with their personality and understand who they are themselves, aside from the seemingly contingent nature of understanding oneself. In realizing ones absolute freedom from concepts one can be whatever the feel to be, and they can act and behave and conduct themselves in whatever manner comes about, and if this manner becomes defined by others, so be it, it is authentic.

There is no 'the good life,' for there must be bad in the good life for it to be good; otherwise it would be neither.

There must be bad for there to be good.

:cool:

The amount of people following something does not correlated to the truth or validity of that something. Good examples of this are Fascism, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Satanism, Medieval Christianity, ISIS, etc.

Plus, the number of people under the label 'Christian' does not mean that these people are united or even remotely similar. Look at what happened in Ireland. People murder each other because of small differences. Freud called this the narcissism of small differences

Religion does not have the upper hand over philosophy.

lol... I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

Do another Wittgenstein thread.

Ughhhh. Of course.

The totality of the psyche constitutes all of the impulses, desires and inclinations of mankind. The totality of the psyche is apprehendable.
Humanity is an objective ideal about what humanity is. There is no definition of humanity. There is only ambiguity in talking about humanity. People hate this. Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity (Freud).

Raping and murdering someone is brutal :starstruck:

In Being and Nothingness Jean Paul Sartre interprets Heidegger and the concepts are extraordinarily similar. I read both books side by side.

Heidegger's letter on humanism is when he takes a step back from what is considered Existentialist. Being and Time is loaded with existential thought. It is one of the most important works of existentialism.

My own philosophy :

Identity
Personality
Sexuality
Language
Perception
Epistemology
Relationality

I don't want to go to deep into my own philosophy for fear of plagiarism, as it is not published, but I will give you an overview.

Basically, in terms of identity and sexuality, I have created an understanding based upon Lacan and Jung, which seems to be an unlikely combination.

My assertion, which is not 'mine,' is that identity is plural. There is no singular identity of the individual. But the way I explain it is my own.

The personality is ever changing. And this is the only singular 'identity,' but is not an identity but more of a psychological amalgamation of reference and identification.

Sexuality is not dual. Sexuality is not heterosexual or homosexual. Gender has nothing to do with sexuality, and nor does sex. Sexuality is also communication.

Language is abstraction. Language is furthermore, a connection. Language connects people together. This is not metaphorical: it serves a psychological purpose and is fundamental to human existence. It is not something we do or not do. It is a fundamental component of both identity, knowledge, sexuality and personality.

Perception is infinite. The finiteness of a perception is only with reference to the infinite. Furthermore, our understanding of our perceptions, and what things are, are dictated by a certain psychological process that I call Psychoconstance.

Knowledge is based on "personal paragons"... Philosophically it is kind of like Plato's forms.

Relationality is not based upon the subject object dualism.

hmmmmm.
Is it not true the Sartre interpreted Heidegger and created a whole system of thought from which some people say was a misinterpretation?

"There are no facts, only interpretations" -- from the letters of Nietzsche

It is obvious who is brutal. Really? :starstruck:

I am not diseased and I know many people whom are not. Humanity is an illusion. That is what I am saying.

There is no totality of humanity. There couldn't be anyway, more people are born every day and every second and people die every day and every second. There is only the totality of the psyche. And the psyche has intense darkness. And this has to be integrated into consciousness lest people reject their being as human and not some divine creature, which is a myth. The only reconciliation of this is in art.

And what? I too, a homosexual, am a sexual deviant? Is this because I do not conform to conventional standards of sexuality?

According to your empirical realism, the only way a sexuality is authentic is if it regards the 'natural complementarity' of sex organs, which would amount to the birth of a child.

This is ludicrous.

Natural? That is your base isn't it? Let me tell you something. Natural? Tornados? Murder? Mutilation? Genocide? Domination of other species? The absolute abject reality of survival of the fittest? Natural? Nothing about being human is natural. It is precisely being in opposition to nature that being human is! Living in conformity with outlets of power and control over the world as opposed to being some passive, impotent object of objective processes, determined and fatalistic. This is a disgrace to the human intellect to base "what ought to be" or 'what is authentic and not a disease' on the 'natural.'

This sort of materialism is nauseating.

Tell me this. What is being? You don't know. Nobody knows. You think you know because you can metaphorically correlated and think you have a knowledge so to be God but you don't.

So if I grow a fake pair of testicles, a phallus, I cut my hair down and say to everyone that I am male, they should accept that? Or that I can just easily enter the men's bathrooms because I am a man now?
It might not seem 'serious' because of double standards but try it the other way around with a man.
He is growing a fake pair of boobs, let his hair grow, put some make-up on and start crying out that he is female. Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so — Terran Imperium

And that is because you are a piece of sh$t.

Again, you are upon a completely impoverished epistemology. Gender IS NOT sex organs. It is psychological.

My friend Ryan is a he.
There is no aspect of a woman in him.
You look at him and the last thing you think is woman.
He is transgendered.

You are an unphilosophical cretin who should not be on a philosophical forum but back in church.

and I am shallow? Actually, the idea of tree and plant was from Nietsche's On Truth and Untruth, not from me. Nietzsche is shallow.
:rofl:

It doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all. The comparison is shallow, you cannot compare a tree to a human in linguistic, they each have a different weight, a male would be masculine and a female, feminine. Is it hard? I'll answer for you — Terran Imperium

Not only does this make little sense, it is absolutely ridiculous.
Hmm what reference should I use this time?
Jung. Ahh... What a solid reference!

The 'anima' is the feminine aspect of the unconscious mind, the feminine, anthropomorphic archetype of the collective unconscious. The 'animus' is the masculine archetype. Both the anima and the animus are intertwined, constituting the totality of the psyche. The totality of the psyche cannot be masculine or feminine. This is an utter illusion. Masculinity only exists in relation to a feminity: both are included in the minds of everyone, one being manifest and one in a sense latent.

The child realizes that the anima, what Jung calls "of the will to life", is manifest in his relation to the mother, whom is the source of their life and their satisfaction. The idea of being with another emotionally is manifest originally in the mother. And so, with the male, the anima becomes unconscious, anassimilated into the personality due to the realization of his incapability to possess the mother, and that he lacks something that the 'father' has. The child does not realize this explicitly, but reacts to this implicitly and develops accordingly realizing that a very important part of the mother is directed elsewhere, and that his life is forever contingent upon that manifestation.
But through development this becomes concealed. Throughout the life of the heterosexual male, he is always looking for the possession of the anima, that feminine aspect that would lead to his totality or, biologically speaking, unconsciously, the peace, the stasis, the homeostatic balance of the conditions inside the womb. He seeks this, and becomes alienated by this feminine aspect, which is always a part of him, but outside of him to be ascertained in an apprehendable form, namely that which regards intimacy... And this is the case after puberty. The libido, a psychical energy of manifestation and expression, has as a focal point the sex organs. These organs are part of what would attach us to another person, and in sex, the acquiescence and emphatic nature of subject becoming object, in relation to Hegel's master-slave dialectic, provide an excellent example of how every person is both feminine and masculine, capable of an exchange, a yin and yang perhaps.
The animus can be explained to be the configuration of a heterosexual male's conscious mind, as it is in relation to a female, the conception of a female, not the ideal or form of a female, but that which a female is with regard to the male's specific desire for his own totality and mastery.

The female also desires the mother but realizes that she does not have something specific that whatever the mother's psyche and an understandable realm of the mother's mind is directed towards, namely the penis of the father. The girl realizes that she does not have a penis and then competes with the mother for the possession of the father. This is Freud

In terms of Jung, the female becomes differentiated. The male becomes differentiated as well. Both become differentiated because of the parents. The anima that the girl has as a configuration of her psyche is in relation to the animus that was never possessed, because the female is fundamentally in a state of sexual acquiescence, and she desires the male for her totality. She wants to take. The male wants to give. This is heterosexuality.

So we have found out that males and females are not connected physiologically but psychologically. And that both males and females have the same psychological aspects.

It is the case that this is not always the case!

Jung speaks specifically of an undifferentiation of the psyche, people withholding neither the anima nor the animus but an androgynous archetype that can set the tone for a myriad of sexual identifications and desires! All of which are authentic!

But hey, that's just Jung. And I have a lot more in my philosophical arsenal. :yum:

@Akanthinos

When I close my eyes and think of any concept, it will be different than yours. Blue, flower, cat, philosophy... If I am told to picture 'blue,' the first thing that comes to mind... What will it be?

Why?

My thought began with science. I researched Spinoza because of Einstein. Then philosophy began with Nietzsche and that pushed me toward psychology. I studied Sigmund Freud intensely. Then I found Carl Jung and Jacques Lacan. I researched more psychologists like Kohlberg, Watson and Skinner. I researched Pavlov. I studied Jean Piaget and Jean Baudrillard. Then I studied Marxism. I researched Hegel and Kant and Descartes. I became seriously interested in existentialism and read Heidegger, Camus, Kierkegaard, Sartre and a little bit of Derrida, his idea of forgiveness. I am right now interested in phenomenology, specifically Husserl. Husserl is very interesting. I just now have got really into Simone De Beauvoir.

Anyway, there are many philosophers I have come into contact with, but only a few really resonated with me, the ones I listed.

If you want me to give you an overview of my own philosophy I can, with regard to all of those people.

Please tell me... What is humanity?

If humanity is constituted by the behavior and actions of humans... Humanity is diseased!

To call homosexuality a crime is brainless. [Remainder of post removed by Mod]

You are basically saying, again, that the abject, terrible screams and agonies of rape/murder victims do not matter, and we should focus more on maintaining this ideal of a humanity that does not resort to evil. Evil does not exist.

A rapist deserves to have his penis cut off. IDGAF what you say.
My partner was raped as a child. You don't know what that does to a person!
Vengeance!
The guy got away with it.

Well, Emmanuel Levinas asked that same question and wrote a book called Totality and Infinity claiming that ethics is first philosophy.

Pick up a work and plow through it. True philosophy is doing it in your own way. That is what the greatest philosophers did. They were radically themselves.

Nietzsche is a great example of this. He critiqued everything, and polemicized everything.

I was just thinking about this the other day.
It seems to me that philosophy in a very serious sense has become institutionalized and academized to the point where dogma and presupposition dominates. It seems that philosophy is often seen as legitimate only if it coincides with the conventional display of it, that academic paradigm of reference after reference after reference.

This seems to me to be incredibly anti-philosophical.

I picked up philosophy after questioning science as a teenager. Interestingly, Nietzsche's was the first philosophy I picked up. I knew about 10% of what he was talking about. I re read and had a dictionary next to me looking up words and cross referencing the ideas.

I developed my own philosophy based on my own experiences, not based on the explorations of previous philosopher. My philosophical reference is myself. I use other philosophies as a reference for my own references.

Getting the best out of it is through finding principles of philosophy and forming your own conceptions, with reference to what other philosophers have delimited.

Philosophy is true in the act of philosophy.

where is that quote from ?

And I feel like we are on the same page here :nerd:

Then the only absolution is based upon the responsibility of humans!-- to protect humans and refuse an atrocity becoming blatantly unaccounted for.

What I mean by unaccounted for is this.

If a person is raped and murdered. This must be accounted for by a refusal. This refusal is that of reciprocation. The refusal to let that death and terrible event fade away in vain.
Obviously it can never be erased.
But an ethical reaction should be to at least try. To at least try the hardest to erase it. Although it is impossible.

I agree with you, though I am still uncertain.

I seem to think the seem thing about this in-between the expressed and the expressing...

Oh Lord, here it comes again.

What is doing the expressing??
I could say reasonably accurately that the expressed is an affect or an emotion.
Is there something doing the expressing?
Is there just an expressing?

An improvized analysis

I am expressing something.
"am expressing something" would be the predicate, something that gives information about the subject, something the subject can have or lack.
But this subject 'I' can not lack this expressed something. Let's say I am expressing existence. Expressing 'my' existence. This subject 'I' is more-so a 'my.' Therefore the expressed something is a fundamental quality of what does the expressing; the reference by which the expressing takes place.

This is the authenticity. The authenticity originates in the personality, in the being-in-the-middle, in 'the my.' The expressed never gets fully expressed. That is the state of affairs. Idle talk is based upon the objectivation of the expressed as actualized and apprehendable as a form.

and do you believe in a God that accounts for, mitigates, assuages and absolves the terrible things humans do, lest 'humanity' becomes 'evil?'

Angry?

And the thousands upon thousands of innocent children that die every year from preventable causes is somehow justified or accounted for? And the perpetrators or the people responsible should be treated with dignity, to 'protect' our humanity?

Humanity is based upon lies. Lies have been told for generations and have manipulated humanity.
Protecting humanity is protecting the basically baseless.

hmmm interesting

But I'm not really talking about an 'authentic talk:' this in itself seems to be idle.

I am referring to an adequate exchange of meaning.
Authenticity is the expression of oneself how they are, unadulterated by the conceptions that would label their authenticity as something objectively unequivocal, which is at base inauthentic.

Lol you absolutely have no care for the sufferer who was raped and murdered, or sold into prostitution and then murdered.

Justice? Humanity?

Rofl, the determinants and the foundation of the whole situation is absolutely devoid of ethics, so how could there be an ethical solution? Screw an "ethical solution" the sake of some philosophical pontification on 'humanity,' with regard to this.

1. There could be machines that do it instead of a person.

2. No it doesn't lol. Again. Humanity is an illusion.

3. Doesn't have to be in public. It would be better if they were alone.

4. They dehumanized themselves. That is radical responsibility.