Comments

  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    'The transcendent' here is a cypher for 'the most excellent state of being'. In traditional philosophy, attainment of that state was the summum bonum, the highest good, and our 'raison d'être'. It is what all beings are striving towards, the fulfilment of existence. — Wayfarer
    So the transcendent is a state within reality then. If so, how is it transcendent?

    Such ideas from the ancient traditions became subsumed into Christianity and thereafter depicted in accordance with dogmatic formulae of the faith. But they nevertheless were still thought to underwrite the social contract as well as individual morality.

    In the Judeo-Christian tradition, man is 'imago dei' and so fulfilling the requirements of the faith was also fulfilling the divine plan, and one of the characteristics that differentiated man from animals.     — Wayfarer
    But why are they practically and pragmatically needed? What is there more in the transcendent except do good and do no evil?
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    Someone's "ultimate goal" is to live in Hawaii or be the Emperor of China, as Augustino says, but what's the motive behind the goal? — Noble Dust
    The motive is strictly personal - one could want to live in Hawaii because they were born in very poor conditions, where life was very difficult and ardous - living in Hawaii would be a release for them and their family. Someone else could be motivated to become Emperor of China because he feels the destiny of his nation sits on his shoulders - feels he is asked to do something for it. And so on - these are very particular reasons, that are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question. I'll take the guy wanting to live in Hawaii, and the guy wanting to be Emperor of China as nutters from strictly my perspective. These things only make sense to them and for them.
  • What is false about an atheistic view on death?
    ↪Wayfarer
    I've read the article, it's more or less of what I've read before. Again it doesn't convince me for the simple reason that there are serious difficulties with it that no one is ready to tackle - such as for example the one that I mentioned.
  • What is false about an atheistic view on death?
    In ancient times, Plato and the Pythagoreans certainly accepted what they called 'metempsychosis' (strange word), and there were hints of the idea in Origen. But he was anathematized for the 'monstrous belief in the pre-existence of souls' and after that, the idea was taboo in the Western church. However underground movements, like the Cathars, continued to accept it. — Wayfarer
    Still there is no concept of it for probably more than half of the world's population - Muslims + Christians. That is a serious problem for any sort of belief in reincarnation. And consider that there was no notion of it for a very long time. I don't care about tiny segments of Christianity or Islam - they are of no import when analysing the large-scale trends.
  • The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.
    And welcome to TPF! :) — 0 thru 9
    ↪TimeLine
    Ahh this old Nietzschean has also joined us here :P
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    You are willing to engage in discussion with the lunatics because you are not 100% certain that they are lunatics. — Pneumenon
    Sure

    That is to say, you are willing to entertain the idea that there could be a transcendental answer, or at least, a good reason to seek one — Pneumenon
    Either that, or there could be something useful in their lunatic practices of relating with the transcendent that could be useful to me.

    Have I understood you? — Pneumenon
    Mostly.
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    You seem to take the attitude that the transcendental nutbags will not be satisfied because there is nothing that can satisfy them, and the only winning move with such questions in not to play. You also appeal to personality and context, saying that such things are personal and different between different people.

    Here's the issue, though. You are engaged in a discussion. You say things like this on the internet, where they're meant to be read by many other people. If I make it a point of saying that people who seek some kind of transcendence ought to stop, then, if I am arguing in good faith, I really am trying to get at least some of them to stop. But, as we've seen in philosophy since Wittgenstein, this never actually happens, because the transcendental types keep doing their thing. So shouldn't the Wittgensteinian be the one to halt das maul?     — Pneumenon
    I'm not saying they should stop - I am not concerned about what they're doing. I'm merely indicating that I think their activity is pointless - "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

    I don't think this response works, though, because if you really thought that, then why bother engaging in the discussion at all? — Pneumenon
    Because I hope that maybe one of those lunatics will one day reveal some reason for their lunacy to me, which will make sense. I don't expect it, but maybe one day one will. And maybe that will be of use to me in achieving and following my own goals. So I have to challenge them. I would be surprised if they succeed - I don't see how they could go about it. You know @Pneumenon - a hunter never knows where the rabbit will jump from, so he must test and verify in all places.
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    Yeah, but we have to cooperate in groups, and any group that cooperates needs a collective "why" if it's gonna function over the long term — Pneumenon
    Groups are formed by people who share similar purposes. In addition they are formed by those who can "sell" their large purpose unto others.
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    And that requires that my purposes reference something outside of me. — Pneumenon
    Of course so? My reality and your reality are not the same, for the simple reason that we live in different communities, we have different backgrounds, desires, and so forth. We cannot have the same purpose for these reasons.

    If you are born as Prince Charles, your purpose in life will be different than if you are born in a fishing village in Japan.

    As to imagining an answer to the question - well, what of it? "I can't imagine it" isn't gonna satisfy any of those transcendental nutbags, now will it? — Pneumenon
    No, but nothing will. That's exactly my point. There simply is no cure except that they give up the imagined itch.
  • Psychology, advertising and propaganda
    Don't they have junkies in Mongolia? — Mongrel
    No :D
  • Change and permanence, science, pragmatism, etc.
    Hypothesis: pragmatic solutions do not work, because no matter how much time people like Rorty spend asserting that we should just ignore the idea of ultimate goals or transcendence or what have you, there is simply no way to stop humans from constantly asking "Why?". A lot of people are apathetic on this front, but should they be? More importantly, there are always people who aren't apathetic. Wittgensteinians go on and on about how philosophy ought to be therapeutic and there are no philosophical problems, but here we are nearly a century later and philosophers are still doing what they've always done, so that hasn't worked. — Pneumenon
    :-O I notice you said some blasphemy towards the Great One there...

    They can ask why till they're blue in the face, the only thing is that I cannot even imagine an answer to that question. Why? What kind of answer would you even expect? What kind of answer would even satisfy you? One's ultimate goal is to live in Hawaii, another wants to become Emperor of China, and so forth. An ultimate goal is about how YOU relate with reality - what YOU identify as your purpose given your material and spiritual conditions. So the question why is personal, there is no universal answer that can be given.
  • Psychology, advertising and propaganda
    He was a drug addict. — Mongrel
    Yes yes, but how did he end up in such dire straits?
  • Psychology, advertising and propaganda
    In a ditch somewhere? — Mongrel
    Did he get there because a woman manipulated him since he's a brute who can only think with his lower head, and thus was helpless to her actions? :D
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    I see you are getting upset and resorting to insults.
    Perhaps it is best if just agree to disagree.     — m-theory
    If that's what you need in order to leave this discussion with your head high and sleep well tonight, sure :D
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    You said that not eating steak was moral.
    You have used steak to make a moral claim.     — m-theory
    Yeah I have used it - in this case the word - to make a moral claim. So?

    Before you refused to admit that you had used steak for anything. — m-theory
    Only in your mind. I refused to admit that I used steak as a means of being moral only.

    If steak is required for the claim to be moral, then it is a means to an end of being moral. — m-theory
    The moral claim isn't equivalent to being moral... really your logic is pathetic.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    So now you are admitting that you have used steak? — m-theory
    Yeees, yeeees that's exactly what I've said >:O
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    If you claim not eating steak is moral then you have used steak to make a moral claim. — m-theory
    So we go from using steak as a means to the end of not eating steak to using steak to make a moral claim >:O

    If steak does not exist then you have made no claim at all. — m-theory
    Not riding unicorns is moral
    Unicorns don't exist
    Therefore you have made no claim at all

    Right - that certainly follows :-} . Something doesn't have to exist for me to make moral claims about it. Worshipping the devil is immoral. That speaks of what morality is - because the devil could, logically speaking, exist.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    No the definition is to exercise restraint from doing or enjoying something.
    Abstinence is a self discipline in the face of an opportunity to do otherwise.
    There is no opportunity to do otherwise in the case where the otherwise does not exist.     — m-theory
    *facepalm* okay redefine terms as you will (because I wasn't using abstinence in that sense). Then I will state:

    Not eating steak is moral
    I do not eat steak in order to be moral
    Therefore I am moral

    In no way am I using steak in here in order to be moral - I'm using my non-action - not eating steak - as a way to be moral. Remember, it's the not eating it that is moral. Has nothing to do with restraining or not. I can perceive not eating it as a restraint - but that has to do with my perception, not everyone will so perceive it. So can I not eat steak if steak doesn't exist? Sure. Case closed.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    The definition of abstaining. — m-theory
    synonyms: not vote
    So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct?

    If something does not exist there is no opportunity to abstain from it. — m-theory
    If so, then this assertion of yours is false.

    You are using it as means to and end of being moral. — m-theory
    I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    I said if steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.
    There is no opportunity to abstain from a thing which does not exist.     — m-theory
    This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it?

    Again the problem is with claiming that not doing something is moral.
    If not doing something is moral not doing that thing is means to the end of being moral.
    Otherwise what is the point of not doing it?     — m-theory
    Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with me doing something to steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    If steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it. — m-theory
    :s So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. I simply cannot not abstain from them.

    If you are claiming that not eating is moral then you are doing something to the steak.
    You are making steak a means to the end of being moral.     — m-theory
    My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really...........
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    Except your abstinence is not possible without the steak. — m-theory
    So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :s

    If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral. — m-theory
    Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    If you don't eat steak just because you believe it is moral to abstain from eating steak then you are using steak as a means to and end of being moral. — m-theory
    No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you.

    Sure, unless you claim not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something, you are being moral by not eating steak. — m-theory
    This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    the other person — Michael
    The other person isn't essential. Have you never played with a feeding machine?
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    That I want something done isn't that I'm using something to have it done to me. You've already accepted this with the example of tennis. I want that person to play tennis with me and I allow them to, but according to you this doesn't count as using them to (non-sexually) pleasure myself. — Michael
    It certainly doesn't, because again, what you're using to pleasure yourself is a racket and some balls.

    judo as an example. — Michael
    In judo you're training. Training is different from doing something for pleasure. I don't practice martial arts for pleasure for example. I practice them for virtue. If you are however practicing martial arts for pleasure, I think you're doing something wrong though >:O
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    Yes steak is a means to and end of abstaining if you don't eat it.

    If you are treating people a certain way just to be moral you are using them as a means to the end of being moral.     — m-theory
    Not at all. Your proposition is a tautology once it is unpacked, and for this reason tells us nothing.

    If not eating steak is being moral, then one doesn't use (eat) steak, when one is moral.

    If A is identical to B, then ~A is identical to ~B.

    To use something means to do something to it. I'm not doing anything to steak when not eating it, and not doing something to it isn't itself doing something to it, that's a contradiction.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    So if you don't have sex with them, you are still using them as a means to the end of being moral?
    It is a damned if you do damned if you don't.     — m-theory
    Is steak a means of abstaining from steak? What kind of nonsense is this? If you don't eat steak, then you're using steak as a means of being moral (ie abstaining from eating steak, cause that's just what being moral fucking means in this context) >:O
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    Sure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them is between consenting adults! :D — Heister Eggcart
    >:O
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    I don't use them to pleasure myself. I allow them to pleasure me. — Michael
    :-} Right, if you don't want them to pleasure you, why aren't you stopping them? And if you do want them to pleasure you, then how are you not using them to pleasure yourself?

    I don't understand how you distinguish using someone and not using someone. — Michael
    For the simple reason that I'm not using someone to play tennis. Playing tennis CAN involve another person, but they aren't used because they aren't a tool permitting me to engage in the activity. My racket (and my balls) is the tool which permits me to engage in the activity. Without a racket I can have as many people as I want, and I still won't be able to play tennis. I can, however, play tennis by myself, so long as I have a racket and balls.

    Now I cannot engage in sex without another person - that's a similarity with tennis and with all other activities that can be group activities like dancing. BUT there is a difference between what the means used in sex are, compared to the means used in tennis. In tennis, the racket and the balls are the means. In sex, your partner's body is the means. The game of tennis involves hitting a ball with a racket - makes no mention of a partner - the partner is non-essential. I could indeed have a ball-machine feeding me balls on the other side. But sex cannot even be conceived in the absence of a partner. So in sex, the partner is the means, if your aim happens to be your own pleasure. If your aim is different however, then the same logic obviously doesn't follow.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    It isn't abuse tout court. — Michael
    Right, only when it is done without real love for the person in question, I agree :D
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    So this isn't a reason for consensual, adult sex for pleasure being vile behaviour. — Michael
    So consensual adult sex can't be abuse? :s
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    When I play tennis with someone my enjoyment is the end and my opponent is the means. Playing tennis on your own isn't fun. — Michael
    No, not at all. Your opponent is in no way like a tool that you're using to play tennis with... your opponent isn't your racket. Your racket is the means by which you play tennis.

    But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself. That's just fucked up, sorry to say.
  • Psychology, advertising and propaganda
    Women actually like your BO if you're attractive. Women like masculinity, and are generally turned off by men as worried about their appearance and hygiene as they are, believe it or not. — Wosret
    In my own honest and fucking humble opinion, there are two kinds of women. Those who are worth attracting, and those who aren't worth attracting. The situation is such that the set composed of the former is tiny compared to the set composed of the latter. Those who are not worth attracting are attracted by one thing only - power. Whether this is economical power (money, position, etc.), physical power (big muscles, good looks, etc.), political power, social power (for ex. fame) or whatever other kind of power. And I've experienced this - when you have any one of those powers to a high degree - whether you're the coolest kid at school, or you have a prestigious job, or you're the guy who fucks all the girls, etc. - then these women will swarm around you like flies swarm around shit. If a famous football player goes to a club, all the girls will surround him - which only goes to show that women who attend nightclubs have no character. What's the point of even being affiliated in a romantic way with such a person? That's more like cutting the very branch on which you are sitting... >:O

    Now the women who are worth attracting - you won't find guidebooks and guidelines about how to attract them online or in print :P - all the tips and tricks you find in print only work on those who aren't worth attracting to begin with. And they can't be attracted by any generalities, it will be very specific particulars which attract them, which are intractable - can't form a system around it because they would differ widely from one woman to the next. So if you want to attract those, I can't help you.

    If you want to attract those not worth attracting though - just make yourself powerful (or just appear powerful) and advertise >:O - or wait for fortune to make you powerful, either can actually happen. And if fortune makes you powerful, don't forget about advertising! :-$ The flies won't come to the shit if there's no smell calling them...
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    In terms of using another as a means to an end, how does having sex differ from, say, playing tennis? — Michael
    How am I using another as a means to an end when I play tennis? What is the end, and what is the means? Is the other person even the means through which I play tennis? :s

    How am I using someone as a means to an end when I engage in promiscuous sex? They are the means, my pleasure is the end.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    And if you are saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then what's vile about it? — Michael
    Using another as a means to an end for one :-}
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    I'd say that at birth character is like an empty ocean basin that only love may fill toward having a more full actualization of itself. — Heister Eggcart
    Hmm - so character is always good? Someone can't have a deficient or evil character?

    Because if love actualises the character, this implies that the character is good, because I suppose you won't tell me that loving someone will actualise their evil character would you?
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    Read what I just wrote. If it's necessary to kill the animal to survive and that reason is a sufficient moral justification for doing so then the action is moral. All you are saying is that Heister is confused, which hardly helps. — Baden
    *facepalm* - no he's not confused at all. If it's necessary to kill the animal, that still doesn't make it moral - that's what he's saying. The question of morality (whether action X is moral or not) is logically independent of the question whether action X is necessary or not.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    In any case, I'm interested in his answer. X raises his arm purely because it feels good. How does Heister describe X's action in moral terms. — Baden
    Amoral probably. He didn't disagree with me when I replied to him:

    Also it's not the same I believe with regards to food. Food isn't a person. I can choose to eat food X instead of food Y because X tastes better than Y. The fact it tastes better than Y though isn't sufficient to qualify my decision as immoral - other matters need to be attended to, such as if procuring X involves killing animals, etc. Suffice to say that you are correct and "because it feels good (to me)" can certainly not be moral (but it can be immoral). — Agustino

    The question of immorality and of necessity are logically independent in the way he uses them.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    No, it's either moral or immoral. If you need to kill the animal to survive and that's a morally justifiable reason to kill it then it's moral. If the fact that you need it to survive is not a morally justifiable reason to kill it, it's immoral. — Baden
    Well he is saying that it is immoral in all cases. However in some cases it is necessarily immoral - when I need to kill it to survive. In other cases, it's unnecessarily immoral, when I kill it just for fun for example, as in hunting.
  • Psychology, advertising and propaganda
    But I'm coming to the view, as a result of this discussion that the modern feature, the turn of the screw made by experimental psychology is that it is no longer just them that I dehumanise, but also us which means me as well. — unenlightened
    Hmmm - I don't quite understand this distinction yet.
Home » Agustino