Comments

  • The Value of Life considered as a Function of Pleasure and Pain
    Even a masochist who gives themselves pain is still doing something they want to be done — darthbarracuda

    But surely this underlines the binary I just pointed out, that there is a difference between acting out of self-interest and acting due to pleasure/pain calculi, as the hedonist would have it.

    What I feel John might do, which perhaps is what you are trying to do, is to say that acting out of self-interest is inherently hedonic in a broader sense than the physical, such that the masochist, for example, may feel physical pain, but he nonetheless feels some (abstract) pleasure in harming himself. I'm not sure about this.
  • The Value of Life considered as a Function of Pleasure and Pain
    If the nihilist claims there are no inherent values, then nothing can matter except to the individual, and then only insofar as it is conducive to pain or pleasure — John

    But notice the binary you set up. I can understand the general claim that, under nihilism, nothing can matter except to the individual, but this need not entail that what matters to the individual is pain or pleasure. One can act out of self interest without acting in the interest of obtaining pleasure or avoiding pain, it seems to me. Then again, perhaps this is impossible. I'm not sure.

    Maybe a good question to ask is whether egoism is the same as hedonism.
  • Politics: Augustine vs Aquinas
    ↪Bitter Crank
    Interesting, thanks. Perhaps a more useful book for me to look for would be one on early human societies.
  • Politics: Augustine vs Aquinas
    So you also agree that the state is something we construct to counter our own nature. — Mongrel

    Yes.

    Does that mean we have a conflicted nature? — Mongrel

    What do you mean?
  • The Value of Life considered as a Function of Pleasure and Pain
    If the value of life is considered to consist in the overall balance of pleasure and pain — John

    Would not the nihilist dispute this very assumption? Steiner's observation would only apply to the nihilist if he ceded this.

    Note that nihilism is also, by virtue of its rejection of any idea of inherent value whatsoever, logically committed to think of value only in terms of pleasure and pain as such — John

    Ah, and here is the parenthetical clarification. I don't know why this ought to be the case, so perhaps you can elaborate on this claim.
  • Politics: Augustine vs Aquinas
    Anthropological studies of violent death seem to favor St. Augustine. In social groupings prior to the development of governments with actual power, the death rate from violent deaths appeared to be quite high. (This is based on an examination of skulls stored in museums, or described in the literature of the field. What percentage of the skulls showed the wounds of a violent death (like blunt force injury, etc.) The statistics of violent death are much lower where centralized states existed. (A state doesn't need to be huge, just an effective manager of the population.) — Bitter Crank

    I'd be curious to know if you have any books to recommend on this topic.
  • Politics: Augustine vs Aquinas
    ↪Mongrel
    I think you've summarized the outlines of the two views admirably well. I side with Augustine, which is also the view of Hobbes and quite a number of early modern political philosophers.
  • Leaving PF
    Become a Philosophy Forums sponsor and get cool rewards. Contributions so far this month have totaled $0.00. Thanks!

    I like the unintended double entendre of the word "thanks" here, in light of the monetary amount.
  • Mass Murder Meme
    It's a pity society doesn't believe in hell any more. — Wayfarer

    Quite, but it's also a pity God created anything or anyone at all, such that he also created a hell to house his disobedient creatures. A tangent, but I couldn't help but saying it.
  • How is gender defined?
    For many modern liberals gender means "whatever you feel like you are." If you feel a certain way, then congratulations, you are that thing. Of course, this is all in the world of make-believe, so it's mostly white noise to me. It would also appear, and for the most part probably is, harmless, except that some of these role-players seem desperate to flaunt and make sure everyone else both acknowledges and applauds whatever fantasy they happen to have created for themselves, which greatly irritates me.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    ↪darthbarracuda
    ?
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    And modern human beings who do not require children to help take care of them have no excuse for having children. — darthbarracuda

    Nope.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    Why do the person's intentions have any importance, except by means of assigning guilt? — darthbarracuda

    I'm starting to feel deja vu over such questions. I do believe I've already addressed this above more than sufficiently.

    we certainly shouldn't just allow it to happen, unless we're damn sure nothing will come of it if we try to get involved. — darthbarracuda

    I think I can agree with this.

    Should we just allow them to continue to eat meat? — darthbarracuda

    No, but like birth, I wouldn't call meat eating necessarily immoral in itself. If done out of mere survival, it's justified. Modern human beings who shop at grocery stores have no such excuse, however.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    then perhaps we ought to make a new term — darthbarracuda

    Which you'll notice I did do....

    How can an action be foolish but not immoral? Foolishness implies not rational, and rational decisions are based upon expected value outcomes. Therefore, a foolish decision can be an immoral decision. — darthbarracuda

    It would be immoral only so long as the agent is aware of said foolishness. Otherwise, no, it would not be an immoral decision. You're still confused about the role of intentionality and about the difference between instrumental and moral goodness.

    And certainly he would have thought that a person who lacks compassion is to be condemned — darthbarracuda

    A person who lacks compassion would be simply amoral, not necessarily immoral.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    Antinatalism does not have to be a moral condemnation of birth — darthbarracuda

    The definition online disagrees.

    Schopenhauer asks us whether or not giving birth is a rational action — darthbarracuda

    He never speaks of this. Ever. He speaks of procreation, but that is a much wider concept than the simple act of birth itself.

    He clearly did not think we should have children, and since morality for him largely stems from compassion, he would have thought that if we had compassion for our children, then we wouldn't have them. — darthbarracuda

    This is correct.

    The difference between Schop and modern antinatalism is, again, whether or not they are supportive of political action. — darthbarracuda

    This may be a factor, but it is not the salient one. The definition of anti-natalism Schopenhauer would disagree with.

    Coming from an EA advocate — darthbarracuda

    EA?

    there isn't much excuse to not get involved in the world's affairs in some way. Intentions easily reduce to action or lack thereof. — darthbarracuda

    Yes, and one way of doing so, albeit not the hand dirtying way, is to write philosophy or literature. Influencing the mind is just as much if not more important than influencing one's material conditions.

    Now originally AN was supposed to be about the negative value of birth, but it has since grown to include any and all pessimistic ideas about birth. — darthbarracuda

    About having children or about birth? The definition still hasn't changed to reflect any widened sense of meaning.

    I just don't see what the big deal is. Who's who and what's what, it's just a semantic debate. Schopenhauer had a family resemblance and influenced future pessimists. Do we really need to go further? Is the legacy and portrait of Schopenhauer really at risk by calling him an antinatalist? — darthbarracuda

    Words matter. If you get rankled about people labeling Nietzsche a fascist, as you ought to be, then surely you know that it does matter what labels we apply to people. If Schopenhauer does not appear to condone anti-natalism as it is currently defined, then one ought not to label him one. It's that simple. At the very least, one should qualify all statements to that effect, which the modern internet anti-natalist does not do.

    Substitute in "suicide" for "asceticism" and you'll see why I find this to be an impossible pipe dream. — darthbarracuda

    Nope. The suicide is under much the same delusion as the lover. Schopenhauer is very clear on this point. In fact, I'm glad you brought this up because it's an excellent parallel example to show how Schopenhauer is not an anti-natalist. Suicide for him is not immoral but foolish, for the reason that the suicide does not harm anyone else but is still deluded about the outcome of his action. Likewise, having children is not immoral but foolish. Anti-natalism assigns a "negative value to birth," whereas Schopenhauer assigns a negative, amoral judgment to procreation in general.

    The idea that asceticism can relieve us of the Will and suffering for extended periods of time strikes me as an undocumented, optimistic pipe dream. — darthbarracuda

    "Undocumented." :-d
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    ↪Mongrel
    Pithy and true.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    If it's the motive that counted, he wouldn't have called lovers monsters that continued the suffering, since parents don't usually wish to inflict harm upon their children. He clearly had some tendency to look at the big picture and realize that the consequence of birth is bad. — darthbarracuda

    True, that language comes close to a moral indictment, but in order to read him with any consistency, we are forced to admit, based on the great weight of evidence from his ethical writings, wherein he is at pains to very precisely define what he means by terms like "good," bad," right," "wrong," etc, that parents, on the whole, do no wrong in having children. One would have to throw out this great weight of careful analysis merely in order to accommodate an imprecise line of exuberant metaphor. Schopenhauer cannot mean, therefore, that parents or lovers in general commit wrongdoing.

    Again, to say that they do would require that the parents are intentionally trying to cause harm, which is quite evidently not the intent of most parents in having children. It may be tragic that parents, in their ignorance, choose to have children, but it is precisely their ignorance that saves them from moral condemnation. As Schopenhauer says, they're not acting from reason, but from instinct and so are no different than non-human animals. When a dog reproduces, do we morally condemn the dog for causing its litter to be born into a world of suffering? No, and the same holds true of human beings who similarly act on instinct rather than reason.

    So if the motive is not to inflict harm upon the child, what is the motive? To create another life? Why is creating another life bad?....ah, the consequences of life! — darthbarracuda

    The true motive, as Schopenhauer maintains, is the continuation of the species. The individual is deluded into thinking that in creating another human being he is acting out of self-interest, when it is really the interest of the species at stake. As for the self-interested motives the individual maintains in having children, they are legion. Just ask any expecting mother why she chose to have children and you'll find your answer. Do also note how many mothers list "inflicting harm" as one of their reasons.

    ??? Why are you so aggressive? Calm down, jesus. Everywhere I go it seems like there's always someone getting overly defensive of their hero.

    I was reacting to what you had previously stated about Schop's hypocrisy being over-blown...so it seems like you started this.     — darthbarracuda

    Yes, and I was reacting in turn to your vituperations on Schopenhauer's alleged moral decadence and hypocrisy, which you brought up originally without my having provoked it. I might seem aggressive, for which I apologize, because it seems like there's always someone who, when discussing Schopenhauer, brings up the alleged fact that he didn't practice what he preached. I think that charge overblown, yes, and I'm also tired of hearing it. Focus on the arguments rather than character assassination.

    You said that Nietzsche got practically everything wrong and was a sickly and miserable propagandist. That's pretty damn substantial and an attack on the personality traits on Nietzsche. — darthbarracuda

    I never attempted to give my reasons for why I think Nietzsche is wrong about nearly everything; it was just an offhand comment. Had I given any reasons, then you would be in a position to critique my claim. As it stands, you misunderstood my point. With Nietzsche, you accused Schopenhauer of being a decadent, lazy, and lonely hypocrite, to which I responded by saying that the same can be said of Nietzsche himself. And if Nietzsche is absolved from such criticism because he admitted to not being the Superman he encouraged others to be, then once again and by the same token, Schopenhauer was well aware of not having fully lived up to his ascetic ideals. The moral of the story is not to throw stones in glass houses.

    THIS is why I don't think he would like being labeled an anti-natalist: He wasn't interested in going public, like you said. He wasn't interested in trying to change things, since trying to change things would be an optimism. He didn't fail, partly because he didn't really try. He was world-weary and lacked any faith in humanity or the world at large and so was content with simply observing the human condition and not trying to do anything about it. — darthbarracuda

    By Jove, a breakthrough! This is not the original argument I have presented for why Schopenhauer is not an anti-natalist, but so be it.

    Perhaps I am idealistic. But perhaps you're apathetic. — darthbarracuda

    I think apathy is the wrong word, for it again implies some kind of failure on one's part. To wish for the impossible is foolish, as Schopenhauer notes above. In the present case, to wish for human beings to voluntarily stop procreating is to wish for the impossible and so foolish. The opposite of foolishness is not apathy but wisdom. Therefore, it is wise not to try to put one's anti-procreative stance into practice.

    I'm only an antinatalist in that I don't think having children is recommended — darthbarracuda

    I think this comment can be used to return to my original argument for why Schopenhauer is not an anti-natalist. If anti-natalism is the position that claims that having children is not recommended, then I am an anti-natalist and Schopenhauer is too. But the definition online states that it is the philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. As I have shown, Schopenhauer did not and would not have assigned a negative value to birth. Is there such thing as intrinsic value, positive or negative, for Schopenhauer? No. All value is instrumental. The extent that something has value is determined by the extent of its conduciveness toward one's will. Thus, birth can have positive, not negative, instrumental value for the baby being born, in that being born is in accordance with its will to live. This, to me, is the argument you have to crack to disprove my claim that Schopenhauer isn't an anti-natalist.

    I am a manifestation of the Will - controlled by the Will. — darthbarracuda

    The knowing subject might be, but not the transcendental subject, which is the will.

    And I contend that nobody can calm the Will without considerable sacrifices. — darthbarracuda

    Good, so you admit it's a possibility. That it takes considerable sacrifices is obvious. There's a line from a web page I like which reads: "we so dislike the idea of asceticism - or rather, the will so dislikes the idea - that we have a hard time seeing the obvious-ness of the solution." And what is asceticism, for Schopenhauer? The deliberate breaking of the will by refusing the agreeable and looking for the disagreeable. So no, you will never attain to the denial of the will so long as you keep dismissing it as too hard or unpalatable. That's proof not of the impossibility of the denial of the will, but the grip the will still has on you.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    It's the decision to bring another life into the world — darthbarracuda

    This is what he objects to.

    a fetus exiting the mother's womb or by C-section or elsewhere — darthbarracuda

    Not this.

    Both Schopenhauer and the antinatalist would agree that since the fetus exiting the mother's womb is part of the process of creating a new sentient organism, and since both would agree that creating a new sentient organism is not to be advised, then the fetus exiting the mother's womb is by proxy also not advisable. — darthbarracuda

    False. I really don't know why you and others wish to force Schopenhauer into being what he is not, that is to say, a utilitarian. Consequences of actions, so far as their moral worth is considered, do not concern him in the least. It is the motive of the action that counts, as I have already explained, and alas, must explain again below.

    Would you say there is difference between murder and the exiting of a bullet from a gun aimed at a person's head? — darthbarracuda

    Murder implies the intentional harming of another human being. The latter half of your sentence does not specify any intentionality. Was the gun held by a human being and deliberately shot into the head of another human being? If so, that would be muder and therefore wrong. Was the gun not held by anyone, or even if it was, simply discharged by accident, and happened to be pointed at someone's head? Then no murder has occurred and therefore no wrongdoing. It's the same as if a boulder rolled down a hill and killed someone. No wrongdoing has occurred in that event. But if I, perched at the top of the hill, pushed the boulder with the intent that it roll down the hill and kill someone, then wrongdoing has occurred.

    You don't have to agree, but you do have to recognize that this is what Schopenhauer would say. If you disagree with that, please do provide the relevant passages.

    For the bullet, its exiting the gun barrel has a disvalue if it's oriented towards a person's head. — darthbarracuda

    No, a gun simply being aimed toward a person's head is of no moral consequence. For it to obtain that, it must be aimed with the intent to kill.

    A baby exiting the mother's womb has disvalue if it is a necessary cause to the baby becoming fully sentient - in which case, all birth is disvalue because birth, ceteris paribus, involves the creation of a sentient organism. — darthbarracuda

    "Becoming sentient" has no value whatever, positve or negative. It's simply a brute fact about the world and such facts do not become good or bad on account of their conseuqences, according to Schopenhauer. Please don't make me repeat this again.

    "don't create children" — darthbarracuda

    He would agree, but not for the reason that birth is a "negative value." Ergo, he's not an anti-natalist, as it is defined.

    Whether you agree with Nietzsche or not, he changed the world. — darthbarracuda

    Yes, by writing books that people read. The can be said of Schopenhauer.

    meanwhile he went out and partied with friends and had a bastard child with a woman he later left, all the while claiming that asceticism was the path to enlightenment. These are not the actions of an ascetic. — darthbarracuda

    "It is a strange requirement to insist that the moralist shall recommend no other virtue than he himself possesses."

    None of this matters in the philosophy room — darthbarracuda

    Except that you never seem to tire of bringning it up even though no one asked you to! Why do you do that?

    I could easily just say that you clearly haven't read Nietzsche carefully or understood him — darthbarracuda

    I haven't made any substantive claims about Nietzsche thus far, except to say that it would probably be a mistake to anachronistically label him a fascist, to which it appears you agree. So you would have no grounds for such a claim.

    You are not, to my knowledge, an expert on Schopenhauer, and I see no reason to believe your interpretation over my own unless you provide more justification. — darthbarracuda

    What counts as being an expert to you? Having three special letters next to your name? I know you're not that patronizing. The simple fact is that Schopenhauer never intended to change the world. He had little to no interest in politics, remarking that he minded not the times but the eternities. He was appalled by the revolution of 1848 and disavowed all utopian projects, optimistic creeds, and historicist philosophies, such as those operant in that revolution, as well as thought that the notion of progress is a myth in light of human nature and that salvation did not result from affirming the will or attempting to change the material conditions of the world, but came from within, as an internal reorientation toward the world. For these and other reasons, which ought to become rather apparent after a mere cursory reading of his works and biography, it could not be more false to say he "failed to change anything significantly in society." One cannot fail at what one never intended to achieve, and put no stock in achieving, in the first place!

    I don't get this quote. — darthbarracuda

    It means that all the resolve in the world won't budge the brick wall that is human nature. I'm saying you sound like a utopian when you chastise yourself for not doing more or not have the guts to put anti-natalism "into practice." It's best that remains a bitter taste in your mouth.

    the Will controls you — darthbarracuda

    Wrong. "You" are the will.

    But sooner or later you'll have to eat, sooner or later you'll have to take a shit, sooner or later you'll have to pay the bills. — darthbarracuda

    Based on this and your other comments on asceticism, you still seem to be under the impression that the denial of the will results in one being whisked away to some paradise and thus in one's disappearance from the world. No. It merely describes the will being calmed to such an extent that one no longer suffers from it. It's a change in perspective, not ontology. So it would be misleading to think that the denial of the will only occurs when in meditation or some such activity. On the contrary, if one has attained the denial of the will, it can remain denied even when eating, defecating, and paying the bills. Denying it means ceasing to be attached to these things, rather than the ceasing of these things altogether.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Been listening to this for the last couple days. Pretty nice doom metal.

  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪The Great Whatever
    Pretty much all of the early albums down to Black Hand Inn are masterpieces of speed metal. They blow Iron Maiden out of the water too, in my opinion. When Rolf started composing boring hard rock and using that stupid drum machine, things went downhill, but I'm actually somewhat optimistic about the upcoming album. He's supposedly got a real drummer on it.

    The "wall of sound" to create an atmosphere is deliberate in black metal and certainly takes some getting used to, but I love it. I play in a bedroom black metal band with my brother and we're in the midst of trying to record some stuff now. If you want, I could send you a link in a PM when it's done. I'd love to hear what someone who's metal-literate thinks of it.
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    Schopenhauer would not have viewed birth as something to be celebrated — darthbarracuda

    Indeed, much like the Thracians, as Herodotus recounts.

    So he definitely did not think highly of birth. — darthbarracuda

    We need to be clear. Did he not think highly of 1) choosing to procreate or 2) the fetus exiting the mother's womb? My point was that, while he did not approve of the former, he had no strong opinions on the latter and so cannot be said to be "against birth" or some such facile formulation, which, again, is the formulation of anti-natalism.

    Seems to me that his anachronistic antinatalism was more of a result of his pessimism — darthbarracuda

    Your phraseology is questionable here. I said it was anachronistic to label Schopenhauer an anti-natalist, with the implication that it is problematic to do so and that one simply shouldn't do so unless one can provide evidence to that effect. I used Kierkegaard as an example of how an anachronism can be mostly harmless, but in the case of Schopenhauer's alleged anti-natalism, it's more similar to the claim that Nietzsche is a fascist. If you read a Wikipedia or similar article which claimed that Nietzsche is a "famous exponent of the fascist position," would you not think that inappropriate? Nietzsche may be wrong about nearly everything, as I think he is, and there may be some very broad similarities between his philosophy and fascism, as some would argue, but I would still be very hesitant to label him a fascist on what purports to be an encyclopedia or simply believe that he is one on the grounds that other people have repeated the charge.

    he wasn't willing to get his hands dirty — darthbarracuda

    And what does getting one's hands dirty look like? Becoming a professor? Schopenhauer did that. Climbing mountains in the alps? Schopenhauer did that. Feeling compassion toward animals, such as horses? Schopenhauer did that, though did not go mad when in close contact with them. Let's please not believe Nietzsche's own propaganda. He was just as much if not more of a miserable recluse as Schopenhauer was. That being said, I think allegations of Schopenhauer's supposed "decadence" and "hypocrisy" are rather overblown.

    but as a man failed to change anything significantly in society — darthbarracuda

    This never was, nor would ever be, Schopenhauer's intention. If you think it is, then you simply haven't read him carefully or understood him.

    the greatness of a man depends on the impact he has on history — darthbarracuda

    If by "great" we mean "wise," this is most assuredly false.

    To me, it conjures up images of riots, protests, steaming radicals and angsty teens, which at least to myself leave a bitter taste in my mouth. But maybe, like Schopenhauer, I just don't have the guts or resolve to get involved. I don't know. — darthbarracuda

    It's not about guts or resolve. It's about recognizing human nature and as a result not wasting one's time chasing rainbows in the desert.

    genuine asceticism just seems to be navel-gazing self-denial. — darthbarracuda

    Then you're going to have to delineate what "genuine asceticism" is.

    It's nice to think that you and everyone else can achieve some kind of transcendence or escape from the will, but all it reminds me of are those soccer moms who are obsessed with detoxing their gut and getting acupuncture for their "spirit" or whatever. — darthbarracuda

    I think this is an absurd comparison.

    I do not believe asceticism and the denial of the will is practical nor achievable, but for some it seems to provide a fragile dream of cleanliness. The very idea of escaping the will is enough to keep the ascetic going. While the optimist looks to the stars and is blind to where he's walking, the ascetic looks to the stars to ignore and avoid looking at the ground. But both are stuck on the ground. — darthbarracuda

    A clever but still wrong analogy. It's precisely by virtue of looking at both the stars and the ground and finding no great difference between the two in terms of their emptiness that the ascetic rejects them.

    But I doubt we can get rid of it except in short episodes of contemplation or sleep. — darthbarracuda

    I see no reason to doubt. If the will is outside of time, space, and causality, and so is absolutely free to affirm or deny itself, which is also to say that it is groundless, then there is and can be no reason why it cannot deny itself. The will, therefore, would have to be other than it is to warrant doubt. Remember also that the denial of the will does not mean the annihilation or destruction of the will. It cannot be destroyed for the reason just given, that it is outside of the causal nexus. A synonym Schopenhauer frequently uses to describe said denial is "quieting." The will is calmed, such that one no longer suffers from it. Some degree of asceticism is inevitable in order to achieve this, but it need not take the form of a half-starved forest sadhu, unless one's character is such that starving oneself in a forest is the only way to break the will's grip. There is the general salvation of the denial of the will, and then the personal salvation of individuals according to their character.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪The Great Whatever
    I do like speed metal a lot, although not so much the bands you mentioned. My all time favorite is probably Running Wild. It might not be to your tastes at first, but I would encourage you to explore black and death metal.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪The Great Whatever
    I've tried listening to power metal, but to this day still can't get into it. It's simply too cheesy, and in a bad way. I mentioned Falconer, but even they are not pure power metal, and I only have a handful of songs I like from them, like the muscular sounding one I linked above. Have you explored much in the other genres of metal?
  • Is Schopenhauer an anti-natalist?
    It seems that if Schopenhauer's ethical philosophy were consistently and rigorously applied, birth would stop as a result of sex stopping. That can be seen as a kind of practical anti-natalism, which is perhaps more powerful than a theoretical anti-natalism ever can be.

    Nowadays when sexual activity and birth are becoming slowly uncoupled, this might have to be qualified. But I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the denial of the Will is also incompatible with purposeful impregnation or generation of new life in any way, since the Will is the Will to life.     — The Great Whatever

    All agreed. Well said. My personal frustration with anti-natalism is in large part due to its myopic focus on the post-natal state of affairs. The real problem begins when the will is affirmed and remains unchallenged in its affirmation. That is the germ. Nothing will change unless that orientation with the world, innate though it may be at first, is cognitively problematized and practically overturned. What is the difference between an anti-natalist who engages in protected sex or consumes pornography and a natalist who engages in procreative sex? Nothing, so far as the will is concerned. Both are still firmly mired in the primordial delusion.

    Edit: I feel I should mention that I do not hold myself up as having achieved the denial of the will... yet; this is in case anyone should think me condescending. I'm very well aware of my own weaknesses. All I know is that it strikes me as the right path to be on.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪The Great Whatever
    I wouldn't have pegged you as a power metal guy, lol. The only power metal band I like is Falconer.

  • Are we all aware that we are in Denial, but rightfully scared to believe it?
    despite the fact that they know deep inside that really nothing matters — David

    This can easily be turned on its head. How do you know you're not in denial about how everything does possibly matter? All you're doing is expressing the fashionable nihilism so prevalent in the world today.
  • Are genders needed?
    They are for grammar, which I find important.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪unenlightened
    Keep telling yourself that. You're living up to your username.
  • What is the implicit message?
    ↪schopenhauer1
    Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
    Signifying nothing.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪unenlightened
    We appear to be talking past each other. Best to leave it at that.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    Er no, lol.

    My thesis is that migration is not critical to any degree     — unenlightened

    That should be, "er, yes," then. Make up your mind.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪unenlightened
    No migrant crisis just because Londoners voted to remain? Lol.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    Immigration reform is still necessary and the migrant crisis is still a crisis, despite the silly tabloids.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪discoii
    Well, I agree with your ideas and I am no fan of anti-colonial/imperialist logic (at least in terms of how you are likely conceiving of those adjectives).
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪discoii
    Perhaps the first post I've seen you write that I agree with. Well said.
  • Schopenhauer More Modern and Accurate than Existentialists
    Ad hominem. — Erik

    No, it isn't.

    Disagree. — Erik

    Congratulations.

    Then please disabuse me of my ignorance and point out pre-modern examples. — Erik

    Since at least the Pre-Socratics, I would say, the distinction and relation between the real and the ideal has been recognized as a problem. Various forms of idealism (Platonic in origin) and skepticism were extant and known to exist throughout the ancient and medieval world. That ancient and medieval philosophers did not operate under the same level of clarity that modern philosophers have since Descartes concerning this problem I fully concede, but the rudiments of the problem were there nonetheless and wrestled with accordingly.
  • This Old Thing
    ↪csalisbury
    I'm fine with ending this conversation if you want. I've tried to respond to you in good faith, despite the admittedly sarcastic nature of some of my replies.
  • This Old Thing
    ↪csalisbury
    Complaining about the metaphoric nature of metaphors is silly.
  • This Old Thing
    An atemporal, unified, will doesn't make any sense at all. What is will-like about such a thing? — csalisbury

    With respect, I don't think you've shown how it doesn't make any sense, at least to me.
  • Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)
    ↪Michael
    That claim isn't really false, then. Just slightly misleading.
Home » Thorongil