That is inexplicably funny. Maybe my subconscious has a better memory than my conscious mind. — praxis

You’re the one who’s employed the term “non-attachment”. If you don’t mean what that appears to represent then maybe it’s not the right term. — praxis

This is from "Princess Bride," right?

That is written on my family coat of arms.

I haven't read the dopamine book; I am prejudicially suspicious of any attempt to explain complex human motivations and behavior in terms of the effects a neurotransmitter. — Janus

On the other hand, it is easy to look at the two different approaches as complimentary rather than in opposition. Two different ways of looking at the same thing. One from a biological, neurological point of view and one from an experiential one.

I believe you are describing this phenomena. — praxis

The graph is probably a reflection of the process I'm talking about. I don't think I'm unique. It's a common human experience.

In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person? — praxis

As I've gotten older I find myself backing out of life. Becoming less attached to things. A lot of that has to do with retirement - the loss of my "purpose," use, in life. I still love my children, wife, family, friends, but the emotion is less intense. I no longer want or expect things out of these relationships, at least not to the extent I did. I take them as they are.

I like being with people, but I don't miss them when they're gone. When I'm needed, I'm there, but they all have lives of their own. It's a more peaceful life, but it's more than that. I'm able to be a better father, brother, husband, friend now. If I could have found this 50 years ago, I would have had a happier, better life and I would have been better to people.

But additionally there's a flavor of being initiated into cosmic secrets. — Tom Storm

I've always thought of that as something tacked on, not something that is intrinsic to the way of knowing. All religions and philosophies tend to draw in people who take it and fill it full of fantasy and delusion. Wish fulfillment. I've said this before - to me, self-awareness, and enlightenment I guess, is as everyday as corn flakes. Wait, no... Cheerios. No mystery except what we hide from ourselves.

Dawkins said in the preface to TGD that his aim was that Christians who picked up the book should put it down atheist. I thought it was such an appalling piece of undergraduate nonsense it had rather the opposite effect on me. — Wayfarer

I gave it to my children as an example of a badly reasoned book.

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.”
― C.G. Jung — Tom Storm

This reminds me of a quote that I have not been able to find the original of. I think it's from Alan Watts. Something like this - What we call mysteries are just aspects of who we are that we have hidden from ourselves. That could be the darkness Jung is talking about. It's hard, painful, to bring those hidden parts of ourselves out into the open.

For me, enlightenment, in the way we are discussing it, is self-awareness. I know that I have become more and more self-aware as I've gotten older. Somewhere along the line, that became my path. To become as self-aware as I can in as many ways as I can. As I've said often in the forum, the difference between eastern and western philosophies for me is the difference between awareness and reason. For me, reason is fine and useful, but you have to have the experience, awareness first to give reason something to work with.

Apparently, during the process of increasing self-awareness, there comes a breaking point, a discontinuity, called enlightenment. I certainly don't have any expectation or ambition to reach that point.

Great post. We can always count on you to walk the line between east and west with both sympathy and skepticism, whichever is most needed.

And this article, which depressed me hugely when it came out. — Wayfarer

I can see why the article bothered you, but for me it just highlighted the continuity between what we call "enlightenment" and everyday life. The experiences, whatever they are, are human experiences felt by imperfect humans. They are not occult or supernatural. That continuity is what attracts me to Taoism. It's aimed at people who are going to keep their day job, with acknowledgement that that day job may be general or prince.

I've been complaining to myself that there aren't any good threads around. This is a great one. Thanks.

And miserable. So miserable.

When it eventually comes out that such and such comedian is depressed, or committed suicide, somehow, it's not a surprise. — baker

Just as true, or more so, of philosophers and wannabe philosophers.

How many here have seen the clip in "Monthy Python at the Hollywood Bowl", where they televise a soccer match between a team of classical Greek philosophers and a team of German philosophers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfduUFF_i1A — god must be atheist

Yes. It's hard to talk about philosophical humor, or humorous philosophy, without bringing this out.

However I have seen nothing in your posts to explain why you believe that the "days of superpowers are over" other than that is your opinion. — dclements

Perhaps you have "seen nothing... to explain," but I did give an explanation. I guess you missed it.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace. — Baden

Hey.... It was just that once.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic. — khaled

I think banning people for low quality posts is just a way to allow removal of aggravating people. Driving while annoying.

People have been banned for posts that are less offensive than the one in question.

I wonder which person out there holds the record for total cumulative amount of bannings... — The Opposite

I would think our friend Marco would be at the top.

I disagree with your disagreement. — dclements

Many people disagree with many of my disagreements. No surprise. You and I see things differently. I've seen the trouble fear will get us into.

the movie "They Live" — dclements

Love this movie. I think Rowdy Roddy Piper got an Oscar nomination. Didn't he? On the other hand, I don't plan to develop my foreign policy opinions based on it.

I don't know if it is just wishful thinking on your part or if you have some valid reason why being a superpower isn't important — dclements

As I noted, I don't think it makes any difference what you and I think is best. I think the days of superpowers are over, whether we like it or not.

So the fact that philosophers and certain web-browsers are both unfettered by rules makes them equal? — Leghorn

Nuff said.

I've been on plenty of sites "unfettered by rules." Not much reason going on.

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. — Leghorn

Being banned does not lose anyone their job. They aren't killed. They're just told they are not welcome in our house. I don't consider that persecution or even censorship. I've had disagreements with the moderators in the past about particular bannings, but never on the principle behind them.

While the idea of having one (or more) super powers trying to act like a world cop doesn't sound all that great with all the problems that can be cause by this, neither is the idea of dozens and dozens of smaller countries always bickering and often fighting in order to either change or maintain the existing status quo. — dclements

Strongly disagree. I think the world without a superpower is where we're headed, and that's a good thing.

If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case. — Baden

As I wrote, I wasn't arguing. Just curious.

In a nutshell if China manages to become the biggest super power in the world and nobody can or will stop them, they will just keep swallowing one country after another until either most or all of the world is under the authoritarian rule of China itself. — dclements

This is the lie we told ourselves when we got into Vietnam. As I said, I think the days of superpowers are over. We'll see. Well, not me, I'll be dead by then.

I'm asking this out of curiosity. Don't worry, I'm not going to go into one of my rants. Was he banned for a pattern of behavior or just this one post?

The question is: what's happened to humour in philosophy? — Cuthbert

I think a case can be made that stand-up comedians in general are philosophers. My favorites; Bill Burr, Louis C.K, John Mulaney, Jerry Seinfeld....; certainly are.

If you're looking for philosophical humor, I'll steer you toward one of my favorite threads - "Philosophy joke of the day."

Lesser known logical fallacies:

Michael Scott fallacy – Using the phrase “That’s what she said.”
Family dog fallacy – Telling your opponent that your dog ate your argument.
In mater tua fallacy – Insulting your opponent’s mother
Appeal to personal authority fallacy – Using the phrase “Because I said so.”
Command fallacy – Defending your argument using the phrase “Shut up!”
StreetlightX fallacy – Using the phrase “Well, that’s how we do it in Australia.”
Conturbabimus illa ratio fallacy – Expressing your numerical arguments in base 7. — T Clark

I think the days of superpowers are over, thank goodness. Countries that were traditionally poor and powerless are now gaining economic and political strength. Everyone is connected to everyone else by economic ties. We can't screw them without screwing ourselves.

China is just starting to act like we do. Yes, that could be a frightening prospect.

can find non-trivial self-referential paradoxes, such that they could arise from seemingly well-founded frameworks. I'm no longer sure that it is even possible, — the affirmation of strife

Although I found the discussion helpful and interesting, it didn't resolve, for me at least, the answer to your question.

The rest was to sushi, in agreement with you. — Kenosha Kid

That's the way it seemed to me, but I wasn't sure.

↪T Clark Yes. ↪I like sushi you are pre-emptively dismissing the opinions of others by replacing them with your own. If you're against dismissing opinions, why not find out what they are, rather than deciding what they are? — Kenosha Kid

Is this comment directed at @I like sushi or me.

So we're on the cusp of dismissing each other. That is not a pleasant experience — I like sushi

I responded to your post because I thought you misrepresented my, and most forum member's, motivations for participating. That bothered me. I don't think I have anything of value to contribute beyond that. It is not my intention to dismiss your ideas, although I disagree with them, or yourself.

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. — I like sushi

Not for me.

Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack. — I like sushi

Not clear to me.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? — I like sushi

Yes, there was. That doesn't mean that all, most, or many of my posts are for that reason. If you really meant what you wrote, your understanding of philosophy and this forum is shallow and self-centered.

Speak for yourself.

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. — I like sushi

No, no. This is what you should say - "When we I express an opinion or argument it is because we are I am annoyed/angry with something that causes us me distress.

I don't know which is worse, your reasons for participating in the forum, or your chutzpah for thinking you can speak for the rest of us.

This doesn’t mean though that a TV and programs transmitted by it can be compared to a brain and mind. — Cartuna

Unh hunh.

The difference between a TV is that a working brain provides you with a conscious world. A working brain cannot be seen outside a living body. Every working TV set or functioning computer, no matter how complicated or however intelligent artificially made, and no matter in what artificial robot body placed, are just media through which information is pushed under the influence of voltage and program. — Cartuna

As I noted, we are just repeating arguments that haven't convinced the other in previous posts. I say "un hunh." You say "nunh hunh." Nuff said.

Hello everyone. I've been looking for a nice venue for discussing a variety of topics, and this seems like a nice place. I hope to bring along a friend or two as well, if possible.

I look forward to many friendly :smile: discussions! — William Wallace

Welcome. This is a really good forum. There are plenty of friendly discussions and then some... others. Don't be discouraged.

By the way, because the Lounge is not included on the front page of the forum, it does not get as many views as many of the other threads. The Shoutbox is a good place to go for general stuff, jokes, questions, complaints, pictures of pigs, etc.

Now I can say this:

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that.
— T Clark — T Clark

This was intended for @Cartuna.

Now I can say this:

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that. — T Clark

outside? you cant see outside your consciousness. see solipsism — Miller

I think you and I have been having different discussions with each other.