Philosophy & Poetry

General discussion and socializing.

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby Mysia » Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:38 pm

one thing i was thinking about was how people want equality in the world. but we also want to live comfortably. as we all know though a lot of the things we have and the reason why we are able to afford it is because down the line there are people being taken advantage of.

you kind of hear about this VR shit and think of some dystopian world were we are all living in it like the Matrix. and somehow this appears to be what some powerful people see as the future.

but think about it, people work their whole lives to save up enough money to buy a house. Why is it so expensive? because you need 20 people busting their asses doing hard labor just to put it all together, not to mention the materials and everything. Houses take a lot of effort and time. So maybe robots and manufacturing is the future. But what about in VR?
You jsut type in some code and poof a house. right? i mean if they could plug into your brain and shit and make it as real as possible. everybody could actually have everything, and live good.
So then what as value?
culture, art? maybe that is why the nfts make sense
User avatar
Mysia
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:49 pm
Location: CODE OF CONDUCT

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby sMartins » Sun Oct 09, 2022 10:12 pm

pagsiu wrote:Probably neither. Infinite ideas can't be described by a finite mind. If I say that God do exist, then I also say he can't not exist, thus stripping him off his omnipotence etc.

Unusual place for such things, but I enjoy reading your posts.


More or less, it's even simpler than that.

Does God exist or not exist? Nobody knows.

Otherwise, the idea of God exist and has created a very powerful story-history.
Ideas make more story-history than the facts of history.

That is why it is so important to check whether the ideas have foundation or not.
I'd hardly call anything the Bible of our times » special thanks to MagicManICT
I only logged in to say this sentence. by neeco » 30 Oct 2018, 02:57
Default Client, Best Client!
User avatar
sMartins
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby sMartins » Mon Oct 10, 2022 4:41 pm

THE DOUBLE LIFE

Each of us is firmly convinced that we are the sole creator of our existence.
Our identity, defined in the ego, we believe is the only face of the life that inhabits us and that we inhabit.
When we believe we live the life of our ego, what other life do we forget about?

It was about two hundred years ago, when in 1818, a German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote a book entitled "The World as Will and Representation".
In this book we immediately find in the opening the most powerful sentence that tells, "The great dream of life is only one, the will to live".
This will to live has no purpose, it does not tend toward a goal, there is no rationality in determining this will to live, so this will to live is also an irrational will, because it has no purpose, no plan, no frame of reference. It is a bit like the grass that grows on the side of the road, for what purpose? Nothing, because there are conditions for it to grow. It's a bit like bacteria in a jam left warm and out of the refrigerator, why do they form? Nothing, because the conditions are there.
Kind of like our life, why are we in the world? Is there a purpose? No, we are in the world by chance, a certain day we came into the world, the wishes of parents should never be investigated.
The happening of our life was a completely random happening, without reason and without why.
"The subject of the great dream of life is only one, the will to live", period.
However, the book is titled "The World as Will and Representation", because we represent life to ourselves as if life had a purpose, had meaning, was the repository of our plans, had a purpose, a destiny, a meaning, so much so that today people are suffering, even, because they cannot find meaning in their lives, but who ever told you that your life should have meaning?
This representation that we make of life, and probably without this representation we would not be able to live, is a representation, it is not the truth.

Schopenhauer is indebted to Goethe, who in 1798, had spoken of nature as a great dancer who carries on her arms and hands so many individuals, but, in her unrestrained dance, so many she loses, without fidelity or memory. So this will to life is also a will to death; indeed, perhaps, nature can continue its life on the sole condition that it sacrifices the individuals it generates. It uses the individuals it generates to produce other individuals, it gives birth to them, it grows them, it provides them with sexuality, for procreation, and aggression, for the defense of offspring, then it takes away both sexuality and aggression from them, and then they eventually die because they are no longer interesting in terms of life for life.
They are no longer interesting in terms of the life of nature.

Capturing these concepts and arranging them in a para-scientific way was Sigmund Freud, who said that psychoanalysis was not invented by him but invented by a philosopher named, Arthur Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer taught us that in addition to our conscious dimension, which we are used to call I(ego), I think, I desire, I want, I plan, I aspire, there is an unconscious dimension, which Freud calls "id", which we could translate as "self," which represents the needs of the species, which conflict with the needs of the ego, and these needs of the species are only, Freud says, sexuality, because the species can only continue its survival through sexual reproduction, and aggression, for the defense of offspring.
Even later, in 1922, when Freud reduces all the figures of psychoanalysis to only two categories, eros and thanatos, he establishes that eros is the condition of life and thanatos is that destructive and self-destructive dimension that leads us to death, for the welfare of the species.
The species is only able to continue with the sacrifice of individuals.
Nature experiences a kind of innocent cruelty; its life involves the sacrifice of our life.

At this point, both Schopenhauer's reading and psychoanalysis provide us with a dramatic interpretation of our existence, we are individuals who say "I," but we are primarily functionaries of the species, and this second dimension, because we never consider it, Freud says, belongs to our unconscious. What is the unconscious? The unconscious is the species that uses us for its needs, procreative and defensive; it is not enough to procreate but we must also guard our creatures, and defend them.

Inside us, therefore, there are two subjectivities, we are I(ego) and we are functionaries of the species, the species keeps us alive exclusively for its economy, and the economy of the species is definitely not the economy of the I.
These things are understood more by women than by men, in the sense that a woman, as early as puberty, sees that, the moment she begins to fantasize about her loves and her future, her menstrual cycle also begins, and her body, it is not only a body of beauty but it is also a body that goes for a different economy than her dreams.
So the woman already during puberty feels this conflictuality, feels the dual subjectivity. When conflicts arise, when problems arise, intelligence is triggered, it is no accident that in the adolesciency age, girls are much more intelligent and quicker than boys are. Mainly because conflict makes people think.

These thoughts that become explosive in the 1800s, which determine the birth of psychoanalysis and radiate all Romantic philosophy, appear pessimistic, because Romanticism comes after the Enlightenment and what unites these two scenarios is basically Antichristianity. The Enlightenment in that it believes that the religious world is a world of superstitions and not a world of reason. Romanticism opposes Christian optimism, which sees everything regulated by providence, everything finalized, everything under a gaze of a witness called God, while saying no, we are in a context of absolute indifference, nature is indifferent.

Of course all this was more than known to the Greek world, you know that the Greek world, the Greeks, were the most intelligent people that ever appeared on earth, and they understood these scenarios immediately, in fact they perceived nature as that unchanging background that no man and no God made. But because we come from a Christian culture, because we are all Christians, we think that nature is a creature of God and therefore good, we call it mother nature, and indeed we can dispose of it as we wish. For the Greeks no, nature is what it is, it is indifferent, there is no evaluation regarding nature.
To regulate the laws of nature, for the Greeks, is necessity, which is above men and Gods, so even the Gods are not omnipotent.
Nature is what it is, nature is what it is, and we live within this horizon.
Radically different perspective than the Christian perspective, where nature instead is offered by God to man for his dominion, where nature is handed over into the hands of man for his dominion, and here begins that category of subjectivity, of man at the apex of creation, of man who can say I, the dominating man. Have you never wondered why science and technology originated in the West? That is, only in a Christian culture? And not in the East, where these things are not thought of? And where man is not thought to be at the pinnacle of creation?
Plato says: think not thou, O petty man, that this universe was created for thee, thou rather shalt be just if thou adjust thyself to the universal harmony.
In Greece there is not the primacy of the individual, there is the primacy of the polis, the city, the relationship. The individual is born out of the relationship, so it is the relationship that generates the individual, it is recognition that generates identity, and you will be recognized the moment you belong to a community, you observe the laws of that community, and as a result of recognition you will know what a man you are. It is the community that comes before the individual, whereas instead individuality was invented by the Christians.

Above all, the Greek world knows one fundamental thing, that man is mortal, the one who is destined to die. The mortal.
You never say man or even the gods, you say mortals and immortals.
Man follows exactly the laws regulated by the necessity of nature, exactly like plants, exactly like animals, and then eventually he dies. Because his death is necessary for the birth of other individuals.

However, thanks to this interpretation, albeit tragic, man is able to anticipate death. What does it mean to anticipate death? What does It mean to be persuaded that one must die? What is the advantage of the tragic dimension, that it consists in the fact that you have to die and there is nothing waiting for you in the afterlife?
That you can operate a relativization of the issues of the hereafter, you don't run around like a desperate man, you don't fight like a madman, you don't commit suicide because of the worries of the world, because you are mortal, you are mortal, and when you have to end your career you don't despair and die two years after you retire, because death is still there waiting for you, it's not that loosing your job ends your life, you who have made it coincide with your working life and outside of that you no longer know who you are.

Our identities, by now, are assigned by our social roles, we know who we are only because others recognize us in a role, outside of that we no longer know who we are.

Let us think well about this anticipation of death, because by relativizing things, we cease that drama typical instead of those who believe in the immortality of the soul, and believe that this life therefore has its own importance, their self becomes hegemonic, what depends on the self decides life and death, a love ends and you kill women because it's all over, no, no, stop, know that if you internalize death in advance then you relativize your life, and all things don't have that depth, which is not from tragedy but from despair, but the despairers are who? Those who have had hope, because those who have not had hope never despair.
Last edited by sMartins on Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'd hardly call anything the Bible of our times » special thanks to MagicManICT
I only logged in to say this sentence. by neeco » 30 Oct 2018, 02:57
Default Client, Best Client!
User avatar
sMartins
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby Baldarich » Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:24 pm

"I took the Wock' to Poland"
Lil Yachty 2022
Teleskop wrote:if the chance to win a lottery is 1 to 1 000 000 it doesnt mean im any closer to winning after buying 1 000 000 tickets
User avatar
Baldarich
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:09 pm
Location: viking ship

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby Audiosmurf » Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:28 pm

I think it was funny how Evola got whomped by a bomb
jorb wrote:Audiosmurf isis a fantastic poster/genius and his meatintellect is huge

NORMALIZE IT
banok wrote:i've been playing hnh thru 10 years of involuntary celibacy and I always build my palisade in 5 minutes so if a new player cant figure it out straight away they can get fucked and chug bleach
User avatar
Audiosmurf
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Ice Hell

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby dafels » Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:51 pm

Baldarich wrote:"I took the Wock' to Poland"
Lil Yachty 2022


"Mama told me Lil Pump won't be shit (I won't be shit)
I told lil' bitch I could move these bricks (Could move these bricks)"

Lil Pump 2019
dafels
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby terechgracz » Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:26 pm

"will consider"

jorb, Critique & Ideas, 2022

Do we posses free will?
At first we should question what free will even is? Is it just the capacity of agents to choose freely like dictionary says? And what does that even mean to choose freely? Our every action is always limited by our environment so obviously we can't choose freely. If I wanted for example to travel upwards, it's not possible. I just can't choose to travel in direction perpendicular to earth's curvature. But then birds are able to choose that. So can we conclude that we humans don't have free will, but birds do?
terechgracz
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:06 pm

Re: Philosophy Talks

Postby sMartins » Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:58 pm

THE VIOLATION OF THE EGO

"People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls."
"The most terrifying thing is to accept oneself completely."
"There's no coming to consciousness without pain."
"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious."

Carl Gustav Jung

The violation of the ego, its perforation and decentralization is an initiatory path that leads to a revelation of nonegoic meanings and thus to a kind of enlightenment of the self and thus, as Jung says, the self allows the ego to realize itself.
In a sense this ego has to be decentralized as experience.
Experience is an individual thing, can I propose to you to have this experience? Yes, if I am a prophet, the prophet in fact announces an experience, Jesus Christ is an experience, the Pope is not an experience, because he is a theology, he is an institution.
But what is this experience?
Experience is at this level: I get out of the 'I'(ego) and go where?
Psychology tells us to go into the "self," but psychology is nothing but a minor language compared to a major experience that is the experience of religious apparatuses.
If I step outside the egoic human, where do I go? What do I risk?
I risk going into that dimension that can be identified as "sacred," is a word that means "separate", this "sacred," where God has come very late, beyond the ego is the place of madness.
Why is the "self" the place of madness?
Because it is the place of the undifferentiated.
Heraclitus says: God is day and night, satiety and hunger, winter and summer, war and peace, and is mixed of all things taking on their aroma from time to time.
What can you think when it says "war and peace" or "satiety and hunger"? You are unable to think. You can only think about the juxtaposition of two opposite meanings, man in fact reasons and thus establishes differences without which one cannot live, this is the meaning of reasoning.
Again Heraclitus says: "man considers one thing just and the other unjust".
Men have emancipated themselves from the sacred, from the undifferentiated, from the confusion of codes, from the contamination of meanings through reason, we have to be reasonable if we want to build a community, if we want to understand each other and if we want to live together.

If, in school for example, I pick up a bottle, no one is frightened, because everyone thinks I want to drink. Why this? Because everyone thinks the bottle is the bottle and nothing else, but that is not the truth. All things are wrapped in the sacred, the undifferentiated, if I throw the bottle at your head I am using it as a weapon, not as a bottle.

We humans all swim in the sacred, just look at children, why do you have to take care of them? Because they don't know what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad, they break their heads every time they move, they run dangers because they don't see the danger. Children do not distinguish, getting to the age of reason means distinguishing, differentiating, and only then can a community be built.

From the sacred one must leave, but then one must return, with caution, cause the sacred is far more powerful than the rational apparatus. Reason is a very fragile and weak instrument in comparison. It is not the place of truth, reason, it is a system of rules to manage, to coexist and understand each other in an unambiguous way.
From the rational dimension, we have to gradually come out to tap into the sacred dimension, which inhabits us, cause madness and sacredness are within us. What, for example, poets and artists do. Dismissing out of reason we enter the sacred or madness dimension.
Plato himself, who invented reason, tells us, " Madness, from the coming God, is far more beautiful than human reason." Why does Plato, notwithstanding that he invented reason, tell us this? Because he knows that reason is only an instrument, a tool, and that instead the place of sorgiveness, creativity, ideation is pre-rational.
However, we cannot dwell in this pre-rational, sacred or madness condition, man is man cause he has come out of that condition, Plato knows this, he invented reason, cause without reason there is no city, but he also knows that wisdom is not there.
Wisdom is elsewhere, Plato again: "The greatest goods come to us from madness."
I'd hardly call anything the Bible of our times » special thanks to MagicManICT
I only logged in to say this sentence. by neeco » 30 Oct 2018, 02:57
Default Client, Best Client!
User avatar
sMartins
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Philosophy & Poetry

Postby sMartins » Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:48 am

Code: Select all
L'infinito                                The infinity

Sempre caro mi fu quest'ermo colle,       This solitary hill has always been dear to me
e questa siepe, che da tanta parte        And this hedge, which prevents me from seeing most of
dell'ultimo orizzonte il guardo esclude.  The endless horizon.
Ma sedendo e mirando, interminati         But when I sit and gaze, I imagine, in my thoughts,
spazi di là da quella, e sovrumani        Endless spaces beyond the hedge, 
silenzi, e profondissima quiete           An all encompassing silence and a deeply profound quiet,
io nel pensier mi fingo, ove per poco     To the point that my heart is quite overwhelmed.
il cor non si spaura. E come il vento     And when I hear the wind rustling through the trees
odo stormir tra queste piante, io quello  I compare its voice to the infinite silence.
infinito silenzio a questa voce           And eternity occurs to me, and all the ages past,
vo comparando: e mi sovvien l'eterno,     And the present time, and its sound.
e le morte stagioni, e la presente        Amidst this immensity my thought drowns:
e viva, e il suon di lei. Così tra questa And to flounder in this sea is sweet to me.
immensità s'annega il pensier mio:
e il naufragar m'è dolce in questo mare.

Giacomo Leopardi (1798 - 1837)



Code: Select all
Mattina                                   Morning

M'illumino d'immenso                      I illuminate (myself) with immensity.

Giuseppe Ungaretti (1888 - 1970)
I'd hardly call anything the Bible of our times » special thanks to MagicManICT
I only logged in to say this sentence. by neeco » 30 Oct 2018, 02:57
Default Client, Best Client!
User avatar
sMartins
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Philosophy & Poetry

Postby sMartins » Sun Oct 23, 2022 11:50 am

The Last Human Being

When Zarathustra had spoken these words he looked again at the people
and fell silent. “There they stand,” he said to his heart, “they laugh, they
do not understand me, I am not the mouth for these ears.
Must one first smash their ears so that they learn to hear with their
eyes? Must one rattle like kettle drums and penitence preachers? Or do
they believe only a stutterer?
They have something of which they are proud. And what do they call
that which makes them proud? Education they call it, it distinguishes
them from goatherds.
For that reason they hate to hear the word ‘contempt’ applied to them.
So I shall address their pride instead.
Thus I shall speak to them of the most contemptible person: but he is
the last human being.”
And thus spoke Zarathustra to the people:
“It is time that mankind set themselves a goal. It is time that mankind
plant the seed of their highest hope.
Their soil is still rich enough for this. But one day this soil will be poor
and tame, and no tall tree will be able to grow from it anymore.
Beware! The time approaches when human beings no longer launch
the arrow of their longing beyond the human, and the string of their bow
will have forgotten how to whir!
I say to you: one must still have chaos in oneself in order to give birth
to a dancing star. I say to you: you still have chaos in you.
Beware! The time approaches when human beings will no longer give
birth to a dancing star. Beware! The time of the most contemptible
human is coming, the one who can no longer have contempt for
himself.
Behold! I show you the last human being.

‘What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?’ –
thus asks the last human being, blinking.
Then the earth has become small, and on it hops the last human being,
who makes everything small. His kind is ineradicable, like the flea beetle;
the last human being lives longest.
‘We invented happiness’ – say the last human beings, blinking.
They abandoned the regions where it was hard to live: for one needs
warmth. One still loves one’s neighbor and rubs up against him: for one
needs warmth.
Becoming ill and being mistrustful are considered sinful by them:
one proceeds with caution. A fool who still stumbles over stones or
humans!
A bit of poison once in a while; that makes for pleasant dreams. And
much poison at the end, for a pleasant death.
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one sees to it
that the entertainment is not a strain.
One no longer becomes poor and rich: both are too burdensome. Who
wants to rule anymore? Who wants to obey anymore? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd and one herd! Each wants the same, each is the same, and
whoever feels differently goes voluntarily into the insane asylum.
‘Formerly the whole world was insane’ – the finest ones say, blinking.
One is clever and knows everything that has happened, and so there is
no end to their mockery. People still quarrel but they reconcile quickly –
otherwise it is bad for the stomach.
One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the
night: but one honors health.
‘We invented happiness’ say the last human beings, and they blink.”
And here ended the first speech of Zarathustra, which is also called
“The Prologue,” for at this point he was interrupted by the yelling and
merriment of the crowd. “Give us this last human being, oh Zarathustra” –
thus they cried – “make us into these last human beings! Then we will
make you a gift of the overman!” And all the people jubilated and clicked
their tongues. But Zarathustra grew sad and said to his heart:
“They do not understand me. I am not the mouth for these ears.
Too long apparently I lived in the mountains, too much I listened to
brooks and trees: now I speak to them as to goatherds.

My soul is calm and bright as the morning mountains. But they believe
I am cold, that I jeer, that I deal in terrible jests.
And now they look at me and laugh, and in laughing they hate me too.
There is ice in their laughter.


Thus Spoke Zarathustra
A Book for All and None
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
I'd hardly call anything the Bible of our times » special thanks to MagicManICT
I only logged in to say this sentence. by neeco » 30 Oct 2018, 02:57
Default Client, Best Client!
User avatar
sMartins
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to The Inn of Brodgar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests